Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 No there isnt. 15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research. would any of this be credible research? I only say this as I'm pretty sure if you Google 'moon landings faked', you get 100's of pages... Well you should see the carefully constrcted parameters of what constitutes aids then - you couldn't make it up. HIV fails many long standing scientific tests that constitute what a disease causing virus is. For instance monkeys have been injected for 20 years with live HIV and something like 9/10 never develop aids. Ever. part of the reason why a cure is so far off is that HIV isn't a readily identifiable disease. It has many many iterations and mutations IIRC. Alos, it is these non-progressing HIV cases that are being studied for some vaccine leads. HIV is an old virus and has been around for 100's of years....Why it would suddenly start giving people 'aids' is part of the mystery I agree. IIRC HIV the monkey version is old. It was never present in humans until AIDS was noticed, the transition from monkeys to humans is thought to be from tribesmen eating monkeys? or having sex with them (all of this is from memory before someone starts pulling me up on it) Humans getting aid from monkeys is utter cobblers for a start. Closer would be the high use of anti-biotics combined with the gay lifestyle. It has been suggested that the very active sections of the gay community who 'also' use high doses of various anti-biotics to counter the 'results' of this lifestyle (especially in the 90's) MAY have mutated their immune system to exhibit 'aids like' symptoms. This is one theory that has been passed over as it wasn't deemed politically palatable. Of course in fairness there are different types of aids as 'they say' now. The African version behaves totally differently as infection rates and footprint shows it infects men and women equally as against the Western conterpart which is still found predominantly in males. 90% in some areas. The whole HIV aids thing is so wracked with politics and money for Africa, it is difficult IMO for dissenting research (and there are dissenting voices from A grade scientists) to gain a foothold in the public domain. I have no firm opionon but as they have got nowhere in 20 years with HIV perhaps they should look elsewhere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...st_uids=1349680 like I say this is from memory, google aids monkeys and it's 50/50 for and against " The African version behaves totally differently as infection rates and footprint shows it infects men and women equally as against the Western conterpart which is still found predominantly in males. 90% in some areas." -didn't understand this - are you talking AIDs or HIV?? There isn't much controlled and monitored testing for HIV in Africa cause of the expense and certain local factors. So we are essentially talking about 'people who display aids like symptoms' yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) This kind of thing is controversial, but notwithstanding still very intersting... http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdafrica.htm To paraphrase: "Likewise the American and European AIDS epidemics: (i) rose steadily, not exponentially, (ii) were completely non-randomly biased 85% in favor of males, (iii) have followed first the over-use of recreational drugs, and then the extensive use of anti-AIDS-viral drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), (iv) do not manifest in one or even just a few specific diseases typical of microbial epidemics, (v) do not spread to the general non-drug using population. AIDS manifests in a bewildering spectrum of 30 non-specific, heterogeneous diseases. This is consistent with the heterogeneity of the causative toxins. There is no evidence for AIDS-immunity in 18 years, but the American/European AIDS epidemics are now coming down slowly as fewer people use recreational drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998). The above summary indicates that American and European AIDS epidemics exhibit the characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors NOT viruses." Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Other nutters on the topic: Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993) Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978: "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000) Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University: "I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994) Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley: "It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994) Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley: "In the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994) Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology: Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Because 'protease' inhibitors (and the rest) suppress viral load so your immune system continues to work. The reason why you cant keep giving people the same drug is because the virus mutates and finds ways to replicate that the inhibition strategy cant stop. There is a section in 'Almost like a Whale' that describes the number of genetic mutations that the virus has gone through in 30 years is in fact more than the human genome has 'ever' gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Because 'protease' inhibitors (and the rest) suppress viral load so your immune system continues to work. The reason why you cant keep giving people the same drug is because the virus mutates and finds ways to replicate that the inhibition strategy cant stop. There is a section in 'Almost like a Whale' that describes the number of genetic mutations that the virus has gone through in 30 years is in fact more than the human genome has 'ever' gone through. I refer the good gentleman to the post above his with quotes from some of the leading minds in the world. I await his kind response. Once again many sceptics aren't saying it isn't a virus (IMO it probably isn't) they are saying there just isn't enough proof it IS the HIV virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Utter cobblers Parky. This duesberg bloke might be good with a microscope but he doesnt understand evidence based medicine. If clinical trials show survival benefits from drugs designed to stop the virus spreading then thats good enough for me to end the debate. AIDS is just a failure of the immune system brought on a by a retrovirus. Its not really a seperate thing, the mark of the disease is defined by observable clinical symptoms which in turn is associated with higher viral loads. As Renton said The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Because 'protease' inhibitors (and the rest) suppress viral load so your immune system continues to work. The reason why you cant keep giving people the same drug is because the virus mutates and finds ways to replicate that the inhibition strategy cant stop. There is a section in 'Almost like a Whale' that describes the number of genetic mutations that the virus has gone through in 30 years is in fact more than the human genome has 'ever' gone through. That is interesting Chez, but so is this: "Until the latest flurry of reports from Amsterdam, patients with AIDS-indicator diseases but without HIV were not counted as AIDS cases. For reasons that are not clear, a decision has now been made to play up the "discovery" of such cases. There may have been thousands of them already. Robert Root Bernstein, a professor of physiology at Michigan State University, says that such cases were reported in the medical literature in the mid 1980s. And according to Duesberg, in about half the AIDS cases enumerated so far, patients were never actually tested for HIV. They were presumed to be positive but may not have been. I phoned the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and asked what they thought of Duesberg's ideas. "Up to now we have said-and we still say-that HIV causes a majority of AIDS cases," said Chuck Fallis, a press officer. "The jury is still out on the new virus-whether it actually causes the other AIDS cases." "Nothing specifically on Duesberg?" "No." What was once "all" has now become "a majority." "You don't ever have polio without polio virus," Duesberg says. "A hundred cases can support a theory, but it only takes one to destroy it." Something has been attacking the immune system, he agrees. The T-cells of AIDS patients do dwindle away, and there has been an increase in such opportunistic diseases as pneumocystis in the past decade. But HIV has never been shown physically to attack T-cells. The virus in fact is very difficult to find, even in patients dying of AIDS. Usually only antibodies can be detected-which is why an antibody test is used for HIV. Indications are that HIV is swiftly neutralized by the body's defenses. Yet it is said to kill after a ten-year (average) latency period. This has been lengthened to account for the failure of AIDS cases to keep pace with projections. Another oddity: researchers still have no "animal model" for AIDS. Over one hundred chimps have been infected with HIV since 1985 -- and the virus does "take," or replicate within them-but none has yet come down with AIDS. Routine testing of army recruits shows the HIV-positive percentage of the population has remained constant since 1985, and AIDS remains largely confined to risk groups-homosexuals and drug-users. Neither finding is consistent with a new virus spreading in the population." Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21393 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Parky, what job do you do and/or what qualifications do you hold, if you don't mind me asking? Is your interest in this topic based entirely on what you have read on the internet, or have you any grounding in the medical sciences at all? Seriously, you're coming across as being more than a little ignorant on the subject of the immune system, antibiotics, antiviral drugs, evidence-based medicine, and much, much else. Citing the opinions of individuals dating back to 1994 does not count as good evidence to back up your ideas, btw. Another question for as you as well. In all honesty, if you were diagnosed as having HIV but without symptoms (yet), would you take antiretroviral drugs to maintain your CD4 count, or would you refuse them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Parky, what job do you do and/or what qualifications do you hold, if you don't mind me asking? Is your interest in this topic based entirely on what you have read on the internet, or have you any grounding in the medical sciences at all? Seriously, you're coming across as being more than a little ignorant on the subject of the immune system, antibiotics, antiviral drugs, evidence-based medicine, and much, much else. Citing the opinions of individuals dating back to 1994 does not count as good evidence to back up your ideas, btw. Another question for as you as well. In all honesty, if you were diagnosed as having HIV but without symptoms (yet), would you take antiretroviral drugs to maintain your CD4 count, or would you refuse them? Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Parky, what job do you do and/or what qualifications do you hold, if you don't mind me asking? Is your interest in this topic based entirely on what you have read on the internet, or have you any grounding in the medical sciences at all? I run my own company fella. And am an independant thinker of some reputation in chat rooms.. I qualify myself to talk about 'whatever takes my fancy' mainly in the pub style. Medical science on the whole is a hopeless cause and I find many of its findings either fraudulent (they often change their minds every so years or as drugs funding changes) and at best just stealing 'cures' that already have existed in nature anyway. Seriously, you're coming across as being more than a little ignorant on the subject of the immune system, antibiotics, antiviral drugs, evidence-based medicine, and much, much else. I suppose the controversy behind the connection between aids and hiv is summat I made up over a brisk sojourn one day by the canal. Evidence based medicine.....You're joking right? Citing the opinions of individuals dating back to 1994 does not count as good evidence to back up your ideas, btw. These are not my ideas. The fact that you have misinterpreted this basic fact is already worrysome. based Another question for as you as well. In all honesty, if you were diagnosed as having HIV but without symptoms (yet), would you take antiretroviral drugs to maintain your CD4 count, or would you refuse them? I have no idea. Depends on the mind set if one were to be in such a tragic situation. That is the honest ans. Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21393 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Parky, what job do you do and/or what qualifications do you hold, if you don't mind me asking? Is your interest in this topic based entirely on what you have read on the internet, or have you any grounding in the medical sciences at all? I run my own company fella. And am an independant thinker of some reputation in chat rooms.. I qualify myself to talk about 'whatever takes my fancy' mainly in the pub style. Medical science on the whole is a hopeless cause and I find many of its findings either fraudulent (they often change their minds every so years or as drugs funding changes) and at best just stealing 'cures' that already have existed in nature anyway. Seriously, you're coming across as being more than a little ignorant on the subject of the immune system, antibiotics, antiviral drugs, evidence-based medicine, and much, much else. I suppose the controversy behind the connection between aids and hiv is summat I made up over a brisk sojourn one day by the canal. Evidence based medicine.....You're joking right? Citing the opinions of individuals dating back to 1994 does not count as good evidence to back up your ideas, btw. These are not my ideas. The fact that you have misinterpreted this basic fact is already worrysome. based Another question for as you as well. In all honesty, if you were diagnosed as having HIV but without symptoms (yet), would you take antiretroviral drugs to maintain your CD4 count, or would you refuse them? I have no idea. Depends on the mind set if one were to be in such a tragic situation. That is the honest ans. Why would it be such a tragic situation though if in fact AIDS is nothing to do with HIV, but being down to being gay, or taking too much antibiotics, or iv narcotics, or whatever? What would you have to fear? For me, the proof is in the pudding. If you genuinely have such a low opinion of modern medicine, then I suggest you opt out and reject it. It's the only rational thing to do. You seem like a nice bloke and all that and I really don't want to fall out, but really, there is no point in arguing with people like you. Thousands of doctors and scientists have made HIV their lives work (I know a few personally), and I am sure they know vastly more about the condition than you or me. But, the bottom line is, you are accusing them all (or virtually all) of committing fraud in the name of profit. Needless to say, I find that, along with the implication that AIDs affects gays and drug users specifically for reasons other than the obvious increased risk of transmission, quite offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21393 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? The recent surge of publicity denying HIV's causal role in AIDS begs an examination of the relationship between a specific microorganism and a specific disease. The question is this: What scientific proof is required to establish cause and effect? HIV and AIDS-Related Diseases AIDS is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the presence of a positive HIV antibody test and one or more of the illnesses known as opportunistic infections (OIs) or a CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3. AIDS wasting syndrome, which technically is not considered an OI, and three cancers -- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), and cervical carcinoma -- are AIDS-defining in the presence of a positive HIV antibody test. HIV and AIDS have been continuously linked in time, place, and certain population groups (e.g., children born to HIV-infected mothers) since 1984, the year HIV was discovered. Besides millions of cases of AIDS, some people receiving cancer chemotherapy develop AIDS-like illnesses. And in people receiving organ transplants, the immune system is deliberately suppressed and AIDS-like illnesses can result. Neither of these two examples, however, results in an AIDS diagnosis. Moreover, those illnesses resolve when the causative medications are stopped. Recent improvements in laboratory testing, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, allow detection of HIV genetic material in people with AIDS or a positive HIV antibody test result. Interestingly, a 1995 study of 230,000 people with AIDS found that 168 were HIV-seronegative. Today it is known that the immune system depletion characteristic of advanced HIV disease can suppress the production of antibodies to HIV, which may explain this earlier finding. The vast majority of people with AIDS in resource-poor countries have not had an HIV antibody test; even in developed countries, not all people with AIDS have had viral load tests. Those who have had viral load tests showing nondetectable virus generally have no additional tests to confirm the presence of HIV genetic material. However, the above facts, while strongly suggesting a relationship between HIV and AIDS, do not by themselves establish a causal relationship. Koch's Postulates The German scientist Robert Koch (1843-1910) established four requirements, or postulates, that must be demonstrated to prove that a specific microorganism causes a particular disease: The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease. It must be possible to isolate the microorganism from the host and grow it in pure culture (in the laboratory). The microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into an experimental animal. The microorganism must be recoverable from that animal. The scientific research community widely accepts that fulfillment of these postulates demonstrates causality. Even scientists such as Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., who says he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, accept that the postulates put forth by Robert Koch are sufficient to establish causality. While in 1987 Dr. Duesberg noted that HIV did not fit all of Koch's criteria, developments in HIV/AIDS research in the 13 years since that statement have shown that HIV does indeed fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Conclusive Data from Reputable Scientific Research Regarding postulate one, PCR testing allows researchers to document cell-associated proviral HIV in persons with AIDS who have been tested (proviral DNA detection is a research test, not one of the common FDA-approved viral load tests). Prior to this technology, HIV was often difficult to find. In addition, combining PCR testing with the common viral load tests has documented the presence of HIV genes as RNA freely floating in the blood plasma, outside of cells, in persons with a positive antibody test not taking anti-HIV medication. (Viral load testing looks for virus; the ELISA and Western blot tests look for antibodies to HIV.) Regarding postulate two, improvements in laboratory culture techniques have allowed the growth of HIV in vitro (in laboratory models) from blood samples obtained from persons with AIDS who have undergone such testing and from almost all persons with a positive antibody test without AIDS who have undergone such testing. The last two postulates stipulate that inoculating the organism into an animal model (i.e., exposing or infecting the animal) leads to the same disease and that the organism is recoverable from that animal. The evidence satisfying these postulates was established in 1997, when Francis J. Novembre, Ph.D., and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, published in the Journal of Virology that a chimpanzee inoculated with HIV ten years earlier had developed an AIDS-defining OI. Prior to the OI, the HIV RNA viral load had increased (partially documenting recovery of the organism from the animal model) and the CD4 cell count had decreased in the chimpanzee. Cultures of blood from the animal also were positive for HIV, establishing recoverability of the organism. Subsequently, blood from that chimp was transfused into a second, healthy chimpanzee. This second chimpanzee later had an increase in the HIV viral load and a decrease in the CD4 cell count. Prior to this 1997 report, fulfillment of Koch's third and fourth postulates was lacking. Interestingly, the incubation period for clinical AIDS in this chimpanzee, with whom humans share 98% gene homology (structural similarity), was essentially equivalent to the average incubation period in humans -- ten years. This finding and publication were reported in the September 1997 issue of BETA. While evidence from one chimpanzee may not seem compelling to the lay person, in the scientific arena and in conjunction with other, cumulative data, it is considered persuasive. A good source of information on this topic is www.niaid.nih.gov. Ancillary and Epidemiologic Supporting Evidence Several reports document the transmission of the organism to a human host that reproduces the original disease, and the subsequent recovery of the microorganism in that second person. For example, at least three laboratory workers developed AIDS after accidental exposure to concentrated HIV in the laboratory. All three developed immunosuppression and related opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), following infection. In all three cases, HIV was isolated, sequenced, and shown to be the infecting strain of the virus. In addition, the development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion has been repeatedly observed in widely diverse populations, including each of the following: pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases hemophiliacs who received infected blood clotting factor protein infusions monogamous sexual partners of those transfusion recipients health-care workers with accidental needlestick or other occupational exposure, similar to the lab technicians described above mother-to-child transmission male-to-male and male-to-female sexual transmission injection drug users with secondary sexual transmission extremely rare outbreaks including transmission to dental patients from an infected dentist (e.g., the Kimberly Bergalis case in Florida) This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Renton nails it. You cant argue with The Professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Parky, what job do you do and/or what qualifications do you hold, if you don't mind me asking? Is your interest in this topic based entirely on what you have read on the internet, or have you any grounding in the medical sciences at all? I run my own company fella. And am an independant thinker of some reputation in chat rooms.. I qualify myself to talk about 'whatever takes my fancy' mainly in the pub style. Medical science on the whole is a hopeless cause and I find many of its findings either fraudulent (they often change their minds every so years or as drugs funding changes) and at best just stealing 'cures' that already have existed in nature anyway. Seriously, you're coming across as being more than a little ignorant on the subject of the immune system, antibiotics, antiviral drugs, evidence-based medicine, and much, much else. I suppose the controversy behind the connection between aids and hiv is summat I made up over a brisk sojourn one day by the canal. Evidence based medicine.....You're joking right? Citing the opinions of individuals dating back to 1994 does not count as good evidence to back up your ideas, btw. These are not my ideas. The fact that you have misinterpreted this basic fact is already worrysome. based Another question for as you as well. In all honesty, if you were diagnosed as having HIV but without symptoms (yet), would you take antiretroviral drugs to maintain your CD4 count, or would you refuse them? I have no idea. Depends on the mind set if one were to be in such a tragic situation. That is the honest ans. Why would it be such a tragic situation though if in fact AIDS is nothing to do with HIV, but being down to being gay, or taking too much antibiotics, or iv narcotics, or whatever? What would you have to fear? For me, the proof is in the pudding. If you genuinely have such a low opinion of modern medicine, then I suggest you opt out and reject it. It's the only rational thing to do. You seem like a nice bloke and all that and I really don't want to fall out, but really, there is no point in arguing with people like you. Thousands of doctors and scientists have made HIV their lives work (I know a few personally), and I am sure they know vastly more about the condition than you or me. But, the bottom line is, you are accusing them all (or virtually all) of committing fraud in the name of profit. Needless to say, I find that, along with the implication that AIDs affects gays and drug users specifically for reasons other than the obvious increased risk of transmission, quite offensive. Firstly I'm not sure if you are a scientist, if you are no offence intended. I have nothing to fear from Aids whoever or however it is carried and in no way am I SINGLING OUT the gay community, but there is the data for all to look at. How could you fall out with someone on a chat room? That is just silly I think you'll agree. I'm not arguing, it just seems silly to me that threads such as this where people laugh at 'the nutter claims of Iran' have themselves NO CLUE about how much modern drugs and science in general owes to nature and infact many many DRUGS are just synthesised versions of natural remedies. You might not be aware but drugs companies spend small fortunes rooting around in the rain forest looking for plants and herbs with specific properties. I am not accusing anybody of fraud per se, just drawing attention to the fact that there are still many counter arguments to HIV. I'm not implying anything other than as you put it the 'higher risk of transmission' in the gay community is to do with lifestyle, but of course gay lifestyle has changed in accordance, I should know as I live in Hamburg in the gay district and have gay friends and yes, they are circumspect themselves for various reasons with impasse on aids with no cure in sight after 20 years. And you should hear them talking about the possible causes.......Far wilder than anythig quoted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? The recent surge of publicity denying HIV's causal role in AIDS begs an examination of the relationship between a specific microorganism and a specific disease. The question is this: What scientific proof is required to establish cause and effect? HIV and AIDS-Related Diseases AIDS is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the presence of a positive HIV antibody test and one or more of the illnesses known as opportunistic infections (OIs) or a CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3. AIDS wasting syndrome, which technically is not considered an OI, and three cancers -- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), and cervical carcinoma -- are AIDS-defining in the presence of a positive HIV antibody test. HIV and AIDS have been continuously linked in time, place, and certain population groups (e.g., children born to HIV-infected mothers) since 1984, the year HIV was discovered. Besides millions of cases of AIDS, some people receiving cancer chemotherapy develop AIDS-like illnesses. And in people receiving organ transplants, the immune system is deliberately suppressed and AIDS-like illnesses can result. Neither of these two examples, however, results in an AIDS diagnosis. Moreover, those illnesses resolve when the causative medications are stopped. Recent improvements in laboratory testing, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, allow detection of HIV genetic material in people with AIDS or a positive HIV antibody test result. Interestingly, a 1995 study of 230,000 people with AIDS found that 168 were HIV-seronegative. Today it is known that the immune system depletion characteristic of advanced HIV disease can suppress the production of antibodies to HIV, which may explain this earlier finding. The vast majority of people with AIDS in resource-poor countries have not had an HIV antibody test; even in developed countries, not all people with AIDS have had viral load tests. Those who have had viral load tests showing nondetectable virus generally have no additional tests to confirm the presence of HIV genetic material. However, the above facts, while strongly suggesting a relationship between HIV and AIDS, do not by themselves establish a causal relationship. Koch's Postulates The German scientist Robert Koch (1843-1910) established four requirements, or postulates, that must be demonstrated to prove that a specific microorganism causes a particular disease: The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease. It must be possible to isolate the microorganism from the host and grow it in pure culture (in the laboratory). The microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into an experimental animal. The microorganism must be recoverable from that animal. The scientific research community widely accepts that fulfillment of these postulates demonstrates causality. Even scientists such as Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., who says he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, accept that the postulates put forth by Robert Koch are sufficient to establish causality. While in 1987 Dr. Duesberg noted that HIV did not fit all of Koch's criteria, developments in HIV/AIDS research in the 13 years since that statement have shown that HIV does indeed fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Conclusive Data from Reputable Scientific Research Regarding postulate one, PCR testing allows researchers to document cell-associated proviral HIV in persons with AIDS who have been tested (proviral DNA detection is a research test, not one of the common FDA-approved viral load tests). Prior to this technology, HIV was often difficult to find. In addition, combining PCR testing with the common viral load tests has documented the presence of HIV genes as RNA freely floating in the blood plasma, outside of cells, in persons with a positive antibody test not taking anti-HIV medication. (Viral load testing looks for virus; the ELISA and Western blot tests look for antibodies to HIV.) Regarding postulate two, improvements in laboratory culture techniques have allowed the growth of HIV in vitro (in laboratory models) from blood samples obtained from persons with AIDS who have undergone such testing and from almost all persons with a positive antibody test without AIDS who have undergone such testing. The last two postulates stipulate that inoculating the organism into an animal model (i.e., exposing or infecting the animal) leads to the same disease and that the organism is recoverable from that animal. The evidence satisfying these postulates was established in 1997, when Francis J. Novembre, Ph.D., and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, published in the Journal of Virology that a chimpanzee inoculated with HIV ten years earlier had developed an AIDS-defining OI. Prior to the OI, the HIV RNA viral load had increased (partially documenting recovery of the organism from the animal model) and the CD4 cell count had decreased in the chimpanzee. Cultures of blood from the animal also were positive for HIV, establishing recoverability of the organism. Subsequently, blood from that chimp was transfused into a second, healthy chimpanzee. This second chimpanzee later had an increase in the HIV viral load and a decrease in the CD4 cell count. Prior to this 1997 report, fulfillment of Koch's third and fourth postulates was lacking. Interestingly, the incubation period for clinical AIDS in this chimpanzee, with whom humans share 98% gene homology (structural similarity), was essentially equivalent to the average incubation period in humans -- ten years. This finding and publication were reported in the September 1997 issue of BETA. While evidence from one chimpanzee may not seem compelling to the lay person, in the scientific arena and in conjunction with other, cumulative data, it is considered persuasive. A good source of information on this topic is www.niaid.nih.gov. Ancillary and Epidemiologic Supporting Evidence Several reports document the transmission of the organism to a human host that reproduces the original disease, and the subsequent recovery of the microorganism in that second person. For example, at least three laboratory workers developed AIDS after accidental exposure to concentrated HIV in the laboratory. All three developed immunosuppression and related opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), following infection. In all three cases, HIV was isolated, sequenced, and shown to be the infecting strain of the virus. In addition, the development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion has been repeatedly observed in widely diverse populations, including each of the following: pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases hemophiliacs who received infected blood clotting factor protein infusions monogamous sexual partners of those transfusion recipients health-care workers with accidental needlestick or other occupational exposure, similar to the lab technicians described above mother-to-child transmission male-to-male and male-to-female sexual transmission injection drug users with secondary sexual transmission extremely rare outbreaks including transmission to dental patients from an infected dentist (e.g., the Kimberly Bergalis case in Florida) This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. Yes Ive read that. Is that an insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. There's no defacto proof that the earth revolves around the sun either. That doesn't mean you must err on the side of a small minority of psuedo scientists who believe in geocentricity (although I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you do to be honest) You can take literally any position and just say "There's no proof, that's not proof. That? Not proof. Show me proof. That's not proof either, see, no proof." Edited February 9, 2007 by BlueStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? The recent surge of publicity denying HIV's causal role in AIDS begs an examination of the relationship between a specific microorganism and a specific disease. The question is this: What scientific proof is required to establish cause and effect? HIV and AIDS-Related Diseases AIDS is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the presence of a positive HIV antibody test and one or more of the illnesses known as opportunistic infections (OIs) or a CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3. AIDS wasting syndrome, which technically is not considered an OI, and three cancers -- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), and cervical carcinoma -- are AIDS-defining in the presence of a positive HIV antibody test. HIV and AIDS have been continuously linked in time, place, and certain population groups (e.g., children born to HIV-infected mothers) since 1984, the year HIV was discovered. Besides millions of cases of AIDS, some people receiving cancer chemotherapy develop AIDS-like illnesses. And in people receiving organ transplants, the immune system is deliberately suppressed and AIDS-like illnesses can result. Neither of these two examples, however, results in an AIDS diagnosis. Moreover, those illnesses resolve when the causative medications are stopped. Recent improvements in laboratory testing, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, allow detection of HIV genetic material in people with AIDS or a positive HIV antibody test result. Interestingly, a 1995 study of 230,000 people with AIDS found that 168 were HIV-seronegative. Today it is known that the immune system depletion characteristic of advanced HIV disease can suppress the production of antibodies to HIV, which may explain this earlier finding. The vast majority of people with AIDS in resource-poor countries have not had an HIV antibody test; even in developed countries, not all people with AIDS have had viral load tests. Those who have had viral load tests showing nondetectable virus generally have no additional tests to confirm the presence of HIV genetic material. However, the above facts, while strongly suggesting a relationship between HIV and AIDS, do not by themselves establish a causal relationship. Koch's Postulates The German scientist Robert Koch (1843-1910) established four requirements, or postulates, that must be demonstrated to prove that a specific microorganism causes a particular disease: The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease. It must be possible to isolate the microorganism from the host and grow it in pure culture (in the laboratory). The microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into an experimental animal. The microorganism must be recoverable from that animal. The scientific research community widely accepts that fulfillment of these postulates demonstrates causality. Even scientists such as Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., who says he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, accept that the postulates put forth by Robert Koch are sufficient to establish causality. While in 1987 Dr. Duesberg noted that HIV did not fit all of Koch's criteria, developments in HIV/AIDS research in the 13 years since that statement have shown that HIV does indeed fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Conclusive Data from Reputable Scientific Research Regarding postulate one, PCR testing allows researchers to document cell-associated proviral HIV in persons with AIDS who have been tested (proviral DNA detection is a research test, not one of the common FDA-approved viral load tests). Prior to this technology, HIV was often difficult to find. In addition, combining PCR testing with the common viral load tests has documented the presence of HIV genes as RNA freely floating in the blood plasma, outside of cells, in persons with a positive antibody test not taking anti-HIV medication. (Viral load testing looks for virus; the ELISA and Western blot tests look for antibodies to HIV.) Regarding postulate two, improvements in laboratory culture techniques have allowed the growth of HIV in vitro (in laboratory models) from blood samples obtained from persons with AIDS who have undergone such testing and from almost all persons with a positive antibody test without AIDS who have undergone such testing. The last two postulates stipulate that inoculating the organism into an animal model (i.e., exposing or infecting the animal) leads to the same disease and that the organism is recoverable from that animal. The evidence satisfying these postulates was established in 1997, when Francis J. Novembre, Ph.D., and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, published in the Journal of Virology that a chimpanzee inoculated with HIV ten years earlier had developed an AIDS-defining OI. Prior to the OI, the HIV RNA viral load had increased (partially documenting recovery of the organism from the animal model) and the CD4 cell count had decreased in the chimpanzee. Cultures of blood from the animal also were positive for HIV, establishing recoverability of the organism. Subsequently, blood from that chimp was transfused into a second, healthy chimpanzee. This second chimpanzee later had an increase in the HIV viral load and a decrease in the CD4 cell count. Prior to this 1997 report, fulfillment of Koch's third and fourth postulates was lacking. Interestingly, the incubation period for clinical AIDS in this chimpanzee, with whom humans share 98% gene homology (structural similarity), was essentially equivalent to the average incubation period in humans -- ten years. This finding and publication were reported in the September 1997 issue of BETA. While evidence from one chimpanzee may not seem compelling to the lay person, in the scientific arena and in conjunction with other, cumulative data, it is considered persuasive. A good source of information on this topic is www.niaid.nih.gov. Ancillary and Epidemiologic Supporting Evidence Several reports document the transmission of the organism to a human host that reproduces the original disease, and the subsequent recovery of the microorganism in that second person. For example, at least three laboratory workers developed AIDS after accidental exposure to concentrated HIV in the laboratory. All three developed immunosuppression and related opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), following infection. In all three cases, HIV was isolated, sequenced, and shown to be the infecting strain of the virus. In addition, the development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion has been repeatedly observed in widely diverse populations, including each of the following: pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases hemophiliacs who received infected blood clotting factor protein infusions monogamous sexual partners of those transfusion recipients health-care workers with accidental needlestick or other occupational exposure, similar to the lab technicians described above mother-to-child transmission male-to-male and male-to-female sexual transmission injection drug users with secondary sexual transmission extremely rare outbreaks including transmission to dental patients from an infected dentist (e.g., the Kimberly Bergalis case in Florida) This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. .....an article riddled with innacuracy and 7 years out of date. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. There's no defacto proof that the earth revolves around the sun either. That doesn't mean you must err on the side of a small minority of psuedo scientists who believe in geocentricity (although I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you do to be honest) You can take literally any position and just say "There's no proof, that's not proof. That? Not proof. Show me proof. That's not proof either, see, no proof." Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21393 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Parky back peddling furiously. Btw, yes, it was meant as an insult, but with no offence intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) I was going to say, when you have to go back over ten years to find a quote of someone who sounds qualified it should give you a hint that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to back up bollocks. It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? The recent surge of publicity denying HIV's causal role in AIDS begs an examination of the relationship between a specific microorganism and a specific disease. The question is this: What scientific proof is required to establish cause and effect? HIV and AIDS-Related Diseases AIDS is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the presence of a positive HIV antibody test and one or more of the illnesses known as opportunistic infections (OIs) or a CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3. AIDS wasting syndrome, which technically is not considered an OI, and three cancers -- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), and cervical carcinoma -- are AIDS-defining in the presence of a positive HIV antibody test. HIV and AIDS have been continuously linked in time, place, and certain population groups (e.g., children born to HIV-infected mothers) since 1984, the year HIV was discovered. Besides millions of cases of AIDS, some people receiving cancer chemotherapy develop AIDS-like illnesses. And in people receiving organ transplants, the immune system is deliberately suppressed and AIDS-like illnesses can result. Neither of these two examples, however, results in an AIDS diagnosis. Moreover, those illnesses resolve when the causative medications are stopped. Recent improvements in laboratory testing, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, allow detection of HIV genetic material in people with AIDS or a positive HIV antibody test result. Interestingly, a 1995 study of 230,000 people with AIDS found that 168 were HIV-seronegative. Today it is known that the immune system depletion characteristic of advanced HIV disease can suppress the production of antibodies to HIV, which may explain this earlier finding. The vast majority of people with AIDS in resource-poor countries have not had an HIV antibody test; even in developed countries, not all people with AIDS have had viral load tests. Those who have had viral load tests showing nondetectable virus generally have no additional tests to confirm the presence of HIV genetic material. However, the above facts, while strongly suggesting a relationship between HIV and AIDS, do not by themselves establish a causal relationship. Koch's Postulates The German scientist Robert Koch (1843-1910) established four requirements, or postulates, that must be demonstrated to prove that a specific microorganism causes a particular disease: The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease. It must be possible to isolate the microorganism from the host and grow it in pure culture (in the laboratory). The microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into an experimental animal. The microorganism must be recoverable from that animal. The scientific research community widely accepts that fulfillment of these postulates demonstrates causality. Even scientists such as Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., who says he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, accept that the postulates put forth by Robert Koch are sufficient to establish causality. While in 1987 Dr. Duesberg noted that HIV did not fit all of Koch's criteria, developments in HIV/AIDS research in the 13 years since that statement have shown that HIV does indeed fulfill Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS. Conclusive Data from Reputable Scientific Research Regarding postulate one, PCR testing allows researchers to document cell-associated proviral HIV in persons with AIDS who have been tested (proviral DNA detection is a research test, not one of the common FDA-approved viral load tests). Prior to this technology, HIV was often difficult to find. In addition, combining PCR testing with the common viral load tests has documented the presence of HIV genes as RNA freely floating in the blood plasma, outside of cells, in persons with a positive antibody test not taking anti-HIV medication. (Viral load testing looks for virus; the ELISA and Western blot tests look for antibodies to HIV.) Regarding postulate two, improvements in laboratory culture techniques have allowed the growth of HIV in vitro (in laboratory models) from blood samples obtained from persons with AIDS who have undergone such testing and from almost all persons with a positive antibody test without AIDS who have undergone such testing. The last two postulates stipulate that inoculating the organism into an animal model (i.e., exposing or infecting the animal) leads to the same disease and that the organism is recoverable from that animal. The evidence satisfying these postulates was established in 1997, when Francis J. Novembre, Ph.D., and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, published in the Journal of Virology that a chimpanzee inoculated with HIV ten years earlier had developed an AIDS-defining OI. Prior to the OI, the HIV RNA viral load had increased (partially documenting recovery of the organism from the animal model) and the CD4 cell count had decreased in the chimpanzee. Cultures of blood from the animal also were positive for HIV, establishing recoverability of the organism. Subsequently, blood from that chimp was transfused into a second, healthy chimpanzee. This second chimpanzee later had an increase in the HIV viral load and a decrease in the CD4 cell count. Prior to this 1997 report, fulfillment of Koch's third and fourth postulates was lacking. Interestingly, the incubation period for clinical AIDS in this chimpanzee, with whom humans share 98% gene homology (structural similarity), was essentially equivalent to the average incubation period in humans -- ten years. This finding and publication were reported in the September 1997 issue of BETA. While evidence from one chimpanzee may not seem compelling to the lay person, in the scientific arena and in conjunction with other, cumulative data, it is considered persuasive. A good source of information on this topic is www.niaid.nih.gov. THIS BIT IS TOTALLY UNREPRESENTATIVE. NO MONKEY HAS EVER AT ANY TIME DEVELOPED AIDS EVEN WHEN PUMPED WITH HEAVY LOADS OF HIV THIS IS A FACT. AND THIS OVER 10 YEAR MONKEY TRIALS. Ancillary and Epidemiologic Supporting Evidence Several reports document the transmission of the organism to a human host that reproduces the original disease, and the subsequent recovery of the microorganism in that second person. For example, at least three laboratory workers developed AIDS after accidental exposure to concentrated HIV in the laboratory. All three developed immunosuppression and related opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), following infection. In all three cases, HIV was isolated, sequenced, and shown to be the infecting strain of the virus. In addition, the development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion has been repeatedly observed in widely diverse populations, including each of the following: pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases hemophiliacs who received infected blood clotting factor protein infusions monogamous sexual partners of those transfusion recipients health-care workers with accidental needlestick or other occupational exposure, similar to the lab technicians described above mother-to-child transmission male-to-male and male-to-female sexual transmission injection drug users with secondary sexual transmission extremely rare outbreaks including transmission to dental patients from an infected dentist (e.g., the Kimberly Bergalis case in Florida) This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. .....an article riddled with innacuracy and 7 years out of date. Well done. Edited February 9, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now