AIDS and the House of Numbers

[IVnugzftwXX]

It's plausible that you can have HSV and not show any signs, but there is no way 1 in 4 people have herpes. That number is ridiculously over exaggerated. If 1 in 4 people had it, the virus would spread to almost the entire population immediately. The only people safe from it would be monogamous high school virgin sweethearts.

Well cold sores are considered herpes so if you think about it, 1 in 4 doesn't seem too crazy when you include genital herpes in that too.

 

[llperez22]

"Probably". The problem is that if you lived in Africa, and you were experiencing weight loss, persistent diarrhea, and persistent cough, they would probably diagnose you with AIDS, but AIDS IS NOT A DISEASE, you can't find it in the body, there are only symptoms. Each of these symptoms are easily attributed to other diseases like TB that are prevalent in malnourished and poverty stricken populations, which happen to account for about 90% of AIDS cases. All of these things get lumped together into a general category of AIDS, and this hugely inflates the numbers.

As for the populations in the Western world who have AIDS, I can address that too if you like.

well a quick google search showed a diagram of the hiv virus and how it is structured. it then states that hiv becomes classified as aids once the cd4 tcell count drops to a certain nmber. Im not sure what that all means, but it doesnt sound as simple as some random name given out that can not be measured. Ill trust the majority opinion on this one.

 

[dAfTiE]

This is a fallacy, and it is an epidemic in our world. White coat says something so it must be true, even though other white coat with equal credentials says opposite and has research to back it up, the only difference being that one is financially supported by the industry who's interests he represents or by the paradigm he is interested in preserving, and gets media backing.

I like how you went from "hey guys, I don't really have an opinion on this, but look at this interesting docu I found" to Peter Duesberg inside 20 posts.

 

[Murlik]

Yeah everybody who died of AIDS was actually suffering from some other un-diagnosed disease. That sounds way more plausible....

 

[RSmith47]

Well cold sores are considered herpes so if you think about it, 1 in 4 doesn't seem too crazy when you include genital herpes in that too.

Yeah I know cold sores and genital herpes are just the difference in HSV1 and 2 but 1 in 4 people means that shit would spread like wildfire. You sleep with 4 girls and you're exposing yourself to it. Condoms don't help either and most people kiss when they're about to get it on. There's just no way in the world that 25% of humans have it.

It's like HPV genital warts. There's no test for guys. You either have warts or you don't. What kind of crap is that? Doctors just assume that damn near everyone in the world has or has had it. It's ridiculous to assume if there isn't even a damn test for it.

 

[dAfTiE]

To see what actual science says about this, read http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths.

 

[Troublesome10]

well a quick google search showed a diagram of the hiv virus and how it is structured. it then states that hiv becomes classified as aids once the cd4 tcell count drops to a certain nmber. Im not sure what that all means, but it doesnt sound as simple as some random name given out that can not be measured. Ill trust the majority opinion on this one.

This is at least partially addressed in the first section of one of the articles I posted

"AIDS disease is generally characterised by a decline in CD4+ T lymphocytes circulating in the blood, which are responsible for cell-mediated immunity. As a result, the patient becomes susceptible to opportunistic infections (those affecting weakened immune systems) such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, meningitis, and other diseases caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses that can enter and multiply in the cells of the body.

But models that assume the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plays a central role in disease progression run into considerable difficulties. If the decline in CD4+ cells is due to HIV killing the cells, then there should be a correlation between the

 

[Troublesome10]

To see what actual science says about this, read http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths.

Oh, "science said this" ?

You speak of science as one homogenous body of like minded individuals. I'm sorry but science is not done in consensus, or at least it shouldn't be. "Denialism" is just a way to discredit anyone who doesn't tow the party line, just like "conspiracy theorist" is a term to easily discredit those who may question the status quo. It does nothing to invalidate the claims.

Most of the things mentioned in your link in turn have their own rebuttals.

 

[Striker22 redo]

Its actual ALL food allergies.

 

[tsuifuku]

But how do we know she died of AIDS? Do you realize that AIDS is not a disease? Do you understand the criteria for being diagnosed? Immune deficiency can be caused by many things including malnutrition, she may very well have been sick, but AIDS itself is just a categorization of various symptoms easily attributable to other pathogens or diseases.

Also, she was 52 when she died, not exactly old and grey, but you made it seem as if she croaked a few months after rejecting treatment, it was 20+ years. In the organization she was part of, which had I think 10 members originally, all HIV positive, all but 3 died within a couple years, the 3 that didn't were not on the drug, must be coincidence though.

She tested positive for HIV and died of a rare type of pneumonia that people with AIDS get. So did her daughter (although she refused to have her daughter tested for HIV). Her ex-boyfriend also tested positive for HIV around the same time she tested positive.

 

[MortalWombat]

The world is full of imbeciles. Or trolls. Or imbecile trolls.

 

[Real_Magi]

Not sure why you guys are arguing with the TS, he's saying that AIDS is very enigmatic, has an odd way of being diagnosed, is misdiagnosed constantly, and that the treatment will kill people alot of the time rather than the syndrome. He also stated that there hasn't been any direct scientific correlation found between HIV and AIDS.

What's to argue?

 

[SevenSamurai]

Do yourself a favor, when you have time, read the statistics and truth about AIDS now that we can gather historical perspective. In truth, the probability for contracting HIV through unprotected heterosexual sex is actually staggeringly low for woman and near miniscule for men.

However, in the beginning of the epidemic, so many people lied or denied being gay (because they didn't want to be outed -understandibly) ,lied about having an introvenios drug problem, or did not want to admit that they regularly practiced heterosexual anal sex to the medical community that the researchers (whether mistakenly or not) fed the public with hysterical misinformation based on their inaccurate understanding of who was at risk, that they ended up frightening the people not at a realistic risk anyways -back into their chastity belts. -A real shitty time to go to High School!

Although had those gays and drug users been quicker to tell the truth, perhaps it would have delayed the research and treatments that would come 8 years later because it would have been relagated to a confined Gay and Drug user disease -and which doctor is working round the clock finding cures for a disease that you can make profit on or be considered a hero for saving a rent boy or junkie back then.

 

[UKBBC]

Hi all,

Having conducted research on HIV for 8 years in the UK and USA, I really cannot stand idle to listen denialist theories.

There is too much scientific evidence to prove a causative link between HIV infection and the development of AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). I suggest people read 'The Band Played On' for an accessible historical perspective on the initial research to identify the causative agent.

Granted, AIDS is a collection of symptoms and manifests rather suddenly without any previous history (hence 'Acquired'). AIDS does not always correlate with HIV infection, as any agent that destroys the immune system can induce a state of AIDS.

The greatest evidence should be from the blood bank cases. People were developing AIDS following transfusions. Once they developed a test to identify the causative HIV
and used it to screen blood donations, they were able to stop transmission. In this illustration, it should be clear that there is a causative link between HIV and AIDS.

Should anyone wish to refute this association of HIV-AIDS, they should ask for a blood transfusion with HIV+ blood.

The human immune system is incredibly complex, and the interplay between viral dynamics and the number and function of immune cells is still so difficult to model. What is certain that an immune system is essential to prevent infection from other organisms that otherwise healthy individuals would not succumb to.

As viruses are dependent on the infected cell to reproduce, the only way to really stop the virus reproducing has been...to stop the human cells reproducing the virus...Most of the early drugs were similar to cancer chemotherapy, being non-specific inhibitors, hence causing a poisoning effect as it kills both the virus, but also some of the body's cells. Without the drugs, individuals may well die sooner.

 

[Troublesome10]

Hi all,

Having conducted research on HIV for 8 years in the UK and USA, I really cannot stand idle to listen denialist theories.

There is too much scientific evidence to prove a causative link between HIV infection and the development of AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). I suggest people read 'The Band Played On' for an accessible historical perspective on the initial research to identify the causative agent.

Granted, AIDS is a collection of symptoms and manifests rather suddenly without any previous history (hence 'Acquired'). AIDS does not always correlate with HIV infection, as any agent that destroys the immune system can induce a state of AIDS.

The greatest evidence should be from the blood bank cases. People were developing AIDS following transfusions. Once they developed a test to identify the causative HIV
and used it to screen blood donations, they were able to stop transmission. In this illustration, it should be clear that there is a causative link between HIV and AIDS.

Should anyone wish to refute this association of HIV-AIDS, they should ask for a blood transfusion with HIV+ blood.

The human immune system is incredibly complex, and the interplay between viral dynamics and the number and function of immune cells is still so difficult to model. What is certain that an immune system is essential to prevent infection from other organisms that otherwise healthy individuals would not succumb to.

As viruses are dependent on the infected cell to reproduce, the only way to really stop the virus reproducing has been...to stop the human cells reproducing the virus...Most of the early drugs were similar to cancer chemotherapy, being non-specific inhibitors, hence causing a poisoning effect as it kills both the virus, but also some of the body's cells. Without the drugs, individuals may well die sooner.

Thanks for your comments, seems you are not talking out of your ass like 90% of the people in here.
I want to ask though, who funded your research and what was it's aim(s)? Did you go into it with the assumption that HIV = AIDS and that the model was more or less accurate? It seems once the initial declaration came out that they discovered the cause of AIDS, it became politicized and research money focused on treatment and diagnosis, rather than re-examine the initial findings.

A lot of tailoring of evidence (especially numbers) to fit theories goes on in science these days and it's a real problem. It's very apparent in physics as well (M-theory, super string theory, Dark matter/energy,etc)

Also, do you have any comment on this line of thinking?

"AIDS disease is generally characterised by a decline in CD4+ T lymphocytes circulating in the blood, which are responsible for cell-mediated immunity. As a result, the patient becomes susceptible to opportunistic infections (those affecting weakened immune systems) such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, meningitis, and other diseases caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses that can enter and multiply in the cells of the body.

But models that assume the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plays a central role in disease progression run into considerable difficulties. If the decline in CD4+ cells is due to HIV killing the cells, then there should be a correlation between the

 

[Troublesome10]

The greatest evidence should be from the blood bank cases. People were developing AIDS following transfusions. Once they developed a test to identify the causative HIV
and used it to screen blood donations, they were able to stop transmission. In this illustration, it should be clear that there is a causative link between HIV and AIDS.

This is a good comment and very thought-provoking. Where can I find more information about this specifically?

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/howhivcausesaids/Pages/cause.aspx

If you exchange fluids with someone who is HIV positive you will most likely get it.

 

[Sean Buckley]

It's plausible that you can have HSV and not show any signs, but there is no way 1 in 4 people have herpes. That number is ridiculously over exaggerated. If 1 in 4 people had it, the virus would spread to almost the entire population immediately. The only people safe from it would be monogamous high school virgin sweethearts.

Maybe it's 1 in 6, I can't remember the true stat, but its very high! And just because you have herpes does not mean you will ever get an outbreak or even know you have it. Most cases will show an outbreak within 2-4 weeks, but alot of these outbreaks are very mild and go away fast, alot of people dont think they it's herpes so they wont see a doctor. There are a number of people with herpes that will never have an outbreak after the intial one.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Yeah I know cold sores and genital herpes are just the difference in HSV1 and 2 but 1 in 4 people means that shit would spread like wildfire. You sleep with 4 girls and you're exposing yourself to it. Condoms don't help either and most people kiss when they're about to get it on. There's just no way in the world that 25% of humans have it.

It's like HPV genital warts. There's no test for guys. You either have warts or you don't. What kind of crap is that? Doctors just assume that damn near everyone in the world has or has had it. It's ridiculous to assume if there isn't even a damn test for it.

When condoms are used properly it's just about imposible to transmit any STI (small exeption to HPV. And the reason science say's most people have HPV is because of the molecular make up of the virus, very easy to transmit even without intercourse. And yes the % of people with herpes is very high.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Actually, the rate of receptive homosexual infection is very high. It's exceedingly easy to get it from an anal route. This is why straight women are also at risk with bisexual men.

It's alot higher but still only about 1-300 chance of catching it with homosexual sex. But you are right anal sex is a much easier way to transmit. But Hetero Anal sex is still very low chance of getting it just for the simple fact that most hetero woman and men do not have the virus.