Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AIDS Patients Face Downside of Living Longer (effects of AIDS drugs "worse than having AIDS")
New York Times ^ | January 6, 2008 | JANE GROSS

Posted on 01/15/2008 6:18:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

Will you answer these questions: How old are these references, and has any work done since they were published validated the findings?


151 posted on 01/15/2008 7:55:15 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

How old is too old?


152 posted on 01/15/2008 7:57:54 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How old do they have to be for you to be asking that?


153 posted on 01/15/2008 7:59:13 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That’s a serious question. If you think truth can become outdated, how old is too old?


154 posted on 01/15/2008 8:00:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
That’s a serious question. If you think truth can become outdated, how old is too old?

The age of the research is important in terms of peer review. If it's too recent to have had an opportunity for a decent peer review, then I'm going to be skeptical. If it's old enough that there should be one or more, and there aren't I'm going to be skeptical.

155 posted on 01/15/2008 8:03:22 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

OK. I could go back all the way to the 1980s, but how about we start with a paper from 1998 published by Genetica? Will you agree to carefully read a scientific paper from 1998? Here it is:

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/The%20AIDS%20Dilemma.pdf


156 posted on 01/15/2008 8:08:57 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
And note that you cannot prove effectiveness unless you have a control group that does not take the drug that does worse.

Really? Why is that?

Lets assume a child has injested ten times the TD50 of a household poison, and medical professionals rapidly induce vomiting with ipecac, and she survives.

Is it your contention that we cannot prove effectiveness of ipecac to prevent death by poisoning unless we first establish a statistically valid cohort of children who are administered poison and then NOT given ipecac and are instead left to die?

Medicine and medical testing do not proceed the way you may assume or have read.

There are many non-anecdotal methods for establishing proof of efficacy of a procedure or drug without control groups that have been accepted as definitive by medical science for decades and which were developed long before HIV/AIDS.

Additionally there are well established risk profiles for HIV+ patients, which are expressed as a function of CD4 count. ARV effectiveness in controlling risk factors leads directly to reductions in morbidity and mortality which are far more significant than what you presume to be merely a few anecdotal accounts.

Have you read the Swiss cohort study by Steme in Lancet? What were your thoughts on the reported risk reduction?

jas3
157 posted on 01/15/2008 8:09:50 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How long is it, and has it been peer reviewed?


158 posted on 01/15/2008 8:10:44 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
There is a lot on the web that addresses the questions you ask. Here's some from SDARI:

The Odd Claim of the HIV Dissenters: HIV does not Cause AIDS A critical evaluation of their arguments

By Barbara B. Hemmingsen

Twenty years ago, a new human disease-AIDS-showed up in the United States, Europe and Africa; within a few years a virus was implicated. But not all scientists have accepted the evidence which has been obtained so far, the most prominent being Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology at U.C. Berkeley and an expert on retroviruses, the "family" to which HIV belongs. Because of his past high standing in the scientific community-he is a member of the National Academy of Science-his opposing ideas stimulated additional studies. Abundant evidence now shows HIV is the cause of AIDS (Blattner et al., 1988). Yet, in 1998, Duesberg published a lengthy paper reiterating and expanding on his original idea that AIDS has other causes, and adding-he claims-some new evidence in support of his contention (Duesberg and Rasnick, 1998). What is it about his hypothesis that is so compelling that Duesberg and his supporters continue to advance them? What is the evidence that they are right and the majority of experts wrong.

Duesberg published several articles in the 1980s in which he claimed that HIV as the cause of AIDS does not fulfill Koch’s postulates. These postulates are the logical steps to prove that a specific pathogen, in this case HIV, is the cause of particular disease, AIDS. The bacteriologist Robert Koch in 1876 was the first to apply them to prove that the bacterium Bacillus anthracis causes anthrax. The postulates are: (1) the same pathogen must be present in every clinical case of the disease under investigation, (2) the pathogen must be isolated and grown away from the infected host, (3) the cultured pathogen must cause the same disease when injected into a healthy, susceptible host, and (4) the same pathogen must be reisolated from the experimentally infected host. Koch and his successors successfully applied these postulates to diseases caused by bacteria and fungi, microorganisms that can usually be easily cultured away from their host. Koch modified his postulates as more was learned about pathogenic bacteria. For example, people infected with Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever, sometimes have no symptoms; hence, postulate 1 must be modified. Also, if a suitable susceptible animal host cannot be found for a human pathogen, then postulates 3 and 4 can not be satisfied as experimentation on humans is unethical.

The discovery of viral diseases also required modifications to Koch’s Postulates (Evans, 1976). Viruses are not cells, rather they are genetic material (either RNA or DNA) surrounded by protein coats in their extracellular state. The genetic material, on entry into a suitable host cell, is sufficient to induce viral replication. Such replication can have deleterious effects on the host cells which cause symptoms in the host. Some viruses are able to integrate their genetic material into that of their hosts, the "latent state". Viruses must be cultivated together with their host cells; thus, postulate 2 must be modified.

Starting in 1981, the Centers for Disease Control began reporting, in its newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, cases of Pneumocystis pneumonia and cytomegolovirus infections in otherwise healthy adult males. These diseases were previously found only in severely immunocompromised humans. Eventually this profound immunosuppression (as evidenced by an accompanying constellation of diseases) was named Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) because there was no obvious reason for the patients’ profound immunosuppression. Some suggested causes were illicit drug (cocaine, heroin, amphetamines) or stimulant (amyl nitrite) use, but a microbial cause was at the top of the list and efforts were immediately made to culture microbes from persons with AIDS.

These efforts quickly established that neither fungi nor bacteria were likely pathogens. The French virologist Luc Montagnier and his collaborators succeeded in 1983 in culturing a retrovirus from the blood of AIDS victims and not from immunologically healthy people free of the diseases that define AIDS (Barre-Sinoussi et al., 1983; Gallo et al., 1984). This satisfied Koch’s Postulates 1 and 2. Once the virus was available in quantity, it could be compared to other related and better known retroviruses that infect animals. It was also discovered that the virus-since named Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV-preferentially infected white blood cells present in the blood, semen and vaginal fluids. This discovery explained why the delicate virus was spread from human to human via sexual intercourse or by exposure to blood (hemophiliacs, blood transfusion recipients, and injecting drug users). Soon after its discovery, a test was devised to detect antibodies against HIV in blood and blood products, and this method of transmission was denied the virus. Safe sex practices and needle exchanges have also interrupted the spread of HIV, although the conscientious use of the safe sex methods and the sharing of needles in injection galleries remain problems (Des Jarlais and Friedman, 1994).

Despite these successes, the third and fourth postulates could not be satisfied in the 1980s because no experimental animal proved susceptible to infection by HIV except the chimpanzee, a lab animal in such short supply that statistically valid numbers could not be used. Thus, the door was opened for the AIDS dissenters, scientists who interpreted the available evidence in the 1980s to mean that HIV was a harmless passenger virus which just happened to be present in AIDS patients. They claimed that AIDS is a disease of such lifestyle choices as drug and alcohol abuse and of promiscuous sex, especially homosexual sex. However, in the 1990s, the third and fourth postulates were satisfied as the result of a tragic laboratory accident in which 3 lab workers were exposed to concentrated, cloned, pure HIV. None had risk factors for AIDS, yet all 3 developed one or more of the AIDS-defining diseases or severe immunodepression (NIAID fact sheet, 2000). HIV was isolated from all 3 patients and shown, by molecular techniques, to be identical to the original virus. Although Duesberg no longer mentions Koch’s Postulates in his writings, he has not allowed their completion to change his mind about the causes of AIDS.

One of Duesberg’s recent publications (Duesberg and Rasnick, 1998) asks 12 questions which are really statements of his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. He then attempts to support each of his beliefs. I will focus on just a few of the questions and show that each has been answered, and that the published data, which Duesberg does not cite, clearly support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.

Duesberg and Rasnick (1998) ask: "Why would antibodies against HIV (a positive HIV test) which are so effective that leading AIDS researchers cannot detect HIV in most AIDS patients (Gallo, 1991; Weiss, 1991; Cohen, 1993) not protect against AIDS?" First, I will consider their statement that HIV can’t be detected in most AIDS patients. The three citations in this sentence are to letters or a news report, none of which deal with the detection of HIV in AIDS patients. Research papers published in this same period (Hammer et al., 1993; Jackson et al., 1990) and subsequently (Mellors et al., 1997) report the consistent isolation of HIV from blood, semen and vaginal secretions of patients with AIDS. Why didn’t Duesberg and Rasnick cite these publications? Second, I will consider the statement that antibodies against HIV in the blood should protect against AIDS. Duesberg and Rasnick apparently don’t know that HIV as well as some other viruses are able to hide within human cells thereby escaping the circulating antibodies against them; these viruses persist and may reemerge and cause disease. The most familiar examples are varicella zoster (chickenpox) that reemerges to cause shingles, and herpes simplex that reemerges to cause cold sores. HIV is also able to hide in the cells of the human immune system, well protected from the circulating antibody.

Duesberg and Rasnick (1998) also ask: "Why have doctors and nurses never caught AIDS from over 800,000 American and European AIDS cases, particularly in the absence of a HIV vaccine?" What comes to mind is that very few doctors and nurses expose their skin or mucus membranes to the semen or vaginal fluids of patients with AIDS. However, health care workers do accidently stick themselves with patient blood. Through 1999, 56 documented cases of such HIV infection are known to the CDC; 25 of these have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors (NIAID fact sheet, 2000). Why do Duesberg and Rasnick ignore these cases?

Another question posed by Duesberg and Resnick (1998) is: "Why are 9 out of 10 AIDS patients males?" They point out, rightly, that viruses are gender-blind whereas lifestyle choices may be gender specific. However, they don’t acknowledge that a gay man is believed to be the individual who brought the virus to America. From homosexuals, HIV spread to injection drug users, most of whom are male. Because HIV is spread from human to human by unprotected sex or by exchange of blood, it is not surprising that early in the epidemic most AIDS cases (92%) showed up in males. However, more women are now infected with HIV and are developing AIDS. In 1993-1995, about 18% of the 257,262 American AIDS cases reported to the CDC were women; this percentage was 23% for the 1996-2000 period (MMWR, 2001). The populations in Asia and Africa that exchange HIV via heterosexual sex have approximately equal numbers of men and women infected with HIV (UNAIDS, 2000; NIAID fact sheet, 2000). Why do Duesberg and Rasnick ignore these numbers? They are freely available from the Centers for Disease Control.

Although not part of their 12 questions, Duesberg and Resnick support their idea that recreational drugs cause AIDS by stating that "1% of AIDS patients are babies who shared drugs with their mothers before birth." Without doubt, one of the risk factors for being born with an HIV infection is a drug injecting mother who is HIV positive . But let’s look at twins born to such mothers; both fetuses share the same drugs and approximately the same uterine environment. I can refer to 4 such cases described between 1984 and 1993 (Vilmer et al., 1984; Menz-Bautista et al., 1986; Young et al., 1990; Barlow and Mok, 1993). Three of the mothers admitted drug use, the fourth was married to a drug user. All of the mothers were positive for HIV antibody, HIV genetic material, or had AIDS. All four gave birth to a fraternal healthy twin (no sign of HIV or AIDS after 10 months to 6 years) and to a sick twin with evidence of HIV and the development of AIDS or AIDS Related Complex in 3 cases. Did Duesberg choose to ignore this evidence that it is the presence of HIV in the body that leads to AIDS, not the presence of recreational drugs?

It is evident from these examples that the HIV dissenters and deniers, led by their "scientific" guru Duesberg, are ignoring sound scientific evidence and methodology to arrive at their claims. Duesberg believes that HIV is a harmless passenger virus that just happens to be present in persons with AIDS. To arrive at this claim he uses information published in the scientific literature very selectively, ignoring all data and arguments that refute his views, and picking only material which he can interpret to support his ideas. He leans heavily on material from newspapers and popular magazines. When one of his points is challenged by indisputable facts, he simple drops it and goes on to another. This distinctive pattern we know so well from another case of bogus or irrational thinking: the creationists’ argument against evolution. It is troublesome that it is advanced by a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

jas3
159 posted on 01/15/2008 8:27:01 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It’s long enough to cover the major points of Dueberg et al’s alternative theory as to the cause of AIDS. Here is their editorial board:

Editorial Board
Editor:

Pierre Capy
Laboratoire Populations, Génétique et Evolution, CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

Ronny C. Woodruff
Dept. of Biological Sciences, Bowling Green State University, OH, USA

Associate Editors:

S. Abe, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan; C. F. Baer, University of Florida, USA; P. Batterham, University of Melbourne, Australia; C. Biemont, Université Claude Bernard-Lyon I, France; I. Boussy, Loyola University of Chicago, USA; J.L. Bouzat, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA; C.H. Daugherty, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Hong-Wen Deng, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA and College of Life Science, Hunan Normal University, PR of China; J. Andrew DeWoody, Purdue University, USA; M.S. DuBow, Université Paris Sud, Orsay, France; M.F. Dybdahl, Washington State University, USA; W.J. Etges, University of Arkansas, USA; A. Fontdevila, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain; P.M. Galetti Jr., Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brazil; G. Gasperi, University of Pavia, Italy; T. Gerasimova, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA; T. Giraud, Université de Paris-Sud, France; M.-A. Grandbastien, INRA, Versailles, France; X. Gu, Iowa State University, USA; A.J. Hilliker, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; S. Hoffman, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA; J.J.A. Holden, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada; M. Itoh, Kyoto Institute of Technology, Kyoto, Japan; R.M. Kliman, Cedar Crest College, Allentown, PA, USA; Artyom Kopp, University of California - Davis, Davis, CA, USA; R.A. Krebs, Cleveland State University, USA; Claire Lavigne, INRA, Avignon, France; F. Lemeunier, CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; H. Naveira, Universidade de Coruña, Spain; M.E. Orive, University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA; Scott Pitnick, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA; M.B. Ptacek, Clemson University, USA; Leslie Rissler, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA; S.H. Rogstad, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA; C. Schloetterer, Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien, Austria; M.D. Schug, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA; Alan H. Schulman, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; W.B. Sherwin, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; C.S. Sinclair, Towson University, MD, USA; L. Sola, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy; J.N. Thompson Jr., University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA; Irène A. Till-Bottraud, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France; Maud Tenaillon, AgroParisTech, Ferme de Moulon, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; L.J. Weider, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA; Jun Zhu, Institute of Bioinformatics, Zejiang University, PR of China;


160 posted on 01/15/2008 8:41:34 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: jas3
Really? Why is that?

Because that is the way science is done. That is the way clinical studies are done. You have to have a reference if you are showing that you are providing a cure. If this were not the case, I could give you a cough drop and if you didn't die I could claim that I've cured AIDS.

I'm still waiting.

161 posted on 01/15/2008 10:03:34 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Okay. Why is it so hard to pry an answer out of you about whether the work has been peer reviewed?


162 posted on 01/16/2008 5:04:29 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: jas3

Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus.

Geez, and I just got a Yellow Fever vaccine a few days ago.

I stand by my statement 100%.

Yes, you can have a virus introduced to preempt, but thats it.


163 posted on 01/16/2008 5:08:37 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
"Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus"

Sorry to wander off topic but I have always though that to be the case but the polio and yellow fever vaccine always makes me wonder.

If you, or anyone, has anything that can clear that up I'd like to know about it.

164 posted on 01/16/2008 5:20:02 AM PST by Proud_texan (Stop global whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

In layman’s terms, as I understand it, you basically are preempting one virus with another, similiar strain.

You cannot ‘stop’ a virus. If you could, none of us would ever get the common cold, let alone HIV.

I’m always surprised at how many people don’t know this basic fact about virus’s. There is no ‘golden pill’.


165 posted on 01/16/2008 5:23:03 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
"you basically are preempting one virus with another"

Ah, but of course, I should have been able to noodle that out from how the smallpox vaccine works but then sometimes I'm not that good at noodling...

I really appreciate you clearing that up for me, thanks.

166 posted on 01/16/2008 5:25:39 AM PST by Proud_texan (Stop global whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

Your welcome.


167 posted on 01/16/2008 5:31:28 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The paper has been peer reviewed, perhaps not very well before publication.

Duesberg and Rasnick (1998) also ask: "Why have doctors and nurses never caught AIDS from over 800,000 American and European AIDS cases, particularly in the absence of a HIV vaccine?" What comes to mind is that very few doctors and nurses expose their skin or mucus membranes to the semen or vaginal fluids of patients with AIDS. However, health care workers do accidentally stick themselves with patient blood. Through 1999, 56 documented cases of such HIV infection are known to the CDC; 25 of these have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors (NIAID fact sheet, 2000). Why do Duesberg and Rasnick ignore these cases?

My question regarding Duesberg is why he doesn't update and correct his claims when they are demonstrated to be untrue. That seems to be a rather fundamentally requirement for intellectual honesty.

My second question is why papers prior to the year 2000 are considered important. Much of the research on AIDS is relatively recent, and the three drug cocktail was not available before late 1995. All Duesberg's charts seem to end just at the time a relatively effectiv treatement would start making a difference in the statistics.

168 posted on 01/16/2008 6:31:40 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Perhaps one shouldn't accuse Duesberg of "ignoring" the 25 cases of AIDS among healthcare workers. He handles this the way he handles all disconfirming evidence: the people submitting the evidence are liars; they got AIDS because they took AZT; and besides, a mere 25 cases transmitted by exposure to HIV+ blood doesn't prove it is contagious.

Perhaps I could ask where is the laboratory animal that developed immune deficiency from recreational drugs.

169 posted on 01/16/2008 6:58:42 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Do you think it’s possible that there’s some opposition to finding a natural cause explaination because it interefers with a supernatural cause explaination?


170 posted on 01/16/2008 7:14:21 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I’m not sure what you mean. I haven’t seen anyone suggest a supernatural cause.

If you are thinking about devine retribution for homosexuality, I think much of morality is based on natural consequenses.

The question for discussion is not whether antiviral medicine has harmful side effects — it does. The only real issue is whether HIV leads, in most people, to immune deficiency — and it does.

Immune deficiency is delayed. Anywhere from two to twenty years. There seems to be a small percentage of people who never progress to AIDS. But this is true of every infectious disease.

There are lots of infectious diseases that have delayed effects. Syphilis, Mad Cow, chickenpox, polio, among others. My closest friend from college died of post polio syndrome, fourty years after the infection.


171 posted on 01/16/2008 7:36:19 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you are thinking about devine retribution for homosexuality, I think much of morality is based on natural consequenses.

Well, not everyone believes that. The question was in response to why someone would dogmatically cling to theories that aren't supported by the evidence.

172 posted on 01/16/2008 7:55:27 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus.

Geez, and I just got a Yellow Fever vaccine a few days ago.

I stand by my statement 100%.

Yes, you can have a virus introduced to preempt, but thats it.

Yes, I've noticed that people who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS are fond of standing by their statements 100%, even after those statements have been demonstrated to be entirely false.

It is a lot easier to ignore the facts than to admit you were wrong, isn't it?

The statement "you can have a virus introduced to preempt" doesn't even make sense. Are you talking about attenuated viruses?

You are presumably not aware that to stop a virus via vaccine, in many cases all that is needed is to prepare the human immune system to identify the virus by introducing a single surface protein to mammalian immune systems.

So since nobody is bothering to "introduce to preempt" for smallpox, and since smallpox has been eradicated from the planet, under your definition is it correct to say that smallpox was not stopped?

And if so, who really cares? The goal is to eliminate the virus or its negative effects, not to meet some weird arbitrary (and meaningless) definition of "stopping".

jas3
173 posted on 01/16/2008 8:07:52 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
"Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus"

Sorry to wander off topic but I have always though that to be the case but the polio and yellow fever vaccine always makes me wonder.

If you, or anyone, has anything that can clear that up I'd like to know about it.


First off, it isn't off topic to discuss viruses on an HIV/AIDS thread.

Second, it is definitely NOT the case that viruses can't be stopped. They most certainly can through a variety of mechanism either with antivirals like Adefovir dipivoxil or via warning the immune system in advance as to what a virus is likely to look like via vaccination.

The notion that virus can't be or haven't been stopped is just patently false.

jas3
174 posted on 01/16/2008 8:14:49 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Ok, it looks like all your questions have been answered. The paper was peer reviewed, and it is not too new and not too old, as per your request. So I will ask you again, now that all your requirements have been met, will you carefully read it???


175 posted on 01/16/2008 8:22:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
In layman’s terms, as I understand it, you basically are preempting one virus with another, similiar strain.

Badeye, that is BadScience. Not all vaccines are strains of viruses. Some are merely collections of antigens that are common to the virus against which one is being vaccinated.

Additionally there are effective antiviral drugs, with many more in the pipeline.

You cannot ‘stop’ a virus. If you could, none of us would ever get the common cold, let alone HIV.

You can, in fact, stop "a" virus. It is true that human influenza virus has not yet been "stopped," and the common cold continues to afflict millions every year. But it is not true that viruses cannot be stopped or are not already being stopped or have not been completely stopped and eradicated from human populations.

I’m always surprised at how many people don’t know this basic fact about virus’s. There is no ‘golden pill’.

People don't "know" this because it is not true that viruses can't be stopped. If actually believed that, then you should be out campaigning against the money we waste on vaccines. It is true there is no "golden pill".

So maybe you should restate your assertion to "There is no golden pill that can protect humans from the common cold." That would be accurate.

jas3
176 posted on 01/16/2008 8:24:32 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: jas3

Whatever. I’m right. Your still wrong.

And we’re done.


177 posted on 01/16/2008 8:25:59 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
"you basically are preempting one virus with another"

Ah, but of course, I should have been able to noodle that out from how the smallpox vaccine works but then sometimes I'm not that good at noodling...

I really appreciate you clearing that up for me, thanks.

Hmmm...time to re-clear that up.

Human immune systems work by trying to identify "self" from "non-self". Vaccines work by presenting to the human immune system proteins or protein sets which are similar to or are identical to the proteins expressed on the surface of a virus.

Because the human immune system gets advance warning of what a nasty looks like from the vaccine, if the virus ever does show up, the immune system knows right away that it should respond.

Different vaccines work in different ways. For example it was discovered very early that exposure to coxpox was protective against smallpox. By intentionally exposing someone to coxpox, you could prevent them from being hurt by the more deadly smallpox.

There are four different classes of vaccines. You can read more HERE.

But it is INCORRECT to state that all (or even most) vaccines preempt one virus with another.

jas3
178 posted on 01/16/2008 8:37:54 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

According to the peer review, it’s pretty fatally flawed. Can I expect to find the information it contains substantially different that what the peer review represents?


179 posted on 01/16/2008 8:44:08 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The question was in response to why someone would dogmatically cling to theories that aren't supported by the evidence

I'm not interested is psychoanalyzing people. Einstein resisted quantum theory to his death. Inability to change is not necessarily indicative of stupidity or dishonesty.

However, Duesberg has destroyed his career by accusing the entire worldwide medical community of being dishonest. If he were correct, the most effective thing for him to do would be continue his research and publish results without calling everyone who brings evidence contradicting his theories a liar.

Back around 1981-2000 he had a good part of the gay community on his side. He has lost that support, as he has lost the support of people like Magic Johnson.

180 posted on 01/16/2008 8:44:46 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Fair enough.


181 posted on 01/16/2008 8:57:19 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Whatever. I’m right. Your still wrong.

And we’re done.


The "nanny-nanny-poo-poo" argument is generally not considered to be authoritative in questions of medicine or science.

The fact is that you stated viruses can't be stopped. I demonstrated that they can by giving two specific examples (smallpox, which has been eliminated, and yellow fever, which is stopped via vaccine).

So then you changed your argument to claim that viruses can only be stopped with other viruses. I demonstrated that statement to also be false. Of the many types of vaccination, only one uses live, attenuated viruses. There are at least three other vaccination types which are: toxoids, subunits, and those that use dead pathogens. There are several other types of newer vaccines as well.

And we’re done.

That's about what I expect from people on this thread who make preposterously false claims when those claims are demonstrated to be patently wrong.

jas3
182 posted on 01/16/2008 9:04:53 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: jas3

There is no cure for a virus. Period.


183 posted on 01/16/2008 9:06:23 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I of course disagree with the negative characterizations of Duesberg I am reading by some on this thread. The AIDS establishment never acted responsibly with respect to Duesberg’s challenge to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. When his first paper was published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), rather than behaving like responsible scientists, the AIDS establishment bristled that the paper had escaped being “flagged” during the pre-publication process, and then they immediately launched a campaign to counter it. First they tried to persuade Peter Duesberg to recant, failing that they dispatched various generals in the War on AIDS to counter it, not once bothering to determine if Duesberg was onto something. All of this can be documented. In short, Duesberg has been surpressed by the AIDS establishment from day one.

Now, I ask you again, will you read the paper carefully or not? If you require and older paper, or a more recent paper, I can provide those too.


184 posted on 01/16/2008 9:21:45 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

That’s the biggest load of horse manure I’ve ever seen. Anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS? And repair shops cause auto accidents, too, I suppose!


185 posted on 01/16/2008 9:28:10 AM PST by dgiovan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Maybe I should have been clearer. Has the research been peer reviewed, and can you provide any of that review that supports him, or subsequent research that reproduces his results and conclusions?

So far all you've done is ask me to read it, submit that any and all criticism of it is a conspiracy of lies by the "AIDS establishment", and apparently expect it to be accepted as self-evident truth.

186 posted on 01/16/2008 9:30:59 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: jas3

Nice post #76!


187 posted on 01/16/2008 9:34:14 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Thousands of people....

My point is that there is no reason for them to die from AIDS.

The current drug regimes eliminate the virus from detection.

If they're dying of AIDS its because they won't take the drugs, or they're dying of some of the other STD's that travel with HIV.

188 posted on 01/16/2008 9:37:23 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
If they're dying of AIDS its because they won't take the drugs, or they're dying of some of the other STD's that travel with HIV.

Actually...thousands die, because they cannot get treatment.

189 posted on 01/16/2008 9:47:53 AM PST by Osage Orange (Hillary's heart is blacker, than the devils riding boots.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
There is no cure for a virus. Period.

That's your second modification to your original statement that viruses couldn't be stopped (which was wrong). Your first modification was that viruses could only be stopped with other viruses (which was also wrong).

I'm not sure how to respond to "there is no cure for a virus." I'm not even sure what you mean. I'm not even sure YOU know what you mean.

Is there also no cure for a bacteria? Or for a protozoa?

Generally it is medical conditions which are cured not viruses or bacteria or protozoa. So one would say "I have found a cure for Lyme" whereas one would not say "I have found the cure for Borrelia burgdorferi ."

The goal in HIV/AIDS research and in medicine generally is to make sick people healthy and to prevent healthy people from becoming sick.

We can achieve those goals without "curing" a virus, just as we have eliminated smallpox, nearly eliminated polio, and have reduced many other viruses to mere nuisances. So whether we agree on the semantics of the word "cure" or not isn't really relevant.

jas3
190 posted on 01/16/2008 9:52:07 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: jas3

Whatever.


191 posted on 01/16/2008 9:52:54 AM PST by Badeye (No thanks, Huck, I'm not whitewashing the fence for you this election cycle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: dgiovan
That’s the biggest load of horse manure I’ve ever seen. Anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS? And repair shops cause auto accidents, too, I suppose!

It is a Conspiracy Theory that was long ago disproven. But the original poster of this thread has been repeatedly spamming Free Republic by posting HIV/AIDS articles as a ruse so that he can go on and on about his Conspiracy Theory.

This is the 7th such thread on which I have found him doing so. His MO is to post a few lines of an HIV/AIDS article and then drop several thousands of words on his pet theory into the comments on that first post.

He operates on the strategy that if he posts the same thing over and over again, people will believe him.

Fortunately there are some MDs and scientists on FR who are willing to spend their time countering this nonsense.

jas3
192 posted on 01/16/2008 9:57:13 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Thanks.

If people are going to post long ago disproven HIV/AIDS Conspiracy Theories to Free Republic, then I’m going to post the facts so people can judge for themselves.

jas3


193 posted on 01/16/2008 10:00:13 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa; Hildy
Conor is right.

Carolyn

194 posted on 01/16/2008 10:01:27 AM PST by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
(1) AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

That is CDC propaganda and is a lie.

Evidence contradicting these assertions have been presented long ago in case reports wherein "infection was acquired by a mother (a nurse) who was providing out-of-hospital nursing care for her infant and knew standard infection control practices; an English home-care nurse who became infected for caring for an African patient; a German child infected with HIV nonsexually from his three-year-old brother; an unexplained transmission in an 11-year-old male with a two-year-old sibling and mother infected; as well as an elderly impotent male who infected his 601-year-old wife. Moreover, the CDC released three cases in which health care workers were infected from splatter type exposures, one of whom had the infected blood spilled only on her hands."

O'Connor, W.T. (1988). AIDS: The Alarming Reality. [See also: Friedland, G., Saltzman, B., et al. (1986). "Lack of transmission of HTLV-III/LAV infection to household contacts of patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex with oral candidiasis. New England Journal of Medicine, 314:6:344-349.]

195 posted on 01/16/2008 10:03:41 AM PST by nicmarlo (I hereby declare my support for Duncan Hunter. 1/10/08; late to the party, but I have arrived!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
an elderly impotent male who infected his 601-year-old wife.

should read: an elderly impotent male who infected his 61-year-old wife.

196 posted on 01/16/2008 10:05:12 AM PST by nicmarlo (I hereby declare my support for Duncan Hunter. 1/10/08; late to the party, but I have arrived!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: CDHart

What about the high percentage of victims who are kids?

Do you rejoice in their suffering?

(I know the answer)


197 posted on 01/16/2008 10:05:27 AM PST by najida (Will....will.... will....Heck, will do almost anything for Butter Pecan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==So far all you’ve done is ask me to read it, submit that any and all criticism of it is a conspiracy of lies by the “AIDS establishment”, and apparently expect it to be accepted as self-evident truth.

You were the one who requested a paper that wasn’t “too new” or “too old.” I supplied one. As for the suppression of Duesberg’s work by the AIDS establishment, I said I could document it. Why don’t you take me up on it? If you need a newer paper, I can supply it. If you need an older paper, I can supply it. I’m starting to think you are afraid to read Duesberg’s work lest you too become convinced that his work deserves to be funded.


198 posted on 01/16/2008 10:07:59 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: jas3

Thanks,
The ‘Burn the Witch’ crowd are quite annoying and tiresome.


199 posted on 01/16/2008 10:08:07 AM PST by najida (Will....will.... will....Heck, will do almost anything for Butter Pecan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
That is CDC propaganda and is a lie.

You are right that it is propaganda and it is a lie. But the propagandizer/liar is Duesberg, the author of that sentence, and not the CDC which agrees with you, me, and the rest of the scientific and medical community that HIV is contagious.

The only people who disagree are Conspiracy Theorists like Duesberg and a couple posters on this thread with no medical or scientific training or education.

jas3
200 posted on 01/16/2008 10:09:11 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson