The Chemical Basis of AIDS

Doc Savage

[tallhappy]

I have agreed with Deusberg since the 1980's when he first spoke out.

But it is a visceral subject.

In 100 years when it is less political and emotional it will be an interesting episode of how scientific rigor broke down.

[I got the rope]

Koch's postulates - Medical Dictionary of popular medical terms

[Doctor Stochastic]

This was the opinion of the Homintern for some years back in the 1980s. The idea that AIDS wasn't an STD allowed them to avoid facing problems with bath houses and multiple partners. These ideas were debated all over the Usenet news groups during the 1980s.

[I got the rope]

Here's the paper they used

[tallhappy]

Robert Koch is long dead. He was one of the pioneers in germ theory a long time ago. He was a German Doctor and his postulates are from 1890. They formed the basis for the miraculous advances there have been in treating disease over the last century.

Your cynicism in quite unfounded.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One can't read all of these. I only read the abstracts of 35 or so (depending on how you count JSTOR) of this list.

[Lloyd227]

ping

[Melas]

Don't forget the decimated hemophiliac population in America. During the 80's they were hit hard.

[Melas]

Don't forget the decimated hemophiliac population in America. During the 80's they were hit hard.

[InterceptPoint]

Koch's 3rd Postulate: The microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into an experimental animal.

"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"

Your one chimpanzee "proof" of Koch's 3rd postulate just isn't good enough for me. It is junk science and nothing else. The HIV=AIDS hypothesis does NOT satisfy Koch's 3rd postulate. Period. It doesn't even satisfy his 1st. HIV is not found in all AIDS patients. All means all. Not 90%, Not 99% but 100%.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's sad though. The epidemiology is consistent with viral transmission but not with malnutrition nor inhaler use. Those assuming a non-viral causation of AIDS (such as Mbeki) run the risk of helping spread AIDS.

[annyokie]

There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. I remain skeptical. How is my reading of a 13 year old scientific document refuted by an hundred year old document? I was just chastized up the thread for not be au courant in the literature. Now, I am asked, nay, tasked to take as gospel the opinion of some fellow who is Sigmund Freud's contemporary? The cognative dissonance here is deafening at times.

[I got the rope]

HIV is not found in all AIDS patients. All means all. Not 90%, Not 99% but 100%.

Link please. New PCR techniques disproves this.

[I got the rope]

Yes. It's a childish debate technique. We will never find the "bright-line" to end the discussion if they continually redefine the known limits that we have. Apologists for homosexuals are also trying to redefine science to justify their behavior.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I find it interesting that "Conservatives" seem to be taking over the old Homintern arguments: HIV doesn't cause AIDS; There is a "gay" style of music (or literature, etc.) and some others.

[I got the rope]

Your one chimpanzee "proof" of Koch's 3rd postulate just isn't good enough for me. It is junk science and nothing else.

While you whine...science will go on.

HIV/AIDS Vaccine: Virion-based vaccine protects animals against disease

Control of viremia and prevention of simian-human immunodeficiency virus-induced disease in rhesus macaques immunized with recombinant vaccinia viruses plus inactivated simian immunodeficiency virus and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 particles.

[I got the rope]

It's strange that I haven't run into these "conservatives" sooner. Ping L.J.!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The incidence of AIDS among the victims of needle-stick accidents would also indicate an infectious agent rather than environmental exposure.

Of course, malnutrition is cured rather quickly by eating; AIDS isn't.

[realpatriot71]

So, I suppose that is it just mere coincidence that people who don't test positive for anti-HIV Abs nor HIV viral isolation don't get AIDS. It also must be more coincidence that people who test positive for anti-HIV Abs and have a positive viral isolation DO eventually lose enough T-cells to allow for AIDS defining conditions such as KS and P. carnii peumonia. Furthering to the coincidences the people who test positive can trace they infection back to people who also test positive, and these transmissions can be positively shown to be associated with the tranference of bodily fluids, especially blood. Even more coincidental is that fact that HIV's more specific bodily tagret ligand happens to be the CD4 T-cell receptor, and that it is this particular population of T-cells that become depleted, and it is this particular population of T-cells, when lacking, that leads to the exact diseases directly associated with HIV/AIDS.

but you're right . . . NO WAY HIV CAUSES AIDS *sarcasm*

If you really believe this, then I've got some great oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, real cheap!

[realpatriot71]

They can't give it to you because it doesn't exist - and they know it. Unfortunately there are now too many careers and too much business at stake for them to give up the myth and so it persists.

You're serious?! What do you want "proven"? HIV binds to the CD4 ligand, which happens to be a receptor on the exact cell population that becomes depleted leading to some of the strangest diseases medicine ever sees including Kaposi's Sarcoma and P. carnii peumonia. The life cycle of the virus is widely understood. People who test positive for anti-HIV Abs GET AIDS, what more do you want?