PDA

View Full Version : AIDS: conspiracy or reality?



zhao
18-02-2006, 05:38 PM
edit: DISCLAIMER 11 JAN. 2010

I never was, and am not interested in denying the existence of the HIV virus or AIDS, and if i was to make the same thread today it would not have such an over-sensationalist title.

What i was, and am interested in are some of the claims of the deniers and skeptics, contrary to the official story put forth by the government and medical establishment. Some of these claims, as always, are ludicrous; but others seemed reasonable and grounded in reality. And now, 4 years later, some of these claims are, partially or entirely, validated by new information revealed by Dr. Luc Montagnier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier), in an upcoming documentary film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4).

__________________________________________________ __________________


this may not be new to many of you, I just wanted to get your thoughts and opinion:

In recent times I have learnt a lot (for me. very, very little compared to how much there is to know) about alternative medicine and holistic aproaches to health and disease, as opposed to mainstream medical practice, which has increasingly come to resemble a business motivated by profit rather than what is best for people.

during the course of last year, I have met some pretty amazing people, who have given me valuable information in many areas of life, and hands on helped me recover from illness (nothing "serious"); the effectiveness of their methods are impressive and their ideas and philosophy makes sense.

to make a long story short, these people who are well educated and very knowledgeable (practicing Natural Healing doctors, Kung-Fu instructors, etc), all have no doubt in their minds that AIDS is a complete and total hoax.

I did not believe my ears when I first heard them say this, and my first response was "but I've known people who have died!", but as I learnt (again, a very little bit) more about this, I'm not so sure of my previous beliefs anymore.

from my limited understanding, the premise is basically this:

1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

2. what actually kills people is not the imaginary HIV virus, but the (very expensive) medicine which are given to patients.

the following may not be the best summary but it might suffice for now (just something I found on the internet):


"Just about everything we have been told about HIV and AIDS, for the past 20 years, is untrue. AIDS is not an infectious disease. It is not spread through sex or needle sharing, and it is only "always fatal" if one follows the medical advice.

When I first was exposed to these ideas I was shocked. The more I investigated, the more I was shocked. Did you know there is no science to support the HIV hypothesis and much that disproves it? Did you know the tests used to diagnose people with HIV were never approved for diagnostic purposes and were totally discredited since 1993? Did you know that t-cells are not a valid surrogate marker for AIDS and, in fact, healthier people have lower t-cell counts than average? Did you know the definition of AIDS was expanded several times, and cumulative totals, rather than annual figures, were given to make it look like an epidemic? Did you know that the "Hit Hard/Hit Early" and the protease inhibitors have been acknowledged failures?

Are you aware that the media has been playing with the AIDS numbers and statistics to make it look like AIDS was spreading, while it actually was on the decline? US AIDS peaked in 1993, with the last definition change, which, for the first time included healthy people with no disease in the category of AIDS.

What can we do?

First, and foremost, educate yourself. If you are taking AIDS medications, find someone who can help you safely get off of them. If you are HIV-negative, stay that way. Refuse to test. Refuse to donate blood. (Same thing as getting tested.) Encourage everyone you know to do likewise, until the invalid HIV testing is declared illegal!

Wake up, sheeple! If we don't speak out now, the truth may never come out during our lifetime. Examine the facts. AIDS numbers have already declined to pre-1985 levels. Why haven't we been getting the good news since 1993? Why do most people still believe AIDS is spreading? Why? Because the AIDS industry is waiting to announce a vaccine which will be falsely given credit for ending AIDS in the US. If we allow this happen, thousands of victims will needlessly continue to suffer drug-induced disease, discomfort, disfigurement and death as AIDS dies out in America. And the American taxpayers will be forced to finance pharmaceutical genocide in Africa in order to keep fear and the AIDS myth alive."

this book was recommended to me:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967415306/002-3202249-8213631?v=glance&n=283155

has anyone read it? anyone know about this subject (minikomi)? what are your thoughts?

Jezmi
19-02-2006, 11:24 AM
If the reason for death are the expensive drugs, why do so many people die of aids in africa where they can´t afford those drugs?

I don´t believe the human race is capable of running an operation of that scale, whilest nature can and it seems such an effective method to reduce the total population of the human race.


I do agree that the pharmaceuticals and the medical profession have a very limited view on ways to cure.

martin
19-02-2006, 11:49 AM
You've not provided any link to this 'something' you found on the Internet - needless to say, I wouldn't expect a document that uses phrases like "wake up sheeple!" to boast the slightest jot of hard scientific evidence to back up its arguments.

IdleRich
19-02-2006, 02:58 PM
"this book was recommended to me:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...glance&n=283155

has anyone read it? anyone know about this subject (minikomi)? what are your thoughts?"

On that site two of the reviews are as follows:

"How dangerous is this book and the author? Her three year old daughter is now dead from Aids. Read about it in the L.A. Times 24 September 2005. All because the author's (and her husband's) anti-science ideas of HIV as espoused in this book."

"As has been so often stated, Christine's daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died. Drs. Chanikarn Changsri and James K. Ribe assessed the cause of death to be AIDS induced pneumonia. Additionally, she had HIV induced encyphalitis. Furthermore, this brain tissue tested positive for an HIV viral core protein, a protein which is only present in those infected with HIV. Kenneth Murray in his review points to a contrary report by Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati (based on Dr. Changsri's autopsy - significantly, Dr. Al-Bayati did not examine Eliza Jane) claiming that she did not die of AIDS... in fact, that she didn't even have it! Instead, he claims she died of an acute allergic reaction to the amoxicillin prescribed to treat the pneumonia. So, I did a little background checking on this guy...
The first discovery was -- what a surprise! -- that Dr. Al-Bayati sits on the Alive and Well Advisory board, and that his "differntial diagnosis" was conducted at the parents' request. A little more digging revealed that he regularly testifies for the defense in cases where "shaken baby syndrome" causes death, nearly always ascribing the cause of death to reactions to vaccination. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?"

Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence on the theory.
I thought that it was recognised that it suits the leaders of several African countries (eg South Africa) to argue that there is no link between HIV and AIDS because they can then avoid spending money on the problem.

jenks
19-02-2006, 03:25 PM
refuse to donate blood?

good luck during your next operation, mate.

mms
19-02-2006, 05:21 PM
i think people living with hiv and working with people with hiv would disagree.
the argument falls down on the idea that it's all a put on for pharma companies when 3rd world countries and areas of africa are begging for drugs to relieve the pain and misery of the discease. It's ok for an american to claim this is a scam in the most prescription drugged country in the world.
of course as it's been said before this is a comfortable theory for countries not willing to spend money on treating these problems, which is an issue thats starting to raise it's head.

zhao
19-02-2006, 06:40 PM
why do so many people die of aids in africa where they can´t afford those drugs?

let me just say that I'm on the fence about this. just want to learn more and stir up some debate. but since these ideas are meeting with so much resistance (BIG surprise), I'll play the devil's advocate.

the answer to above is wide spread mal-nutrition, substandard health practices, and existing disease. which is also the explanation of


"How dangerous is this book and the author? Her three year old daughter is now dead from Aids. Read about it in the L.A. Times 24 September 2005. All because the author's (and her husband's) anti-science ideas of HIV as espoused in this book."

this is the kind of critique that is very effective in eliciting knee-jerk reactions in those who do not care to dig deeper. another reviewer said:

"there is not a shred of scientific evidence (unless you take the now-full-of-holes coroner's report as scientific evidence) that EJ died of AIDS. No positive HIV test, no actual signs of the pneumonia that she allegedly died from, a high T cell count ... it goes on and on. The only 'evidence' that EJ died of AIDS is that over a month into the investigation into her death, somebody leaked to the coroner's office that Christine Maggiore was the leading authority on the dissident side of the HIV/AIDS debate. Boom. EJ is now an AIDS victim. How convenient."

OFCOURSE the media would use the death of their daughter to discredit their cause. "...should be ashamed of themselves for grandstanding on the grave of an innocent child."

i think people living with hiv and working with people with hiv would disagree.

not true. I know people who have been diagnosed HIV positive that are healthier than me and you. they just refuse to take the drugs.

neupunk
19-02-2006, 07:53 PM
So your positive evidence is based on widely discredited books and anecdotal evidence about friends who have tested positive for HIV but haven't (yet) shown evidence of full-blown AIDS? How come the most vicious deniers of AIDS are those who are HIV-positive or in a high-risk group? You've mentioned statistics and stories yet backed up nothing with actual clinical data or other proof. How many people did these friends know who had AIDS (but, because of bias against treatment, had not taken drugs) who they later treated successfully? What about the many people with AIDS who had HIV but never took the drug regimen?

While there are cases of people having HIV but never presenting AIDS, and cases where preventative and treatment drugs may have hurt the patient (especially in the 80s, when treatment was even more harsh than today), where are the cases of recovered individuals who had AIDS? This sounds like total and complete garbage, which it likely is.

My sister had an acquaintance who denied the existence of AIDS but died from pneumonia after never seeking treatment. His case, I would imagine, is much more the norm among AIDS-deniers.

Also, what about the many people who have tested positive but are taking one of the modern drug cocktails and are living healthy lives? Are they taking a "special" version of the drugs that don't make you sick, or are they just resistant to the drugs (just as some people are resistant to HIV). I mean, there's semi-celeb blogger Andrew Sullivan, NBA player Magic Johnson... the drugs take a toll, but they're hardly killing these people.

infinite thought
19-02-2006, 10:46 PM
David Irving probably imagines that HIV/AIDS is a conspiracy and all.

IdleRich
20-02-2006, 08:30 AM
"there is not a shred of scientific evidence (unless you take the now-full-of-holes coroner's report as scientific evidence) that EJ died of AIDS."

I think that you (Confucius) were replying to my point with this not Jezmi's so I will answer it. If you read further down the review I copied from Amazon then you will see that the "discredited coroner's report" was produced by a doctor who examined the baby whereas the doctor who suggested that he was wrong never examined the baby only the original doctor's notes. This second doctor was then investigated as follows:

"So, I did a little background checking on this guy...
The first discovery was -- what a surprise! -- that Dr. Al-Bayati sits on the Alive and Well Advisory board, and that his "differntial diagnosis" was conducted at the parents' request. A little more digging revealed that he regularly testifies for the defense in cases where "shaken baby syndrome" causes death, nearly always ascribing the cause of death to reactions to vaccination."

I'm tempted to go with the original coroner's report to be honest.

john eden
20-02-2006, 08:32 AM
I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

Ok, first up - if all these other treatments are so brilliant, why has nobody managed to produce a lab-based study using them and then got their results published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Answers:

a) Because it is a consipiracy.
b) Because it is a load of half-baked pseudo scientific nonsense cooked up by people with nests to furnish by flogging people snake oil.

Secondly, none of the gels with my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of talking to pwas and health workers in either the UK or Uganda.

I am trying to be very calm, writing this post. This sort of thing makes me very angry.

bassnation
20-02-2006, 09:10 AM
I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

like i said on another thread, we are slowly but surely sliding back to a new dark age where people believe what makes them feel better - rather than searching for the truth, however uncomfortable it is.

droid
20-02-2006, 09:45 AM
I met someone recently who first tried to convince me that condoms dont prevent the spread of Aids (ala the Vatican's position when it comes to Africa), and when that didnt work went on to say that the disease was an American developed bio-weapon designed to wipe out the poor of the world and prevent overpopulation... ... his final gambit was (you guessed it) to tell me that Aids doesnt exist at all... pure conspiracy theory, with not an ounce of credible evidence to back any of it up...

Now Ive heard a lot about false positives, and doubts about the test itself - BUT - in the absence of any genuine research or credible evidence you cant draw conclusions based purely on anecdotes from people who have professional or personal interests...

IdleRich
20-02-2006, 09:58 AM
"We are slowly but surely sliding back to a new dark age where people believe what makes them feel better - rather than searching for the truth, however uncomfortable it is"

I think you're right here. One problem as well is the attempted even-handedness of much reporting (a commendable idea but not always appropriate). If there is an issue with one crackpot versus the rest of the world and someone is doing a feature on that issue you can bet that that crackpot's idea will get as much space as the orthodoxy.

Rambler
20-02-2006, 10:11 AM
Confucius, you are dead wrong on this. Sorry. To pick some points:


I know people who have been diagnosed HIV positive that are healthier than me and you. they just refuse to take the drugs.

This is very easy to explain of course - HIV is only a staging post to AIDS itself. It is perfectly possible to have HIV for years before it develops into AIDS; during that time you can live a healthy life - although you are infectious and should take all the necessary precautions to protect lovers, etc.


1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

Well yes, you don't die of AIDS, you die because AcquiredImmuneDeficiencySyndrome has killed you body's defence against disease - therefore you die of an existing disease (such as pneumonia) that your body can no longer defend against.

I too am getting increasingly angry at the apparently willful descent into medieval hearsay and guesswork in place of legitimate science. The recent MMR scandal in the UK (the scandal being that children died because their parents believed the pseudo-scientific bullshit propogated by the press), the whole intelligent design, ahem, 'debate' currently tearing up the US. And this AIDS conspiracy theorising bears all the same hallmarks. Give us some proper evidence, and then we'll see.

JimO'Brien
20-02-2006, 11:09 AM
"these people who are well educated and very knowledgeable (practicing Natural Healing doctors, Kung-Fu instructors, etc), "

Same on all you cynics who would doubt the word of a Kung-Fu instructor.

Paul Hotflush
20-02-2006, 11:39 AM
Another cracking thread on the Politics board! :cool:

droid
20-02-2006, 11:41 AM
Another smug comment from Paul Hotflush! :cool:

bassnation
20-02-2006, 12:03 PM
Another smug comment from Paul Hotflush! :cool:

its hard to work out what paul really thinks when we only have these one-liner witty ripostes to go by.

Slothrop
20-02-2006, 12:12 PM
I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

Ok, first up - if all these other treatments are so brilliant, why has nobody managed to produce a lab-based study using them and then got their results published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
A related question would be 'if the AIDS drugs are actually causing so many deaths in otherwise healthy people, how come this didn't show up in (peer-reviewed, reproducible double blind etc etc etc) clinical trials?'

a) Because it is a consipiracy.
b) Because it is a load of half-baked pseudo scientific nonsense cooked up by people with nests to furnish by flogging people snake oil.

Slothrop
20-02-2006, 12:23 PM
I think you're right here. One problem as well is the attempted even-handedness of much reporting (a commendable idea but not always appropriate). If there is an issue with one crackpot versus the rest of the world and someone is doing a feature on that issue you can bet that that crackpot's idea will get as much space as the orthodoxy.
*coughs* MMR

owen
20-02-2006, 12:26 PM
when seeing this thread title, was worried that dissensus suddenly turned into a meeting of stoners who took the fortean times seriously. am glad to see from the responses that it hasn't.

infinite thought
20-02-2006, 12:32 PM
Fortean Times has a lot more to recommend it than the spontaneous dangerous hippie irrationalism of the original poster.

The sheer disgustingness of posting this:


First, and foremost, educate yourself. If you are taking AIDS medications, find someone who can help you safely get off of them. If you are HIV-negative, stay that way. Refuse to test. Refuse to donate blood. (Same thing as getting tested.) Encourage everyone you know to do likewise, until the invalid HIV testing is declared illegal!

for example - 'refuse to test' - what a fantastic idea! don't give blood - you'll only be saving the lives of others fergodsake!

Thoroughly nasty stuff.

droid
20-02-2006, 12:52 PM
To be fair, there have been valid questions asked about the testing procedure, and some credible testimony as to its problems.

Doesnt mean that HIV/AIDS is a myth though...

infinite thought
20-02-2006, 01:00 PM
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.

bassnation
20-02-2006, 01:05 PM
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.

its highly irresponsible. if someone doesn't get tested on the basis of a tin foil hat theory and then goes on to infect others... thats a fair amount of culpubility (for the original author, not accusing confucious of that, obviously)

i think alternative medicine and these kind of claims should be regulated much more than it is at present.

Lichen
20-02-2006, 01:05 PM
I appreciate that Confucious is acting on behalf of the devil (though I sense he adjsuted his position to do so) , but as a parent faced with profound confusion and anxiety over the MMR jab, I recognise that ideas gain momentum, infiltrate the mainstream.


Like John Eden and Droid I believe that by and large the medical and scientific community act pro bono, and that even in this small corner of the 'net you should be armed with proper facts and some scientific weight before posting potentially lethal propoganda.

droid
20-02-2006, 01:38 PM
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.

Agreed - but, to put it in perspective - its not as if anyones going to actually follow thirdhand sensationalist medical advice from an internet forum... is it? :confused:

infinite thought
20-02-2006, 01:47 PM
Agreed - but, to put it in perspective - its not as if anyones going to actually follow thirdhand sensationalist medical advice from an internet forum... is it? :confused:

presumably not! but wouldn't have thought anyone would have posted it either...

Slothrop
20-02-2006, 02:52 PM
its highly irresponsible. if someone doesn't get tested on the basis of a tin foil hat theory and then goes on to infect others... thats a fair amount of culpubility (for the original author, not accusing confucious of that, obviously)

i think alternative medicine and these kind of claims should be regulated much more than it is at present.I wonder if there's the possibility for someone (erm, doctors, the NHS, even pharm companies) to start sueing people for libel over misreported health scares? I'm not normally a big fan of sueing people or of pharmaceutical companies but in this case they could helpfully come together and set a precedent that quoting one dubious, potentially biased, unaccredited and often demonstrably wrong source while ignoring a mass of comparatively disinterested peer reviewed material in order to hype a nonexistant health scare is a Bad Thing.

Also cf the Bad Science column, which is one of the things currently keeping the Grauniad on the side of Good.

luka
20-02-2006, 03:05 PM
i don't approve of this sanctimonious slur on stoners

'was worried that dissensus suddenly turned into a meeting of stoners who took the fortean times seriously.'

but thats another issue!

infinite thought
20-02-2006, 03:17 PM
well I think the slur on Fortean Times (more skeptical than loopy) is also a slur!

Owen doesn't mean it about stoners, he'd be a hypocrite if he did ;)

luka
20-02-2006, 03:30 PM
well, in that case, all is forgiven

Grievous Angel
20-02-2006, 03:56 PM
I think Confucious should clarify his position on this.

mms
20-02-2006, 04:19 PM
the fortean times is pretty well adjusted rigorous and sceptical on the whole - i think you are getting it mixed up with astronomy today or something wolly of that ilk..

bassnation
20-02-2006, 04:27 PM
the fortean times is pretty well adjusted rigorous and sceptical on the whole - i think you are getting it mixed up with astronomy today or something wolly of that ilk..

don't you mean astrology today? :)

astronomy today is a well-respected journal covering observable space phenomena.

funnily enough (and totally irrelevant to this debate), astrology and astronomy were once close bedfellows.

h-crimm
20-02-2006, 06:28 PM
i think you have to imagine yourself as an american to understand how you could think the existence of AIDS is debateable. (hmmm that wasnt meant to sound rude... i cant really think of a better way, so that will have to stand). i'm not going to discuss the thesis, 'cause i dont think it presents any logical argument or evidence to argue against.


what i will say is that the american doctor-patient relationship is extremely different from that relationship in the UK. For NHS doctors, the vast majority of british doctors, there is (ideally) no commercial incentive for any diagnosis. even if there is influence from big pharma to prefer certain treatments, through conferences, support and marketing to health authorities.
In america you visit your doctor expecting to have to fight for the correct treatment. to have to assert yourself or be fed junk and taked for a ride. or to be abused and ripped off. healthcare providers in america are just as likely a source of disinformation as the biotech, tobacco or automobile industries

i can believe that the tobacco cartels withheld information on the dangers of ciggarettes. but i cant believe that a public domain research consensus could be hidden and corrupted in the same way.



i dont think that means i'm blinded by my faith in a religion called science.
but it does mean faith in double blind, constantly reviewed, competitive, evidence based, open research.

minikomi
21-02-2006, 12:53 AM
Did you know there is no science to support the HIV hypothesis and much that disproves it?


I want to see the evidence which disproves this first before i comment. Pubmed, NCBI and Web of science seem to say otherwise, and these are databases of hundreds (thousands?) of journals which rely presenting results which are credible, supported and peer reviewed. Their business is to be credible and, since their readership is so usually focussed on a single scientific field, they have to ensure that they are.

I will say one thing though. One of the best indicators that a method of treating the drug is actually working is that, due to the high turnover of the virus and the (built in) innacuracies in the replication of their genetic code, mutations which are resistant to the drug will soon be produced and, due to their resistance, will proliferate. Without the selective pressure of the drug acting against the virus detrimentally, virus particles with these mutations would have no reason to increase in number. Survival of the .. not fittest as the original version is usually more virulent.. but survival of the most well adapted to the selective pressures. Well, surprise surprise, there are a lot of drug specific mutations out there. . . .

http://www.iasusa.org/pub/topics/2005/issue4/125.pdf

can i suggest a counter book?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716733870/103-9284411-0074253?v=glance&n=283155

zhao
21-02-2006, 01:35 AM
I think Confucious should clarify his position on this.

My position on this is simply to follow the oldest and best rules of life that I know:

1. trust no one.

and

2. question everything.

the sentiments thus far expressed at the suggestion that the existence of AIDS is debatable, from surprise to disbelief to ridicule to anger, I have personally felt. Yet parts of what the conspiracy supporters say makes sense, and as incredible as it would be, I don't know if it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to carry out a hoax on such a global scale.

that's all.

Melchior
21-02-2006, 06:56 AM
1. trust no one.

and

2. question everything.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of questioning of the conspiracy theorists going on in your posts however.

mms
21-02-2006, 09:03 AM
don't you mean astrology today? :)

astronomy today is a well-respected journal covering observable space phenomena.

funnily enough (and totally irrelevant to this debate), astrology and astronomy were once close bedfellows.

the sky at night! pure bunkum - patrick moore is a charlatan
yes i should stop rushing replies .. :)

mms
21-02-2006, 09:05 AM
My position on this is simply to follow the oldest and best rules of life that I know:

1. trust no one.

and

2. question everything.

the sentiments thus far expressed at the suggestion that the existence of AIDS is debatable, from surprise to disbelief to ridicule to anger, I have personally felt. Yet parts of what the conspiracy supporters say makes sense, and as incredible as it would be, I don't know if it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to carry out a hoax on such a global scale.

that's all.

this is a quick route to medically defined paranoia!
;)

stormdancer
13-03-2006, 04:58 AM
Many viruses work in specific ways to find a particular way of reproducing itself in the body.

I only have an small qualification in biology, but during my studies of blood and diseases of the blood, its fascinating and stange that the HIVirus SPECIFICALLY picks the section of the mRNA strain to do with immunity, and then reproduces itself....Almost as if it was 'programmed' to... if it was a simple virus, why not go for some other section to do with metabolism or something

I dont know many viruses that SPECIFICALLY choose where they reproduce, maybe a biology professor could enlighten me... :confused:

zhao
10-01-2010, 05:39 PM
thanks to Lanugo for posting this in another thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4

^^ what Dr. Luc Montagnier says here is completely in line with various things i have heard from AIDS sceptics who question the official story, as well as flat-out deniers who say the entire phenomenon is full of lies and largely a conspiracy:

• general health is more important to a person's well being than having or not having the virus.

• the drugs they sell (and make a LOT of money from) either help very little, do not help, or are actually harmful.

• there are a great number of people who are living extra-ordinarily healthy lives WITH the HIV virus, after switching to super conscious and healthy diets.

but of course when i brought them up in this thread with the admittedly over-sensationalist title, ideas like these were not only shot down by everyone on this forum, but used as an proof, by some, of my "kooky californian" loose screws. :rolleyes:

swears
10-01-2010, 06:57 PM
Fuck off, Zhao.

mms
10-01-2010, 06:59 PM
i was speaking to a friend who's a doctor who's phd was based on working with people with hiv and aids in South Africa just last night, he now works at a hospital in london working with kind of worse case scenario people with hiv, alcoholics, drug addicts , ppl from the third world with t.b, people who don't have capacity as a result of brain diseases that have developed as a result of hiv, very difficult job, maybe i should tell him he's a massive sheep cos a guy read it on teh internets.
Aids and hiv are very real and medical people are trying to find anyway to make the people who suffer from it better.

However, Yes people who are healthy and have h.i.v. can lead reasonably healthy lives, usually with the use of antiretrovirals and other intensive therapies as well, well the people i know who have hiv anyway, and with minimised risks of infection etc, that's not really a revelation, lucky westerners eh?

As for the drugs are a conspiracy and harmful thing, why would they be a conspiracy or harmful?
We know that western pharma companies can be dodgy and that's why third and second world companies make their own

bassbeyondreason
10-01-2010, 07:09 PM
Nothing to add, except I thought this thread was full of racism until I realised Zhao used to use the screenname "confucious".

lanugo
10-01-2010, 07:18 PM
Special Report (http://www.terrymichael.net/Htm_InteriorPages/HIV_AIDS_Special_Report.html)
End to AIDS Nearer Than We Think?
Re-appraising HIV in its 25th Anniversary Year
by Terry Michael


The 2008 Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded last Fall to French virologist Dr. Luc Montagnier [the guy from the video that zhao reposted in this thread], for discovering the “human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV, a retrovirus most of the world believes causes the amorphous health condition known as AIDS. It was an interesting choice for the Swedish Nobel committee, perhaps even more politically motivated than was the Norwegian Nobel panel’s award of the Peace Prize to President Barack Obama this year.

For two decades now, Montagnier has been backing away from the American scientific orthodoxy that HIV, by itself, can impair or destroy cell-mediated immunity to disease. This discoverer of “the virus that causes AIDS” has clearly stated that he believes a healthy body can rid itself of the purportedly always pathogenic retrovirus, with no drugs or vaccines, in just weeks with natural anti-body immune response--an assertion antithetical to what is claimed by American AIDS researchers, who faithfully believe once you are infected with HIV, nothing can rid the body of it.


The HIV=AIDS orthodox belief community encompasses hundreds of thousands of institutions and individuals: professionals and bureaucrats, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health; academic researchers seeking tens of billions of dollars in government and private grants over the past 25 years; international charities, fronted by wealthy gay and gay-friendly celebrities like Elton John, Elizabeth Taylor and Kenneth Cole; physicians, hospitals and health clinics, which promote and provide HIV tests, prescribe drugs, and treat patients; and at least five thousand, and probably more than ten thousand well-funded, self-perpetuating local non-profits operating in almost every city and urban county, as well as many rural and suburban jurisdictions in America, like “Food and Friends” in Washington, DC, which in 2008 compensated its executive director $382,000. (In a front page story Sunday, October 18, 2009, The Washington Post reported widespread fraud in local District of Columbia government grants totaling $80 million to ninety non-profit AIDS “service” organizations from 2004 to 2008.)


Chief among the drug companies that will profit from a huge leap in sales of AIDS “treatments” to Africa and which provide the profit motive force that helps sustain what critics pejoratively describe as an "HIV-AIDS Industrial Complex" is Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company in Foster City, California, near San Francisco. Gilead, whose increasing HIV-AIDS drug market share was described by CNNMoney.com on November 19, 2007, could be the most politically connected big pharmCo in the world. It was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld beginning in 1997, until he was named Defense Secretary by George W. Bush in 2001. The Gilead board of directors includes former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz and U.S. Trade Representative under President George H. W. Bush, Carla A. Hills.


HIV is the name the French and U.S. governments agreed to agree upon in 1987, to settle the messy claim that Gallo had purloined Montagnier’s virus and used it to patent a profitable assay for a set of proteins these two discoverers alleged were associated with antibodies they claimed were formed in reaction to their retroviruses. Versions of Gallo’s and Montagnier’s test are almost universally, but incorrectly, referred to in popular media as tests for the purported human immunodeficiency virus, though there is actually no commercially available test to detect whether a protein-encased, nucleic acid-based genetic code--the definition of a virus--is present in a blood sample. Makers of the “ELISA” and “Western Blot” kits, claimed as tests for HIV antibodies, do not claim they can be used to determine the presence of active HIV virus in the blood. The AIDS industry simply asserts that if you have anti-bodies, which is all the tests purport to determine, you always have the active virus, which Dr. Montagnier disputes, in the interview cited above. Some HIV=AIDS dissenters refer to the so-called “viral load” reading purported to be ascertained from the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay as a “viral load of crap.” Even the orthodox HIV=AIDS believers acknowledge that 99.99%-plus of a “viral load” reading by PCR is comprised of non-infectious virus particles, theoretically calculated from searching for only several hundred of the 10,000-or-so chromosomal “base pairs” believed to be associated with the HIV genome.

padraig (u.s.)
10-01-2010, 07:22 PM
ideas like these were not only shot down by everyone on this forum, but used as an proof, by some, of my "kooky californian" loose screws.

what else do you expect when you refer to sources like kung-fu instructors & "Natural Healing" (as opposed to "unnatural" healing I guess) doctors?

you, like most AIDS "skeptics", are a master of quoting out of context. dude in the video (who, in case you didn't know, won a Nobel for discovering that HIV causes AIDS*) doesn't say anything about "people living extraordinarily healthy lives w/HIV". btw those people are called "elite controllers", they're very rare, it has nothing to do with diet (genetics, more likely), and they're the subject of much study (tho by scientists, not kung-fu masters & witch doctors). nor does he back up in any way AIDS conspiracy guff.

the irony is that there are many legitimate questions that could be raised about the cooking of HIV-infection #s to drive profit, the interrelation between poverty & AIDS, the relation between Big Pharma & medical research, etc. you actually do people trying to raise those questions a major disservice by mixing them all up with pseudoscientific Internet denialism. especially b/c you're a dilettante, Zhao. this is just another flitting issue for you to hurl at the evil of Western science or whatever, but it's life & death to a lot of people. like the woman who's book you recommended - she died about a year ago. of pneumonia, (almost certainly) AIDS-related.

I had a good buddy with AIDS, a radical queer activist, dude who'd been around for the beginning of the epidemic, all the battles to get it recognized, the formation of ACT-UP. a man who had no love for corporate interests or the pharmaceutical industry, but he had nothing but the sheerest contempt for people who'd deny their friends had AIDS even as they wasted away to nothing in hospital beds, refusing drugs. I'm with him & John Eden - mostly this nonsense just makes me very angry.

*apropos of the post above, I notice Dr. Montagnier didn't have any qualms receiving his Nobel Prize for a theory he supposedly no longer supports

scottdisco
10-01-2010, 07:29 PM
international charities, fronted by wealthy gay and gay-friendly celebrities like Elton John, Elizabeth Taylor and Kenneth Cole

i've never liked that Kenneth Cole
:rolleyes:

zhao
10-01-2010, 07:48 PM
thanks lanugo.

Luc Montagnier is validating most of the key points which i brought up, all of which testament to the reality of the virus being not exactly, in fact in many ways quite different to, what we were told and commonly believed.

you can look at it or rephrase it how ever you want, but this is what is happening.

zhao
10-01-2010, 07:50 PM
i've never liked that Kenneth Cole
:rolleyes:

rubbish clothes for luxury car salesmen and hotel managers.

scottdisco
10-01-2010, 08:08 PM
rubbish clothes for luxury car salesmen and hotel managers.

yes, well, i'd expect a materialistic westerner such as yourself to be au fait with the world of high fashion, of course
:p

zhao
10-01-2010, 08:21 PM
yes, well, i'd expect a materialistic westerner such as yourself to be au fait with the world of high fashion, of course
:p

of course. i love fashion. this is nothing new.

lanugo
10-01-2010, 09:24 PM
@ mms & padraig (u.s.): It is quite revealing how both of you - in a strikingly similar reaction to my post - immediately try the refute the claims of the dissenters from the single pathogen theory of AIDS by refering to supporters of it that you know from the sphere of your own private lives. What seems to make the opinion of these persons relevant in regard to this matter is obviously not their level of expertise (after all it's a Nobel laureate whom you don't believe) but the fact that they are somehow involved with the current initiative that is being taken against "AIDS". You regard the merit of their effort and struggle as unquestionable and therefore simply dismiss the possibility of a truth that would expose their actions and convictions as futile and heteronomous. For you the the significance of what these people do and what they believe is beyond doubt. Everything that threatens to destroy this little private microcosm of meaning is thus to be labelled as "nonsense". It is precisely this cozy existential bubble bath paired with a ridiculous degree of self-rightneousness that lays the foundations for humanity's enslavement.

scottdisco
10-01-2010, 09:35 PM
of course. i love fashion. this is nothing new.

oh well i'll let you off then..

...@Ianugo, i'm no scientist, but is this sort of thing pertinent to the issues on this thread?


The scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data. With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.
Despite its lack of scientific acceptance, AIDS denialism has had significant political effects, especially in South Africa under the presidency of Thabo Mbeki. Scientists and physicians have raised alarm at the human cost of AIDS denialism, which discourages HIV-positive people from using proven treatments.
Public health researchers in South Africa and at Harvard University have independently investigated the effect of AIDS denialism. Their estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, along with 171,000 other HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections, to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism.

(from this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism))

obviously we can all agree w mms when they write However, Yes people who are healthy and have h.i.v. can lead reasonably healthy lives, usually with the use of drugs as well, well the people i know who have hiv anyway, and with minimised risks of infection etc, that's not really a revelation, lucky westerners eh

Dusty
10-01-2010, 09:45 PM
Luc Montagnier is validating most of the key points which i brought up, all of which testament to the reality of the virus being not exactly, in fact in many ways quite different to, what we were told and commonly believed.

Due to continued research, not because it is some conspiracy to mislead?

The virus not being exactly what we first thought isn't in the same realm as the virus being a work of fiction to support a drug industry.

zhao
10-01-2010, 09:58 PM
Due to continued research, not because it is some conspiracy to mislead?

The virus not being exactly what we first thought isn't in the same realm as the virus being a work of fiction to support a drug industry.

the likelihood of a significant amount of deliberate mis-information on the part of the pharmaceuticals exists.

and now just speculating, but possibly also served covert political agendas during the 80s, in terms of distraction, fear mongering, and aiding the decidedly turning away from the hedonism of the 70s toward new conservativism and "family values".

zhao
10-01-2010, 10:16 PM
(from this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism))
"The scientific community rejects and ignores AIDS-denialist claims as based on faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of mainly outdated scientific data. With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS-denialist material is now spread mainly through the Internet.
Despite its lack of scientific acceptance, AIDS denialism has had significant political effects, especially in South Africa under the presidency of Thabo Mbeki. Scientists and physicians have raised alarm at the human cost of AIDS denialism, which discourages HIV-positive people from using proven treatments.
Public health researchers in South Africa and at Harvard University have independently investigated the effect of AIDS denialism. Their estimates attribute 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, along with 171,000 other HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections, to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS denialism."

many of the claims of the skeptics who exist in the wide gray area between hard-core deniers and believers of the hype, and even some of the claims of the hard-core deniers, are now revealed to be much more valid than previously thought, in some cases pretty close to what is emerging as the truth (or the closest we have come to it thus far). plus:

For two decades now, Montagnier has been backing away from the American scientific orthodoxy that HIV, by itself, can impair or destroy cell-mediated immunity to disease.
perhaps that wiki needs to be updated.

i did not start this thread with denial in mind, as i had repeatedly stated; but only to point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story, and suggest that the truth lay else where.

(knee jerk reactions were of course to be expected, again not helped by the probably unwise over-sensationalist title.)

zhao
10-01-2010, 10:29 PM
what else do you expect when you refer to sources like kung-fu instructors & "Natural Healing" (as opposed to "unnatural" healing I guess) doctors?

it is only a beginning and we have a long way to go, but as changes and much needed reforms take place in the medical establishment, hopefully moving away from profit driven models and away from certain outdated cultural and "scientific" biases, holistic and natural healing methods are becoming more and more accepted and embraced.

your prejudices do a good job of displaying ignorance of a deeply indoctrinated kind, the nature of which will become more and more clear as time passes.

Dusty
10-01-2010, 10:51 PM
When it comes to alternative healing, Homeopathy has gained massive ground in the UK. That doesn't stop it being total utter bollocks.

There is always money to be made in any form of healing. Moving away from scientific bias as you put it just dumps you into realm of other people all willing to charge you by the hour.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2010, 10:57 PM
Fuck off, Zhao.

Seconded, thirded and fourthed.

Kinda funny to watch him blow any remaining credentials he may have had vis-a-vis not being a credulous hippy tool, all the same.

zhao
10-01-2010, 11:14 PM
Seconded, thirded and fourthed.

Kinda funny to watch him blow any remaining credentials he may have had vis-a-vis not being a credulous hippy tool, all the same.

you are reacting without a rudimentary understanding of what is going on.

for now, as fun as it is to act like an asshole, go to bed and sober up.

but in the morning, please read the last page or 2.

Mr. Tea
10-01-2010, 11:23 PM
I have read it. Though I could have pretty much predicted the basic course it would take without bothering to make the effort. And I'm perfectly sober, I'm just experimenting with a k-punkian disregard for niceness. Next time nomad logs on and sees this thread, she's going to demolish your arguments even more thoroughly than they've been trashed already.

scottdisco
10-01-2010, 11:32 PM
many of the claims of the skeptics who exist in the wide gray area between hard-core deniers and believers of the hype, and even some of the claims of the hard-core deniers, are now revealed to be much more valid than previously thought, in some cases pretty close to what is emerging as the truth (or the closest we have come to it thus far). plus:

perhaps that wiki needs to be updated.

perhaps it does, though it's certainly sourced well enough, but, yes, perhaps it does.

i was actually addressing Ianugo and not you, to be fair, Zhao.


i did not start this thread with denial in mind, as i had repeatedly stated; but only to point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story, and suggest that the truth lay else where.

(knee jerk reactions were of course to be expected, again not helped by the probably unwise over-sensationalist title.)

i can only speak for myself, but please don't infer i am implicitly accusing you of denial. just throwing out something to bear in mind.

after all, the cumulative effects of questioning what is proven to work in the context of the RSA, for sure contributed to many deaths (as that wiki, among other sources, remind us).

big pharma greedy, problematic, too powerful, sure, we all get that.

and i'm sure the literature on the ins and outs of HIV is changing all the time, scientific knowledge is always pushing forward after all.

btw the fear mongering in the 80s and stuff, if i understand the sketch you're broadly outlining, i think you're barking up the wrong tree there. certainly from a (necessarily parochial, but hey you guys did suffer enormously from it in the 80's) American pov, Reagan - from what little i know - was clearly a fucknut wrt the AIDS epidemic and i'm sure a lot of populist conservatism helped stoked general prejudices toward a then 'gay disease' etc etc etc, and sociologically yes the US Right was a, the big driver toward the new strait-laced times, away from the hedonism, but if i understand what you're implying - happy to be corrected, as i strongly suspect i'm misreading your implications - you are almost implying the science, emerging scientific knowledge base etc about HIV/AIDS at that time, that was used as a stick by the US Right to cow people?

i dunno man, i know science has its uses and mis-uses, and is frequently abused for political gain, but i'm not really buying that.
(as i say, i may be completely overstepping the mark in reading stuff into what you wrote on that specific bit.)

maybe the scientists struggling away in their labs, sure, some conservative pol somewhere could mis-use their research and twist it to try to fit their agenda, but i'm not going to throw the baby out w the bathwater just because somebody in the GOP or some bible basher gets a bit cute w their sources.

Slothrop
10-01-2010, 11:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&feature=player_embedded#

^^ what Dr. Luc Montagnier says here is completely in line with various things i have heard from AIDS sceptics who question the official story, as well as flat-out deniers who say the entire phenomenon is full of lies and largely a conspiracy:

• general health is more important to a person's well being than having or not having the virus.

• the drugs they sell (and make a LOT of money from) either help very little, do not help, or are actually harmful.

• there are a great number of people who are living extra-ordinarily healthy lives WITH the HIV virus, after switching to super conscious and healthy diets.

Erm, did you watch a different video from me? I don't think he said any of that. He seemed to be saying that good general health and good diet can make it easier for someone to fight off HIV infection before it becomes chronic, that containing other diseases (as in the ones that hit you once your immune system has been weakened) can reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS, and that these approaches are being underemphasized in the fight against the AIDS epidemic, presumably thanks to the influence of big pharma. That's a very different from "there are a great number of people who are living extra-ordinarily healthy lives WITH the HIV virus".

Also, I think this exhibits a classic symptom of internet conspiracy theorizing - this man first 'established' the fictional link between HIV and AIDS and is therefore a misguided dupe whose opinion isn't worth paying attention to. Until he says something you agree with, at which point his credentials are trotted out to make him an unassailable authority.

nomadthethird
11-01-2010, 02:33 AM
Oh wow.

Dissensus has some ridiculous threads but this one should win an award.

"Best Well-Meaning but Alarmingly Ignorant Conspiracy Theory On the Net"

I don't know where to start... with the nonsense about a "single pathogen theory" (whatever that is supposed to mean with regard to a virus as plastic and mutagenic as HIV)? With a primer in how HIV attacks t-cells and becomes AIDS in a host after it surpasses a viral load threshold? Stuff you could read in a 9th grade biology textbook...

The people who are living a relatively good/healthy life with HIV (and of course there are many) are doing so thanks mostly to a bunch of antiretrovirals and other very intensive therapies. Of course, they live mostly in the U.S. and western Europe (New York and California are well-known and sought out states for AIDS patients because they fully fund and subsidize AIDS treatment). The HIV/AIDS patients in the third world are lucky if they get some painkillers as they die of AIDS-related complications or if they're reeeally lucky, they find a place in a clinical trial for new meds. Just recently India and China (with two of the fastest-growing AIDS populations in the world) went off the reservation and started producing generic AIDS medications, which was basically like giving the pharma companies with patents the middle finger. So far nobody dares litigate.

But of course, these craaaazy Indian and Chinese scientists must have done that because they were brainwashed, not because millions of people are dying agonizing deaths because they have no access to state-of-the-art HIV/AIDS treatments.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 02:35 AM
It is precisely this cozy existential bubble bath paired with a ridiculous degree of self-rightneousness that lays the foundations for humanity's enslavement.

humanity's enslavement? jesus christ, isn't that just a tad melodramatic? I love it when some self-appointed internet guru declares something to be "quite revealing". yes, what a penetrating insight. dude, spare me. you know absolutely nothing about me or my motivations, so please do us both the favor of not pretending otherwise and extrapolating bullshit. that said:

you're not blowing anyone's mind. you apparently share this delusion with Zhao. it's not exactly news that the pharmaceutical industry is a shady one or that it has a potential feedback loop with medical research or whatever. even with those problems I'm far more inclined to listen to the great majority of scientists - slurred as "the orthodoxy" (as if iconoclasts are always, or even often, right) - who study a particular topic than I am message board guys yelling about human enslavement & conspiracy theories. still, as theories by their very nature will be overturned or altered, give me a holler - when there's some solid evidence.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 02:48 AM
your prejudices do a good job of displaying ignorance of a deeply indoctrinated kind, the nature of which will become more and more clear as time passes.

what are my prejudices, Zhao? how have I been indoctrinated? what exactly am I ignorant of? please, elaborate. I really doubt you can, beyond your usual vague B.S. about close-mindedness. you are the living embodiment of the danger of knowing just enough to be staggeringly wrong. you never actually say anything, cause you don't really know anything. this is, again, just another issue of the week for you throw a hissy fit about once every three years.

me, I've always been in favor of mixing Western medicine with whatever else works. the two caveats; make sure the practitioners of alternative medicine are reputable cos there is a ton of snake oil out there & it's less heavily regulated. second, alternative medicine is definitely not a substitute for vaccines or x-rays or antiretrovirals.


Dissensus has some ridiculous threads but this one should win an award.

ain't that the goddamn truth. if it was just the usual bullshit about the absence of the spiritual in our impoverished Western techno-lives I'd say whatever but this is of a different order. thankfully I don't think people take this very seriously.

nomadthethird
11-01-2010, 02:49 AM
Many viruses work in specific ways to find a particular way of reproducing itself in the body.

I only have an small qualification in biology, but during my studies of blood and diseases of the blood, its fascinating and stange that the HIVirus SPECIFICALLY picks the section of the mRNA strain to do with immunity, and then reproduces itself....Almost as if it was 'programmed' to... if it was a simple virus, why not go for some other section to do with metabolism or something

I dont know many viruses that SPECIFICALLY choose where they reproduce, maybe a biology professor could enlighten me... :confused:

All kinds of RNA viruses do this same thing, it's not uncommon or miraculous... what's really amazing about HIV is how in each host it infects it mutates into several different strains (it's "plastic"). This is why a vaccine is exceedingly unlikely, because even if a vaccine was developed for one strain, an immunized person could in fact be reinfected by another strain from another HIV-infected person. The only vaccine that would work would be one that included antibodies for a large majority of possible strains or mutations of the virus. Apparently, two vaccines that recently failed in phase 3 of trials in China were combined and retried. No one knows why, but the combination of the two failed vaccines seems to work, and the resulting vaccine may be able to immunize people against about 1/3 of HIV strains. Not perfect but definitely worth a try.

If you're interested in the science of HIV/AIDS, do a google search on David Ho.

nomadthethird
11-01-2010, 02:58 AM
what are my prejudices, Zhao? how have I been indoctrinated? what exactly am I ignorant of? please, elaborate. I really doubt you can, beyond your usual vague B.S. about close-mindedness. you are the living embodiment of the danger of knowing just enough to be staggeringly wrong. you never actually say anything, cause you don't really know anything. this is, again, just another issue of the week for you throw a hissy fit about once every three years.

me, I've always been in favor of mixing Western medicine with whatever else works. the two caveats; make sure the practitioners of alternative medicine are reputable cos there is a ton of snake oil out there & it's less heavily regulated. second, alternative medicine is definitely not a substitute for vaccines or x-rays or antiretrovirals.



ain't that the goddamn truth. if it was just the usual bullshit about the absence of the spiritual in our impoverished Western techno-lives I'd say whatever but this is of a different order. thankfully I don't think people take this very seriously.

What's funny to me about the anti-medicine folks is that they imagine medical doctors are these evil minions of big pharma who are part of a conspiracy bent on convincing people that homeopathy doesn't work and that it should be ignored--because, of course, they're afraid that people will realize that $50 bottles of milk thistle caplets are the real deal and abandon Western medicine forever. In reality, doctors push "holistic" practices all the time, especially to people who are suffering from generalized, non-specific or vague symptoms. I wish I had a dollar for every time a primary care physician referred someone to an osteopath FFS. I'd be fucking Warren Buffet by now. Or to an acupunturist to help someone quit smoking. Etc.

Nobody understands better than doctors that people need to limit stress and make time for calm and relaxation and good nutrition. It's just that doctors are fighting a society that's out of control when it comes to consumption. Doctors can only treat the patients they get as they present with symptoms. Sometimes this means they'll have to hand out a lipitor script to someone who *could* just lose weight and exercise, in order to keep them from dying. Unfortunately, even doctors with the best of intentions can't force their patients to stop eating saturated fats and lying on the couch all the time.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 03:42 AM
David Ho

I dunno anything about vaccines, but I though the idea of the cocktail (HAART) approach was to cast a wide net, i.e. target HIV at as points as possible. one of which is inhibiting the HIV-1 protease - the protease inhibitors that Dr. Ho is famous for. I'm not an expert by any stretch but to elaborate a bit for anyone interested (nomad & anyone else who's studied biology probably knows all this) - replication is normally a very complicated affair that can be regulated at numerous different levels. the cocktail drugs are inhibitors - most of them prevent an enzyme from catalyzing a specific reaction either replication or afterward. some of them alter cell receptors so HIV can't bind them. or whatever. the problem with HIV's mutagenic abilities is that everything with proteins is really specific, so a tiny change in amino acid sequence can mean the inhibitor no longer recognizes the molecule its supposed to inhibit or alter. then its worthless. plus, of course, drug resistance & the side effects. it's really, really tough tho, cause it's all so complicated, so many factors all acting on each other. if you change one thing, it's apt to change all these other things, unintended consequences (hence elderly people on this drug wheel where everything is counteracting the side effect of something else).

there's a lot of this stuff in the loop tho. gene therapy, induced pluripotent stem cells, etc. it's kinda the future of medicine.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 03:57 AM
even doctors with the best of intentions can't force their patients to stop eating saturated fats and lying on the couch all the time

this is the very reason I want to go into emergency medicine. you either fix it or you hand it off to a specialist. I don't think I could handle a life spent begging people to eat right and stop smoking. I'd go nuts in 6 months.

also co-sign the bit about many doctors (and nurses, EMS personnel, dietitians) promoting non-Western medicine 100%. that's been the case for a while now. the IVF clinic my mom works at regularly farms patients out to a holistic medicine center. I'm sure many doctors are wary of con artists but that's hardly the same thing as being biased against the arts themselves. the difference with AIDS skeptics is that they promote refusal of Western medicine rather than a combination of the two approaches.

zhao
11-01-2010, 05:40 AM
When it comes to alternative healing, Homeopathy has gained massive ground in the UK. That doesn't stop it being total utter bollocks.

There is always money to be made in any form of healing. Moving away from scientific bias as you put it just dumps you into realm of other people all willing to charge you by the hour.

the difference between medical establishment methods and natural healing methods are often this kind:

surgery, prescription drugs, hospitalization VS. change of diet and large amount of herbs everyday

bone transplant VS. acupuncture


In reality, doctors push "holistic" practices all the time, especially to people who are suffering from generalized, non-specific or vague symptoms. I wish I had a dollar for every time a primary care physician referred someone to an osteopath, ... Or to an acupunturist to help someone quit smoking. Etc.


co-sign the bit about many doctors (and nurses, EMS personnel, dietitians) promoting non-Western medicine 100%. that's been the case for a while now.

yes, we have come a long way. for it was only recently Ancient Methods (including noise techno :D) such as acupuncture have started to become recognized by the establishment.


The oldest known text on acupuncture, the Systematic Classic of Acupuncture, dates back to 282 A.D.

In the early 1900s, only a few Western physicians who had visited China were fascinated by acupuncture, but outside of Asian-American communities it remained virtually unknown until the 1970s.

Today acupuncture is being practiced in all 50 states by over 9,000 practitioners, with over 4,000 MDs including it in their practices. Acupuncture has shown notable success in treating many conditions, and over 15 million Americans have used it as a therapy. Acupuncture, however, remains largely unsupported by the medical establishment. The American Medical Association has been resistant to researching it, as it is based on concepts very different from the Western scientific model. - Douglas Dupler (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0000/ai_2603000002/)


Mainstream medicine has been slow to accept acupuncture; although more MDs are using it, the American Medical Association does not recognize it as a specialty. The reason for this is that the mechanism of acupuncture is difficult to scientifically understand or measure, such as the invisible energy of chi in the body. Western medicine, admitting that acupuncture works in many cases, has theorized that the energy meridians are actually part of the nervous system and that acupuncture relieves pain by releasing endorphins, or natural pain killers, into the bloodstream. Despite the ambiguity in the biochemistry involved, acupuncture continues to show effectiveness in clinical tests, from reducing pain to alleviating the symptoms of chronic illnesses, and research in acupuncture is currently growing. The Office of Alternative Medicine of the National Institute of Health is currently funding research in the use of acupuncture for treating depression and attention-deficit disorder. from Medical Dictionary (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/acupuncture)


(speaking about a study on acupuncture)...Dr Richard Halvorsen, a GP and press officer for the British Medical Acupuncture Society, said: “It indicates a complete change in the way that the medical establishment views complementary therapies.” The study was commissioned in 1998 to “investigate the scientific basis and efficacy of acupuncture and the quality of training and standards of competence in its practitioners.”


what are my prejudices, Zhao? how have I been indoctrinated? what exactly am I ignorant of? please, elaborate.

your insinuation that the citing of natural healing doctors is reasonable ground for an argument's dismissal on the previous page, before changing your tune below, indicated the same kind of prejudice that is, much less common than merely decades ago, but still wide spread in western medical establishment.


me, I've always been in favor of mixing Western medicine with whatever else works. the two caveats; make sure the practitioners of alternative medicine are reputable cos there is a ton of snake oil out there & it's less heavily regulated. second, alternative medicine is definitely not a substitute for vaccines or x-rays or antiretrovirals.

and alternative medicine is not as regulated as it should be precisely because the establishment is slow to overcome its biases and recognize many practices as legitimate.

lets bring this conversation away from abstraction, generalized and cliche statements, and down to earth, to the actual, physical, everyday.

a first person account:

a few years ago i fell ill. high fever, nausea, stomach hurt, could not keep food down. but no headache or any other symptom of influenza or related.

after 2 days of this, with conditions getting worse, i chose not to go to the hospital on suggestion of a friend, and went to a natural healing doctor instead.

after listening to my symptoms, he felt my abdomen with his hand, and after a few minutes, told me that the problem was what he had thought: that there is a blockage in a section of my intestine, which was not allowing food to pass, and it was becoming infected. and that this is due to damage of parts of my intestine from unhealthy eating habits over the years, which had become more narrow than before.

and then he put Two Fingers (oh man all these music nerd puns) on where the problem was, and pressed down, about as hard as you would press during a hard massage, until a little "bloop" was heard. he told me that in the next 24 hours i will be going to the bathroom a lot, and that i was healed -- i did and i was. he charged me 50 USD for about 15 minutes of his time.

if i had gone to hospital, they would have cut me open, remove the section of intestine with the blockage, and possibly replaced it with another depending on size, and i would have been in the hospital for months until it healed -- not good at estimating cost but safe to say that it would have been significantly more than 50 USD.

____________

Padraig and Nomad, you are saying reasonable things, and it sounds like we are not on the opposite ends of any kind of dichotomy. but even if we were, there is hardly ground for aggressive opposition.


the difference with AIDS skeptics is that they promote refusal of Western medicine rather than a combination of the two approaches.

i certainly am not interested in refusing western medicine or denying its value, and never have been.

remember you are speaking to someone who has benefited from the effects of western medicine such as LSD and MDMA for many years :)

zhao
11-01-2010, 08:16 AM
about HIV / AIDS:

1. what Dr. Luc Montagnier is saying is radically different from what the government/medical establishment has been saying since the 1980s.

2. what Dr. Luc Montagnier is saying in many ways sympathizes with and if not completely, at least partially, validates some of the claims of the skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and deniers.

mms
11-01-2010, 08:35 AM
@ mms & padraig (u.s.): It is quite revealing how both of you - in a strikingly similar reaction to my post - immediately try the refute the claims of the dissenters from the single pathogen theory of AIDS by refering to supporters of it that you know from the sphere of your own private lives. What seems to make the opinion of these persons relevant in regard to this matter is obviously not their level of expertise (after all it's a Nobel laureate whom you don't believe) but the fact that they are somehow involved with the current initiative that is being taken against "AIDS". You regard the merit of their effort and struggle as unquestionable and therefore simply dismiss the possibility of a truth that would expose their actions and convictions as futile and heteronomous. For you the the significance of what these people do and what they believe is beyond doubt. Everything that threatens to destroy this little private microcosm of meaning is thus to be labelled as "nonsense". It is precisely this cozy existential bubble bath paired with a ridiculous degree of self-rightneousness that lays the foundations for humanity's enslavement.

what the fuck are you talking about?

mms
11-01-2010, 08:52 AM
the difference between medical establishment methods and natural healing methods are often this kind:

surgery, prescription drugs, hospitalization VS. change of diet and large amount of herbs everyday

bone transplant VS. acupuncture





yes, we have come a long way. for it was only recently Ancient Methods (including noise techno :D) such as acupuncture have started to become recognized by the establishment.









your insinuation that the citing of natural healing doctors is reasonable ground for an argument's dismissal on the previous page, before changing your tune below, indicated the same kind of prejudice that is, much less common than merely decades ago, but still wide spread in western medical establishment.



and alternative medicine is not as regulated as it should be precisely because the establishment is slow to overcome its biases and recognize many practices as legitimate.

lets bring this conversation away from abstraction, generalized and cliche statements, and down to earth, to the actual, physical, everyday.

a first person account:

a few years ago i fell ill. high fever, nausea, stomach hurt, could not keep food down. but no headache or any other symptom of influenza or related.

after 2 days of this, with conditions getting worse, i chose not to go to the hospital on suggestion of a friend, and went to a natural healing doctor instead.

after listening to my symptoms, he felt my abdomen with his hand, and after a few minutes, told me that the problem was what he had thought: that there is a blockage in a section of my intestine, which was not allowing food to pass, and it was becoming infected. and that this is due to damage of parts of my intestine from unhealthy eating habits over the years, which had become more narrow than before.

and then he put Two Fingers (oh man all these music nerd puns) on where the problem was, and pressed down, about as hard as you would press during a hard massage, until a little "bloop" was heard. he told me that in the next 24 hours i will be going to the bathroom a lot, and that i was healed -- i did and i was. he charged me 50 USD for about 15 minutes of his time.

if i had gone to hospital, they would have cut me open, remove the section of intestine with the blockage, and possibly replaced it with another depending on size, and i would have been in the hospital for months until it healed -- not good at estimating cost but safe to say that it would have been significantly more than 50 USD.

____________



my mum was referred to the doctor by her acupuncturist and the doctors did key hole surgery on her brain tumour, thank god she would have died else, good news eh? irrelevant here though.

scottdisco
11-01-2010, 09:19 AM
about HIV / AIDS:

1. what Dr. Luc Montagnier is saying is radically different from what the government/medical establishment has been saying since the 1980s.

2. what Dr. Luc Montagnier is saying in many ways sympathizes with and if not completely, at least partially, validates some of the claims of the skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and deniers.

which government? there's certainly been differences of opinion between (to, er, say the least), between different govts on HIV/AIDS since the 80's.

as Slothrop noted earlier Erm, did you watch a different video from me? I don't think he said any of that. He seemed to be saying that good general health and good diet can make it easier for someone to fight off HIV infection before it becomes chronic, that containing other diseases (as in the ones that hit you once your immune system has been weakened) can reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS, and that these approaches are being underemphasized in the fight against the AIDS epidemic, presumably thanks to the influence of big pharma. That's a very different from "there are a great number of people who are living extra-ordinarily healthy lives WITH the HIV virus".

this is what i saw too.

of course i'm no scientist, but given Nomad and Padraig have already taught me more in this thread than i knew at all, i'm less inclined to treat Ianugo's toys-out-of-pram grandstanding w any patience this morning.

i note that that 'libertarian Democrat' guy, Terry Michael, that Ianugo quoted on page 4 of this thread, as well as being a self-professed AIDS denialist, is also a climate change sceptic.

this has nothing to do, necessarily, with his views on the great HIV swindle, but, similarly, Zhao, your acupuncture tale (i'm glad for you man, of course) has as about as much to do w shoring up (or otherwise) your opening, tentative gambit on this thread, which was

1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

2. what actually kills people is not the imaginary HIV virus, but the (very expensive) medicine which are given to patients.

and let's drop/move away from the "aggressive opposition" shout you made. sure, someone told you to fuck off but rather than turn the other cheek, you called my buddy Tea an asshole a couple of pages back, so seems like clean records on this are hard to find, eh.

perhaps you would care to address what Nomad said when she wrote

The people who are living a relatively good/healthy life with HIV (and of course there are many) are doing so thanks mostly to a bunch of antiretrovirals and other very intensive therapies. Of course, they live mostly in the U.S. and western Europe (New York and California are well-known and sought out states for AIDS patients because they fully fund and subsidize AIDS treatment). The HIV/AIDS patients in the third world are lucky if they get some painkillers as they die of AIDS-related complications or if they're reeeally lucky, they find a place in a clinical trial for new meds. Just recently India and China (with two of the fastest-growing AIDS populations in the world) went off the reservation and started producing generic AIDS medications, which was basically like giving the pharma companies with patents the middle finger. So far nobody dares litigate.

But of course, these craaaazy Indian and Chinese scientists must have done that because they were brainwashed, not because millions of people are dying agonizing deaths because they have no access to state-of-the-art HIV/AIDS treatments.

i appreciate you may want to reply to a lot of people on the thread, but i'd love to read your responses to this man, so let's see what you think. nice one.

zhao
11-01-2010, 11:44 AM
which government?

i was referring to the US government. and the stuff i and everyone else was told: "you get it, you die. end of story."


your acupuncture tale (i'm glad for you man, of course) has as about as much to do w shoring up (or otherwise) your opening, tentative gambit on this thread, which was

1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

2. what actually kills people is not the imaginary HIV virus, but the (very expensive) medicine which are given to patients..

those statements comprise what i had heard of the denialists' position, and nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, will you find anything stating that it is MY position.

i clearly said in the opening post: "check this out guys, i heard these people who are not obvious morons, say this CRAZY STUFF right? and i was wondering what you thought about it"

but you people are bent on making me into an AIDS denier. :rolleyes:

and my natural healing story was my personal experience with alternative medicine, which people have insinuated is a sham over and over (albeit some backing away from this position later)


and let's drop/move away from the "aggressive opposition" shout you made. sure, someone told you to fuck off but rather than turn the other cheek, you called my buddy Tea an asshole a couple of pages back, so seems like clean records on this are hard to find, eh.

when people make points, even in a dishonest fashion, i almost always address them. but when people come in with nothing but expletives, i see nothing wrong with calling an Asshole an Asshole.


perhaps you would care to address what Nomad said when she wrote

The people who are living a relatively good/healthy life with HIV (and of course there are many) are doing so thanks mostly to a bunch of antiretrovirals and other very intensive therapies. Of course, they live mostly in the U.S. and western Europe (New York and California are well-known and sought out states for AIDS patients because they fully fund and subsidize AIDS treatment). The HIV/AIDS patients in the third world are lucky if they get some painkillers as they die of AIDS-related complications or if they're reeeally lucky, they find a place in a clinical trial for new meds. Just recently India and China (with two of the fastest-growing AIDS populations in the world) went off the reservation and started producing generic AIDS medications, which was basically like giving the pharma companies with patents the middle finger. So far nobody dares litigate.

But of course, these craaaazy Indian and Chinese scientists must have done that because they were brainwashed, not because millions of people are dying agonizing deaths because they have no access to state-of-the-art HIV/AIDS treatments.

i appreciate you may want to reply to a lot of people on the thread, but i'd love to read your responses to this man, so let's see what you think. nice one.

sure in places of the world where a complete lifestyle change and radical dietary therapy is not available, drugs can, and do help.

again, i never ever said that I BELIEVE the HIV virus does not exist, and that all AIDS medication are made with cyanide.

zhao
11-01-2010, 11:46 AM
my mum was referred to the doctor by her acupuncturist and the doctors did key hole surgery on her brain tumour, thank god she would have died else, good news eh?

good news indeed. I am happy for her.


i certainly am not interested in refusing western medicine or denying its value, and never have been.

scottdisco
11-01-2010, 12:01 PM
i was referring to the US government. and the stuff i and everyone else was told: "you get it, you die. end of story."

cool. i'm talking about the South African govt. given ideological comfort by sceptics, denialists and so on, they went on a bit of a crazy kick (the ideological comfort was a large contributory factor), and bad things happened. (to understate disgracefully.) tbf we are kinda talking past each other atm, no harm done eh :cool:

that said, things posted up-thread by the likes of nomad and mms would suggest that being 'told "you get it, you die. end of story"' is not perhaps quite the whole case, and these are two Dissensians living - respectively - in the USA and UK, two wealthy economies w plenty of big pharma, who have probably also been lectured at by their govts from time to time.
and yet they're not recalling the lecture in quite the same way as you.

ah well.

(is there a *shrugs* icon?)


those statements comprise what i had heard of the denialists' position, and nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, will you find anything stating that it is MY position.

i clearly said in the opening post: "check this out guys, i heard these people who are not obvious morons, say this CRAZY STUFF right? and i was wondering what you thought about it"

but you people are bent on making me into an AIDS denier. :rolleyes:

er. perhaps you missed the post about two pages ago where i state


i can only speak for myself, but please don't infer i am implicitly accusing you of denial. just throwing out something to bear in mind.


again, i never ever said that I BELIEVE the HIV virus does not exist, and that all AIDS medication are made with cyanide.

oh. this again.


i can only speak for myself, but please don't infer i am implicitly accusing you of denial. just throwing out something to bear in mind.

i apologise if it seems i didn't make this clear enough.

zhao
11-01-2010, 12:47 PM
right-O mister disc-O... i forgot about your disclaimer.

but for rest of the board/world, no matter how many times i make the point

I AM NOT AN AIDS DENIER.

it will likely not be enough... there will always be knee jerk reactions when popular accepted views are questioned.

there are some similarities to how i feel about 9/11. it is of course absurd to deny that it happened, but there are things that the deniers point out that we should pay attention to...

swears
11-01-2010, 01:32 PM
Some points worth discussing:

*The holocaust never actually happened

*It was a fiction invented in the 1960s by zionists to promote a worldwide Jewish conspiracy

*Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and are secretly evil lizard people

Please keep in mind that these aren't MY opinions but some horseshit I found down the back of the internet and thought I'd share with you for some obscure reason.

john eden
11-01-2010, 01:55 PM
Some points worth discussing:

*The holocaust never actually happened

*It was a fiction invented in the 1960s by zionists to promote a worldwide Jewish conspiracy

*Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and are secretly evil lizard people

Please keep in mind that these aren't MY opinions but some horseshit I found down the back of the internet and thought I'd share with you for some obscure reason.

I think those are really interesting questions you are raising there Swears, but be warned!

For some reason people tend to get a bit emotional when such questions are raised here - it's almost as if they don't like media-sponsored consensus reality to be questioned too much as it makes them feel insecure!

scottdisco
11-01-2010, 02:36 PM
sure in places of the world where a complete lifestyle change and radical dietary therapy is not available, drugs can, and do help.

again, i never ever said that I BELIEVE the HIV virus does not exist, and that all AIDS medication are made with cyanide.

this is basically the heart of the matter, from your pov, correct?

i just want to you to stay on-topic, if you can stay on-topic perhaps those w some scientific knowledge can have a fruitful debate w you.

obviously Swears was OTM in his response to your 9/11 mention, you really should scratch that shit from the thread, still, most Politics threads on Dissensus eventually have to mention the USA, UK or (especially) Israel in a very bad light, but we've only been going six pages here, the thread is still young!

so, question for you:

you'd like - where appropriate, in wealthy, stable, mature democracies etc (so hence your caveat that the drugs do work in places like Zimbabwe), where people are able to do so - to scratch the drugs and focus on some holistic nutritive approach and be alright from that pov?

this is basically to get down to brass tacks w what you're saying, yes?
i just want to be clear.

or, you are not advocating anything so forceful, you're more just interested in a generalised, naturally curious, re-assessment (as you see it) of conventional wisdom, and see where it leads? (what w new research coming at us etc.)

p.s.
that said the Je, sorry, i mean Zionist Lobby, is more malign and more powerful and more singularly, exceptionally loathsome than any other lobby group or organisation on earth.

i know this is true, as i read it in The New Statesman.

Swears and Eden of all folks should be aware of this.

mms
11-01-2010, 02:44 PM
this is basically the heart of the matter, from your pov, correct?

i just want to you to stay on-topic, if you can stay on-topic perhaps those w some scientific knowledge can have a fruitful debate w you.

obviously Swears was OTM in his response to your 9/11 mention, you really should scratch that shit from the thread, still, most Politics threads on Dissensus eventually have to mention the USA, UK or (especially) Israel in a very bad light, but we've only been going six pages here, the thread is still young!

so, question for you:

you'd like - where appropriate, in wealthy, stable, mature democracies etc (so hence your caveat that the drugs do work in places like Zimbabwe), where people are able to do so - to scratch the drugs and focus on some holistic nutritive approach and be alright from that pov?

this is basically to get down to brass tacks w what you're saying, yes?
i just want to be clear.

or, you are not advocating anything so forceful, you're more just interested in a generalised, naturally curious, re-assessment (as you see it) of conventional wisdom, and see where it leads? (what w new research coming at us etc.)

p.s.
that said the Je, sorry, i mean Zionist Lobby, is more malign and more powerful and more singularly, exceptionally loathsome than any other lobby group or organisation on earth.

i know this is true, as i read it in The New Statesman.

Swears and Eden of all folks should be aware of this.

One of the people i know who has hiv works in a drop in centre for hiv, he gives practical and useful advice and discusses treatments with people who have hiv, one of these is of course, the more holistic lifestyle treatments of physical therapy, diet, exercise etc, as well as all the practical and emotional support a person with hiv might need. These treatments recognise the benefits of all these things are completely standard, but meds are also crucial too.

swears
11-01-2010, 02:51 PM
Zhao, if you believe the AIDS virus is real, then what is the point of even mentioning the opinions of denialist nutters in the first place? What bearing does it have on a serious discussion?

zhao
11-01-2010, 02:56 PM
so you upstanding and clear headed citizens, Swears and Eden, Nomad and Padraig, in full possession of your rational faculties, and immune from the quacks' silly delusions and the cranks' absurd paranoia, let me ask you this:

how do you account for the huge disparity between

1. the official HIV/AIDS story that a large part of the world has been told since the 1980s, i.e. "no cure: you get it you die", and

2. what Dr. Luc Montagnier is saying in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4), that it is reversible with a super healthy lifestyle?

do you think

A. Dr. Luc Montagnier is out of his mind, or

B. they were honest mistakes made by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies, which went uncorrected for 30 years?

i look forward to your sober and enlightening explanation, which will hopefully cure me of my crack-pot fantasies.

zhao
11-01-2010, 03:01 PM
Zhao, if you believe the AIDS virus is real, then what is the point of even mentioning the opinions of denialist nutters in the first place? What bearing does it have on a serious discussion?

because they point to real problems in the official story which needs to be addressed, and bring up legitimate information on the matter which needs to be evaluated. many things these people talk about can not be so easily dismissed, as convenient as that would be.

and some of what these "nutters" have been saying for many years is at least partially validated by this new information coming out.

baboon2004
11-01-2010, 03:06 PM
p.s.
that said the Je, sorry, i mean Zionist Lobby, is more malign and more powerful and more singularly, exceptionally loathsome than any other lobby group or organisation on earth.

i know this is true, as i read it in The New Statesman.


Ha! I was working there as an intern when one of the senior Jewish bodies in the UK (not sure of the name, sorry) sent its representatives to complain about the NS's particularly ill-judged "Kosher conspiracy" front cover. Oh to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting...

zhao
11-01-2010, 03:14 PM
question for you:

you'd like - where appropriate, in wealthy, stable, mature democracies etc (so hence your caveat that the drugs do work in places like Zimbabwe), where people are able to do so - to scratch the drugs and focus on some holistic nutritive approach and be alright from that pov?

i am not a doctor, but i have no good reason to doubt 2 things:

1. the honesty of people i know, respect, and would trust with my own life (and have, to my benefit), their accounts of HIV positives who lead 100% healthy lives without any prescription medication, and

2. what Dr. Luc Montagnier, probably the single most reliable source of information and qualified professional expert on this matter in the world, is saying about it (which sounds very much similar to what the above people have maintained for a long time.)

so, if tomorrow i find out that i should not have had drunken unprotected sex in the back room of that afterhours club in Budapest 3 years ago, and have contracted the HIV virus -- well i would do a lot more research on it first, but based on what i know today -- i would change my lifestyle completely, become a vegan raw foodist, and eat massive amounts of herbs every day, without prescribed medicine.


or, you are not advocating anything so forceful, you're more just interested in a generalised, naturally curious, re-assessment (as you see it) of conventional wisdom, and see where it leads? (what w new research coming at us etc.)

this also sounds good. since there is no rush to get to the bottom of it (last check up was 6 months ago and i haven't been messing around), i will be following the story as it develops.

john eden
11-01-2010, 03:21 PM
how do you account for the huge disparity between the official HIV/AIDS story that a large part of the world has been told since the 1980s, i.e. "no cure: you get it you die", and ...

Is there a cure for AIDs now? No there isn't.

Will everyone who has AIDs die, at some point? Yes they will.

Am I going to watch the video? No I am not.

Does that make me biased or blinkered? Yes it does.

zhao
11-01-2010, 03:24 PM
Is there a cure for AIDs now? No there isn't.

Will everyone who has AIDs die, at some point? Yes they will.

Am I going to watch the video? No I am not.

Does that make me biased or blinkered? Yes it does.

yes there is a "cure" now.

if you are not going to review the information provided, on which this conversation is based, you have no place in it, and your statements are irrelevant.

john eden
11-01-2010, 03:27 PM
yes there is a "cure" now.

if you are not going to review the information provided, on which this conversation is based, you have no place in it, and your statements are irrelevant.

Ha! You're just uncomfortable with my alternative reality, Zhao. C'mon, admit it. :)

swears
11-01-2010, 03:43 PM
because they point to real problems in the official story which needs to be addressed, and bring up legitimate information on the matter which needs to be evaluated. many things these people talk about can not be so easily dismissed, as convenient as that would be.

and some of what these "nutters" have been saying for many years is at least partially validated by this new information coming out.

Either AIDS is real or it isn't. If you are of the opinion that it can be cured by "massive amounts of herbs", fine. But the fact still stands that if it is real, then what the denialists say can be discounted, right?

zhao
11-01-2010, 03:53 PM
if it is real, then what the denialists say can be discounted, right?

no, not entirely. for they bring up things such as perfectly healthy people who have taken no prescription medication, who have been HIV positive for more than a decade. things which can not be easily discounted, rendering the official story problematic.

zhao
11-01-2010, 03:54 PM
Ha! You're just uncomfortable with my alternative reality, Zhao. C'mon, admit it. :)

go smoke some pot, dad. :)

scottdisco
11-01-2010, 04:24 PM
a quick google reveals stories of long-term survivors like long-time AIDS diagnosed Cameron Siemers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13072762/), or long-time HIV positively diagnosed Kai Brothers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/health/04iht-snlive.html), or long-time HIV positively diagnosed Michael Shernoff (http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art2469.html) (this last one a touching, hopeful piece written by Shernoff himself).

plenty of David Ho in a couple of those articles, btw.

a few things stand out from these articles. one is that research continues to see what factors might be responsible (or contributing) to these sorts of people being with us still (genetics, whatever).

another is that a lot of their peers have passed away from the bug. (how awful for them.) so, most people, die. just to re-iterate. not everyone, but most people.

the third comes near the start of that first link, a piece filed by a small, independent, fiercely contrarian newsagency AP, on the website of little-known news blog MSNBC.


Twenty-five years after federal health officials first recognized the disease that would become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS no longer is synonymous with terminal illness.

my point w the sarcasm, Zhao, is that some of your contentions about the establishment here, and its blinkered approach, sound to me a bit straw-mannish.

what, so, a major pillar of the American media can write something the like of which i've just excerpted above and you will maintain that everyone, everywhere else is still parroting the 'catch it and die' line?

everyone?

really?

i think, just maybe, if you dialed down the -truth-seeker-speaking-to-power schtick, you might get a less, er, feisty response on the thread.. :cool:

P.S.


Once a month Brothers visits the laboratory of Jay Levy, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who is director of the university's laboratory for tumor and AIDS virus research. Since the epidemic began in 1981, Levy has been trying to understand why Brothers and others who are HIV-positive can remain medicine-free yet fit for decades while the average person with HIV progresses to AIDS within 10 years, if untreated.

An answer to that question could help in the development of a vaccine...
Although many survivors attribute their good health to exercise, positive thinking, visualization or egg whites, Levy said it was all about genetics. When his subjects ask him why they're surviving so long, Levy said, he tells them, "You chose the right parents."

swears
11-01-2010, 04:50 PM
no, not entirely. for they bring up things such as perfectly healthy people who have taken no prescription medication, who have been HIV positive for more than a decade. things which can not be easily discounted, rendering the official story problematic.

So what? The "official" story is that there are a number of people genetically inclined to survive longer than others. And obviously lifestyle plays a part in living with any infectious condition. Big whup.


...well i would do a lot more research on it first, but based on what i know today -- i would change my lifestyle completely, become a vegan raw foodist, and eat massive amounts of herbs every day, without prescribed medicine.

This herbal cure for AIDS is a revelation, Zhao! You have to share it with the world. What herbs are needed to ward off full blown AIDS and how exactly do they work to prevent the immune system from breaking down?

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 10:00 PM
the difference between medical establishment methods and natural healing methods are often this kind:

surgery, prescription drugs, hospitalization VS. change of diet and large amount of herbs everyday

bone transplant VS. acupuncture

the same kind of prejudice that is, much less common than merely decades ago, but still wide spread in western medical establishment.

alternative medicine is not as regulated as it should be precisely because the establishment is slow to overcome its biases and recognize many practices as legitimate.

what experience do you have with "the medical establishment" (also, what do you mean - be specific - by "medical establishment"), beside as a patient? have you ever worked in any medical field? studied any kind of medicine, Western or otherwise? have you ever studied nutrition, or herbs, or acupuncture? b/c your views on medicine come off as overwhelmingly - to use one of your favorites - ignorant of everything having to do with medicine. I'm glad a dude once cured your stomach with his magic touch but that absolutely doesn't give you the authority to make sweeping proclamations on the topic.

there is no such thing as "natural healing". what the hell is unnatural healing? is synthetically produced insulin unnatural? I suppose we should tell Type I diabetics to control their insulin levels with diet & herbs. are vaccines unnatural? organ transplants? are surgery & drugs always unnatural or only when you say they are? also, is faith healing "natural"? exorcisms?

DO YOU SEE HOW BADLY THOUGHT OUT YOUR FALSE DICHOTOMY OF NATURAL HEALING VS. "ESTABLISHMENT" IS?

bias - sometimes warranted - against various alternative medicinal practices is one factor in their under-regulation but it's very inaccurate to insinuate that it's the only on. another important problem is the lack of evidence for efficacy in many cases. if you had experience - which again, I doubt - in alternative medicine you'd probably know that any field that engages the the same standards as Western medicine - peer-reviewed studies, evidence-based, etc. - has a much better chance of being accepted. a lot of alternative medicine is also very poorly self-regulated (i.e., anyone claim to be an herbalist).


i certainly am not interested in refusing western medicine or denying its value, and never have been.

no, you just encouraged people with HIV to stop taking antiretrovirals.


there is hardly ground for aggressive opposition.

you are beyond belief, really.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 10:28 PM
how do you account for the huge disparity

mostly that he didn't say what you & lanugo (or other AIDS "skeptics", whatever you'd like to call yourself) say he did. that he talked about decreasing transmission and augmenting the use of drugs with other methods (which,. of course, no one is against). and that the interviewer asked leading questions & interpreted the answers to his own ends. Dr. Montagnier has, himself, directly refuted AIDS denialism, acknowledged the effectiveness of antiretroviral cocktails, etc. here's his Nobel speech from 2008 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/montagnier-lecture.html)if you'd like to confirm for yourself. and that even if he had made some earth-shattering revelation I'd still say, where's the proof? he wouldn't be the first lscientist to say some crazy ish sans proof.

also that AIDS denialists - very much like climate change skeptics - are masters of cherrypicking science to create that the illusion that there's a debate about the issue and that people going the grain are being suppressed by the "orthodoxy". it's a beautiful delusion, b/c no matter how much hard evidence you're confronted with you can always claim it's all tainted by the "establishment" or whatever.

also, I like that being clear headed & in possession of one's rational faculties has now become an insult.

also this:


what the fuck are you talking about?

made me laugh. the sheer puzzlement of it.

and this:


*Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and are secretly evil lizard people

Please keep in mind that these aren't MY opinions but some horseshit I found down the back of the internet and thought I'd share with you for some obscure reason.

made me laugh even harder. nice one, swears.

padraig (u.s.)
11-01-2010, 10:33 PM
i am not a doctor. nor am I a medical professional of any kind. I have no medical training, or any experience in treating anyone with HIV or AIDS. nor do I really know anything about HIV beyond this one video clip. please value my opinions accordingly.

fixed that for ya.


Dr. Luc Montagnier, probably the single most reliable source of information and qualified professional expert on this matter in the world

if not for that 4 minute video clip you'd still think he was part of the Babylon medical "establishment".

Dusty
11-01-2010, 11:33 PM
bone transplant VS. acupuncture

If my illness warranted a bone [marrow] transplant according to the medical establishment, I really don't think I would be contemplating a few needles in my face. In fact I don't think the people who stick needles in other peoples faces for a living would be seriously considering it as a viable alternative option, as the cold sick fear of finding out you have leukemia sets in. I know you weren't directly comparing the two and I'm just being facetious - but you get my point. There was nothing you could have picked to compete there.

From my small-minded and limited experience in this field it seems to me people use alternative healing in two ways, one as a placebo for things they never really had in the first place, or the other end of the scale where modern science has reached its limit and you have no other sensible options. That point where you would try licking the fur off Persian cats if someone suggested it might cure you - because you have fuck all to lose.

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 03:49 AM
I dunno anything about vaccines, but I though the idea of the cocktail (HAART) approach was to cast a wide net, i.e. target HIV at as points as possible. one of which is inhibiting the HIV-1 protease - the protease inhibitors that Dr. Ho is famous for. I'm not an expert by any stretch but to elaborate a bit for anyone interested (nomad & anyone else who's studied biology probably knows all this) - replication is normally a very complicated affair that can be regulated at numerous different levels. the cocktail drugs are inhibitors - most of them prevent an enzyme from catalyzing a specific reaction either replication or afterward. some of them alter cell receptors so HIV can't bind them. or whatever. the problem with HIV's mutagenic abilities is that everything with proteins is really specific, so a tiny change in amino acid sequence can mean the inhibitor no longer recognizes the molecule its supposed to inhibit or alter. then its worthless. plus, of course, drug resistance & the side effects. it's really, really tough tho, cause it's all so complicated, so many factors all acting on each other. if you change one thing, it's apt to change all these other things, unintended consequences (hence elderly people on this drug wheel where everything is counteracting the side effect of something else).

there's a lot of this stuff in the loop tho. gene therapy, induced pluripotent stem cells, etc. it's kinda the future of medicine.

Exactly.

Protease inhibitors basically inhibit the cellular production of protease, which is an enzyme that catalyzes the degredation of proteins in the proteasome (after they've been targeted by ubiquitin). This is of course a post-transcriptional and post-translational process-- if you can get an RNA virus to stop translating itself into proteins, you can successfully impede its spread and devastating effects to some extent.

David Ho is indeed interesting because he was the first to discover/develop the protease inhibitor treatment for HIV/AIDS, which has had tremendous success in delaying AIDS in HIV patients. I got to listen to one of his lectures for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation a few years ago, it was pretty fascinating, all about vaccines and the one that was in phase 3 in China.

The next line in prevention according to Ho is antimicrobial gels. They're already being used in Africa because women can use them without their partners knowing, before sex, and at a low cost-- condoms there are taboo and apparently it's easier to get women to comply with HIV prevention than it is men for cultural reasons. Also, male circumcision showed promise as of a few years ago because apparently studies showed that circumsized males were much less likely to contract HIV than circumsized ones. Don't know what the numbers look like on that now though.

lanugo
12-01-2010, 03:58 AM
I don't have a definite opinion on this matter, either. However, I regard Montagnier's statements in the interview and the information gathered in the report by Terry Michael as plausible and substantial. Some of the points that are brought up in this essay, in my view, should really make anyone with an open and unprejudiced mind wonder about the credibility of everything that he previously believed to know about HIV and AIDS. To me, the single most eye-opening aspect of the report was the critique of the official numbers of HIV infections and/or "AIDS cases". I had no clue just how hypothetical these estimations are - apparently they are pretty much solely based on mathematical models, not on actual counts of blood tests. And can you believe that UNAIDS, the United Nations AIDS division and one of the providers of the global HIV/AIDS statistics, completely confounds the two and is unable to give separate estimates of virus infections and AIDS cases? Further more, when the author of the report asked the UNAIDS senior advisor on demographic and related data to define "AIDS", she replied that UNAIDS has no definition of AIDS. The mind boggles.

Also, the UNAIDS figures for HIV-related deaths are somewhat called into question by its estimation of AIDS deaths in South Africa. The official goverment statistics show less than five percent of the deaths from AIDS that the UNAIDS figures indicate. What does this discrepancy mean? Who is to believe? A dubious goverment agency with possible political motives for fixing stats or an organisation which has no definition of the disease whose total number of victims it allegedly registers? And what the fuck has all this guesswork to do with epidemiologically sound science?!

What astounded me even more is the fact that the US are the only country in the world to acknowledge T-cell counts below 200 without any present "opportunistic" illness as a clinical definition of AIDS. This basically arbitrary introduction of a new symptom has lead to tens of thousands of people being diagnosed with AIDS in the US who are not counted as AIDS patients everywhere else in the world. Because of the varying criteria in the definition of the "HIV disease" there were 1900 % (!) fewer new AIDS cases in Canada in the year 2007 than there were in the US in the year 2006 (228 in Canada with a population of 34 million, 37,852 in the US with a population of 300 million). Considering these numbers I cannot help but wonder: what is AIDS.

Anyway, all this can be read in the report that I linked to on a previous page. As far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't find these facts deeply unsettling is the true denialist.

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 03:58 AM
2. what Dr. Luc Montagnier, probably the single most reliable source of information and qualified professional expert on this matter in the world, is saying about it (which sounds very much similar to what the above people have maintained for a long time.)

so, if tomorrow i find out that i should not have had drunken unprotected sex in the back room of that afterhours club in Budapest 3 years ago, and have contracted the HIV virus -- well i would do a lot more research on it first, but based on what i know today -- i would change my lifestyle completely, become a vegan raw foodist, and eat massive amounts of herbs every day, without prescribed medicine.



this also sounds good. since there is no rush to get to the bottom of it (last check up was 6 months ago and i haven't been messing around), i will be following the story as it develops.

What is it with you and getting fixated on the words of one person (which you misinterpret and misrepresent) and taking those as "proof" of something you only believe for emotional reasons and can't support?

Dr. Montainger is by far NOT the most renowned AIDS researcher in the world.

David Ho is.

And you really should get tested if you're sexually active (especially if you're not using condoms everytime)-- as we all should regularly-- but I know that'll fall on selectively deaf ears. Not holding my breath.

Have fun with that raw food diet when you have chronic thrush, leukemia, chronic MERSA infections of the skin, and an inability to keep down even the smallest amounts of food. :)

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 04:07 AM
I don't have a definite opinion on this matter, either. However, I regard Montagnier's statements in the interview and the information gathered in the report by Terry Michael as plausible and substantial. Some of the points that are brought up in this essay, in my view, should really make anyone with an open and unprejudiced mind wonder about the credibility of everthing that he previously believed to know about HIV and AIDS. To me, the single most eye-opening aspect of the report was the critique of the official numbers of HIV infections and/or "AIDS cases". I had no clue just how hypothetical these estimations are - apparently they are pretty much solely based on mathematical models, not on actual counts of blood tests. And can you believe that UNAIDS, the United Nations AIDS division and one of the providers of the global HIV/AIDS statistics, completely confounds the two and is unable to give separate estimates of virus infections and AIDS cases? Further more, when the author of the report asked the UNAIDS senior advisor on demographic and related data to define "AIDS", she replied that UNAIDS has no definition of AIDS. The mind boggles.

Also, the UNAIDS figures for HIV-related deaths are somewhat called into question by its estimation of AIDS deaths in South Africa. The official goverment statistics show less than five percent of the deaths from AIDS that the UNAIDS figures indicate. What does this discrepancy mean? Who is to believe? A dubious goverment agency with possible political motives for fixing stats or an organisation which has no definition of the disease whose total number of victims it allegedly registers? And what the fuck has all this guesswork to do with epidemiologically sound science?!

What astounded me even more is the fact that the US are the only country in the world to acknowledge T-cell counts below 200 without any present "opportunistic" illness as a clinical definition of AIDS. This basically arbitrary introduction of a new symptom has lead to tens of thousands of people being diagnosed with AIDS in the US who are not counted as AIDS patients everywhere else in the world. Because of the varying criteria in the definition of the "HIV disease" there were 1900 % (!) fewer new AIDS cases in Canada in the year 2007 than there were in the US in the year 2006 (228 in Canada with a population of 34 million, 37,852 in the US with a population of 300 mio). Considering these numbers I cannot help but wonder: what is AIDS.

Anyway, all this can be read in the report that I linked to on a previous page. As far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't find these facts deeply unsettling is the true denialist.

Apparently Americans aren't the only ones who fall prey to this nonsense.

Haha. Yes, who on earth really believes in mathematical models, rather than honest-to-goodness UNIVERSAL AIDS BLOOD TESTING? That would be absurd, even though we use the same ones to estimate TB infections, malaria, etc.

Oh, and yes, I'm sure it's a huuuge problem, that discrepancy between third-party statistics on AIDS and the "government reports" made by denialists who tell their people that AIDS doesn't exist and that people shouldn't use condoms because God said so. Really, whodathunkit?

On that note, what on earth do you even know about viral load? Do you realize that the U.S. might be the only country that can afford and has the resources to use tests that are able to detect HIV in people who have viral loads at the lower end of the infected spectrum? Did that ever occur to you? I suppose not.


Considering these numbers I cannot help but wonder: what is AIDS.


Priceless. Truly. I got my laugh in for today.

lanugo
12-01-2010, 04:19 AM
Just one question: How do you account for that huge disproportion in the amount of new AIDS cases between Canada and the US? Do you believe that the US have simply superior means of clinical diagnostics and that, in fact, in Canada there is a huge amount of undiagnosed potential AIDS patients running around?

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 04:24 AM
no, not entirely. for they bring up things such as perfectly healthy people who have taken no prescription medication, who have been HIV positive for more than a decade. things which can not be easily discounted, rendering the official story problematic.

No, it doesn't render the story problematic in the least.

Number one rule of biology: biodiversity exists. As others have pointed out, people have different immune systems and different genetically-based abilities when it comes to fighting off HIV/AIDS.

In fact, there are even people who inherit a recessive gene that renders thementirely immune to HIV, so they can't be infected under any circumstances. The gene is more common in whites because the black plague in Europe created a "bottleneck" effect, killing off nearly everyone who didn't have this recessive trait and leaving a strong "mark" on the successive generations. Here's more:


A recessive chemokine gene offers the strongest natural protection yet seen against AIDS.

The gene, SDF1-3'UTR-801G-A (SDF1-3'A), encodes for a portion of the chemokine known as stromal-derived factor or SDF-1. It is the principal ligand for CXCR4, the main coreceptor for the T-cell-tropic (T-tropic) HIV-1 strains that predominate within an individual at the time of progression to AIDS.

Unfortunately, very, very few people actually have this gene, so unless you've been tested for it, you should take precautions. Apparently it has been noted in some southeast asians as well.

Think about what you're saying, please. Normally I wouldn't even bother posting about something so stupid, but there are teens and shit who read the internet who may not know better and take your dangerous suggestions seriously. Really, think for a second...even if you don't know molecular biology, it's clear that some people live for 15 years with lung cancer without treatment, but that doesn't mean that lung cancer isn't real. And it doesn't mean that advanced lung cancer doesn't kill most of its sufferers and/or metastasize quickly within a period of a few years. Why couldn't HIV be similar? In fact, no illness affects every single person the same way. Why would HIV/AIDS be different?

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 04:33 AM
Just one question: How do you account for that huge disproportion in the amount of new AIDS cases between Canada and the US? Do you believe that the US have simply superior means of clinical diagnostics and that, in fact, in Canada there is a huge amount of undiagnosed potential AIDS patients running around?

Why should HIV infection be "proportionate" in Canada and the U.S.? What law states that every country in the world should be hit by every illness in a "proportionate" manner and at the same time? HIV has hit different countries, different continents, and different population groups in waves. First, homosexual men in the U.S. were affected (the "first wave") and HIV was originally called "GRID" (gay-related immune deficiency). A few years later, it hit heterosexuals in a second "wave". After that, the next marked wave was IV drug users. After that, innercity black females.

There are all kinds of illnesses that affect different populations to different degrees and at different times. Just look at how disproportionately TB and malaria hit third world countries... one of a million examples I can think of...

The U.S. has far more social problems than Canada (many of the type that come with very large urban poor populations and economic inequity). Far more. If the U.S. does indeed have a disproportionately large population of AIDS patients compared to Canada (I'm unfamiliar with those statistics), that's exactly what any virologist would predict/expect. In fact, it's a worldwide trend--countries with large populations of out-of-work, socially oppressed and economically depressed populations tend to have the highest AIDS rates.

Either way, what does that have to do with HIV being real?

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2010, 06:47 AM
(for anyone not familiar - replication is the copying of DNA, transcription is the synthesis of RNA from DNA and translation is the synthesis of a protein (i.e. an amino acid sequence) from RNA.)


Protease inhibitors basically inhibit the cellular production of protease, which is an enzyme that catalyzes the degredation of proteins in the proteasome (after they've been targeted by ubiquitin). This is of course a post-transcriptional and post-translational process-- if you can get an RNA virus to stop translating itself into proteins, you can successfully impede its spread and devastating effects to some extent.

in addition to the reverse inscriptase inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, etc. there are also currently in trials some other inhibitors that, like the protease ones, go after post-translational protein modification. which is a a big deal because many proteins need to be modified (add or take away amino acids, add sugars, phosphorylation, a ton of things) after translation to become active, in this case to form mature infectious HIV virons. there's one in particular which is supposed to really do a # on HIV-1 even after it's become resistant to protease inhibitors.

that stuff about the antimicrobial gels sounds pretty interesting.


In fact, there are even people who inherit a recessive gene that renders thementirely immune to HIV

on this point - that's true of pretty much every disease, I believe (one reason it's unlikely a single pandemic could ever wipe out the entire human race. just most of it). also, I believe that study of CCR5 is one of the leading avenues in AIDS research - a class of antiretrovirals, the entry inhibitors (maraviroc is the big one), specifically affect the expression of CCR5 so that HIV can't bind to it. that mimics the effect of the CCR5-Delta 32 mutation (the one which imbues, depending on whether you inherited it from one or both parents, either resistance or immunity to HIV). that mutation, btw, is a great example of the extremely specific nature of gene expression - the deletion of a 32 base pair sequence completely alters CCR5 so as to make it non-functional.


the information gathered in the report by Terry Michael as plausible and substantial.

so that one dude is plausible while the staggering, overwhelming weight of evidence against him is, I guess, inconsequential? right-o. someday I am going to publish an article on the Internet suggesting that the Earth revolves around the Sun and denouncing the astronomy establishment conspiracy and it's going to blow. your. mind.

I don't think you understand what epidemiology is. news flash bro - it isn't an exact science. it makes heavy use of - gasp - models and statistical analysis. there's a whole subbranch of the field devoted to statistical analysis. I don't why you're shocked (well, I do - cos you don't what the f**k you're on about) by different standards for diagnosis. it's hardly unique to HIV. COPD. mental disorders. tons of chronic diseases; MS, fibromyalgia. Crohn's. coronary disease, for crissakes. different methodologies, different approaches. it's just the nature of the game sometimes.

it messes my head up when people without even a basic grasp of a topic start denouncing things they don't even begin or pretend to understand. let's just start burning statistical models at the stake and get it over with.

lanugo
12-01-2010, 08:14 AM
I am perfectly familiar with the basic microbiological concepts that are relevant to understand the effect a retrovirus has on the genetic information of an organism. I am also aware that epidemiology is an inherently statistical science. What is totally unknown to me, however, is the exact methodology and procedure by which an organisation like UNAIDS produces its estimations of the prevalence of HIV and/or AIDS in Africa. But even for a layman the available information indicates that a health condition like AIDS - which is really just an amorphous cluster of symptoms and no clearly defined disease like the ones you mentioned in your post - obviously can have other causes than the HI-Virus, e.g. immune suppressive diseases like malaria or tuberculosis and immune impairing conditions like malnutrition or poor hygiene. Seeing that UNAIDS is unable to present well-founded data that differentiates HIV infections and AIDS cases I become suspicious and begin to wonder whether the purported HIV/AIDS "epidemic" in Africa does exist at all. I think my conclusion is fair. The question is: how can you know for certain that the alleged millions of AIDS deaths are caused by the HI-virus rather than those other factors I mentioned. I think you can't. You simply believe.

paolo
12-01-2010, 08:23 AM
Have fun with that raw food diet when you have chronic thrush, leukemia, chronic MERSA infections of the skin, and an inability to keep down even the smallest amounts of food. :)


Nice

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 08:51 AM
on this point - that's true of pretty much every disease, I believe (one reason it's unlikely a single pandemic could ever wipe out the entire human race. just most of it). also, I believe that study of CCR5 is one of the leading avenues in AIDS research - a class of antiretrovirals, the entry inhibitors (maraviroc is the big one), specifically affect the expression of CCR5 so that HIV can't bind to it. that mimics the effect of the CCR5-Delta 32 mutation (the one which imbues, depending on whether you inherited it from one or both parents, either resistance or immunity to HIV).


Awesome, hadn't heard about the ins and outs of CCR5--so it's the homozygous recessive allele combination that confers immunity and the heterozygous dominant that confers resistance, I imagine? Sounds sort of like cystic fibrosis, but in reverse. Good to know!


that mutation, btw, is a great example of the extremely specific nature of gene expression - the deletion of a 32 base pair sequence completely alters CCR5 so as to make it non-functional.

It's so sad how much I love thinking about point mutations and exon shuffling and shit like that. I went to this seminar (http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/AAS/Chem/upload/Schmitt_-Mark-Dec-1-2009.pdf) on RNA as an enzyme and ever since I've been wanting to email him for the jpegs of homologous RNA base pairs he used. He had a bunch of them compairing human and (I think it was) duck RNA sequences and how similar they are... they were so cool looking I'd probably frame them.

(Btw, If you're interested the prof was recruiting and apparently there are some good SURF programs in Syracuse and Rochester that I'm applying to next summer--let me know if you want info...)

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 08:58 AM
The question is: how can you know for certain that the alleged millions of AIDS deaths are caused by the HI-virus rather than those other factors I mentioned. I think you can't. You simply believe.

Nobody dies from AIDS, they die from AIDS-related complications, usually an opportunistic infection or cancer.

scottdisco
12-01-2010, 09:46 AM
Seeing that UNAIDS is unable to present well-founded data that differentiates HIV infections and AIDS cases I become suspicious and begin to wonder whether the purported HIV/AIDS "epidemic" in Africa does exist at all.

haha, man, you're funny.

no, really, you kill me.

zhao
12-01-2010, 09:51 AM
ok, thanks for the more indepth knowledge about some of this stuff. will certainly take what everyone is saying into consideration.

but even though I don't have degrees in molecular biology or epidemiology, it does not mean my independent critical thinking skills are in any way lacking -- sometimes you don't have to be a weatherman to sense which way the wind is blowing (and further, sometimes lay people can see more clearly than the experts).

and to me it is clear that this whole HIV/AIDS phenomenon is more complex than what anyone previously thought, that there is much more than meets the eye, than what is printed on pamphlets and in brochures, and the emerging story i think will have many more surprises in store for all. many things about this whole thing, what we are told and information from other sources, still doesn't quite make sense for me, and i will continue to learn and research in my off time.

about natural, "alternative", holistic medicine, the western medical mainstream has been slow to recognize the legitimacy of many treatments outside of its own framework, but none the less many practices have become accepted in the recent past, and many more are currently becoming more accepted. and generally speaking, to use more of my beloved corny cliches, i do think paradigms are indeed in the process of merging, and to me that's a positive thing. a few decades ago it was "Western science" vs. "Eastern superstition", and now we have plenty of doctors and professionals using a combination of Western and Eastern methods. and in the next decades we will surely continue to see change. i think some of the ridicule dished out at "alternative" methods in this thread will in the future sound exactly like people who laughed at acupuncture in the 1970s, but that's the way it goes.

mistersloane
12-01-2010, 11:27 AM
and to me it is clear that this whole HIV/AIDS phenomenon is more complex than what anyone previously thought, that there is much more than meets the eye, than what is printed on pamphlets and in brochures, and the emerging story i think will have many more surprises in store for all. many things about this whole thing, what we are told and information from other sources, still doesn't quite make sense for me, and i will continue to learn and research in my off time.
.

I applaud you for going into the complexities around this; all of these complexities have however been extant since the early days of the discovery of the virus; the dialogues have been around, maybe it's just that you're discovering them for the first time, which is good.

I was a early member of the activist group ACT-UP in the UK, after going to New York and San Francisco and attending meetings there - this was 1987. I've also worked in rural Africa and seen the devastation it has reeked there. It was very hard watching your friends die when you were 17, though I wasn't hit as hard as San Fran. The papers there were one big obituary. It was horrible.

At that point in ACT-UP, the discussion and anger surrounding HIV/AIDS was that people had the right to experiment on their own bodies; that there were preventative medicines available that weren't being tested or released and people involved in ACT-UP were saying 'give them to us, we will test them'. This was in order to circumnavigate an eventual market dominance of AZT - an early prototype of what we get now - which was a Glaxo/Wellcome product. ACT-UP was a radical group protesting alot of issues, but that was one of them. It felt very futuristic protesting against drug companies.

During that time I saw a guy diagnosed with HIV/AIDS who literally died within three days of his diagnosis; I also knew a guy who had tested positive in the early eighties - who lived for 20 years without medication. Everything being discussed in this thread was argued and argued and argued about at these meetings. This really isn't anything new, perhaps the information is more available now.

In alot of ways what you saw on pamphlets etc was essentially watered down information that came from discussions like these, which were goin on daily in the 80s and still are going on daily - how to get over the message that there is something very dangerous out there that was probably going to kill you if you came into contact with it, and how to get over that message fast to as many people as possible. We are dealing with a virus that kills. How would you effectively get that message across? We are also dealing with something that may not kill you immediately (AIDS is not a death sentence), how would you get that message across?

I think the most important thing to remember is that we were dealing - and still are dealing - with a relatively new virus. It is something that attacks the immune system, which means you are then more likely and vulnerable to succumb to what are termed 'opportunistic infections' - these can be TB, cancers of various forms, etc. These are what will kill you in the end, because your body has been weakened.

Even then, certainly in the UK, it was obvious to everyone that a life free-er from stress, with a good diet, would sustain your ability to be able to fight off infections. We knew people then who had reverted their HIV status. No-one knows why this happens. Sometimes people revert their status and then revert back again. It's very complex. It would be dangerous to suggest to anyone that it is possible, willfully. It may be genetic, it may be that there are several forms of the virus, as it is mutating as we speak. We still don't know. There isn't a cure. There is a vaccine which is still yet to be tested effectively. There are drugs which people in the West can take which lessen their chances of opportunistic infection. There are preventative measures you can take in lifestyle which may lessen your chances of contraction. They may not.

All I know is that everyone dies sometime, some people just die quicker than others, and horribly.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm sure I read somewhere a year or two ago that there is some (early, provisional) evidence that HIV is 'weakening' globally - perhaps because more virulent stains kill their carriers more quickly, so they have less time to infect other people.

Nomad, padraig or mistersloane - you guys heard of this too?

zhao
12-01-2010, 12:28 PM
thanks Mr. Sloane.

you seem to be agreeing that discussion about the various aspects of the HIV/AIDS phenomenon, on which there is no unanimous agreement, is generally a positive thing, right?

you describe very well the numerous uncertainties we have been, and still are living with...

given these uncertainties, i would think nearly all different perspectives on the subject should be considered, and it is important that no reasonable lines of inquiry is suppressed.

mistersloane
12-01-2010, 02:18 PM
I'm sure I read somewhere a year or two ago that there is some (early, provisional) evidence that HIV is 'weakening' globally - perhaps because more virulent stains kill their carriers more quickly, so they have less time to infect other people.

Nomad, padraig or mistersloane - you guys heard of this too?

Yeah it's here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4290300.stm

but I'm not sure how well it stands now, although that trial certainly seems kosher.
I'm not totally up to date on all this stuff now though, to be honest I find it really depressing.

mistersloane
12-01-2010, 02:27 PM
thanks Mr. Sloane.

you seem to be agreeing that discussion about the various aspects of the HIV/AIDS phenomenon, on which there is no unanimous agreement, is generally a positive thing, right?

you describe very well the numerous uncertainties we have been, and still are living with...

given these uncertainties, i would think nearly all different perspectives on the subject should be considered, and it is important that no reasonable lines of inquiry is suppressed.

From what I know/knew, there's a large holistic community within the HIV/AIDS community, but within that there's also alot of people who I personally thought were afraid of modern medicine, and I saw people put themselves through horrendous delusions of cures (hyper-oxygenated water, selenium doses, peroxide cures... there were loads) so I'd personally be very dis-inclined to knock modern medical techniques which have made proven advances over a wide section of the community, as opposed to maybe more personal techniques (acupuncture, healing etc) that maybe work on a belief based basis but maybe not for the general population.

I come from a line of thought that says "It's your body, do to it what you want" but just cos you do it, doesn't mean you should recommend it to anyone else, and in fact it may be irresponsible to do so.

zhao
12-01-2010, 02:39 PM
From what I know/knew, there's a large holistic community within the HIV/AIDS community, but within that there's also alot of people who I personally thought were afraid of modern medicine, and I saw people put themselves through horrendous delusions of cures (hyper-oxygenated water, selenium doses, peroxide cures... there were loads) so I'd personally be very dis-inclined to knock modern medical techniques which have made proven advances over a wide section of the community, as opposed to maybe more personal techniques (acupuncture, healing etc) that maybe work on a belief based basis but maybe not for the general population.

I come from a line of thought that says "It's your body, do to it what you want" but just cos you do it, doesn't mean you should recommend it to anyone else, and in fact it may be irresponsible to do so.

with different perspectives and lines of inquiry i meant trying to get to the truth of what is going on and has gone on, and not approaches to treatment.

regarding the latter i would not recommend anything to anyone because i am not, and have never been equipped to do so, and would never in a million years think otherwise.

of course condoms, of course precautions, i never suggested otherwise -- only brought up other perspectives which i think is not only OK to talk about, but important to talk about.

i seriously, seriously don't think anyone will read this thread and stop using condoms or stop taking their meds.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2010, 03:03 PM
to be honest I find it really depressing.

No shit...really sorry to hear about your friends you talked about earlier, I can't imagine what it's like to watch people you're close to waste away like that, especially at such a young age. But big up for being involved in activism like that!

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 05:33 PM
Yeah, it's weird about AZT, since (iirc) it was originally a chemotherapy agent. Nobody was making much money from it, or not inordinate amounts based on the fact that cancer is pretty common in the industrialized West. Then someone realized it may help HIV patients by killing the same proteins that the inhibitors simply block from being made. Even so I don't think there's a generic version yet, and that's a problem.

I saw a speech on World AIDS Day by a guy who's gone through being diagnosed with HIV, then AIDS (with a viral load really high--like over 1000), and then was rediagnosed recently with HIV at the lowest possible load after he went on disability several years ago and decided to make his recovery a full-time job. He talked about being a professional guinea pig because he's volunteered for every clinical trial that existed from 1984 onward. But he also talked about how he eats a macrobiotic diet and exercises constantly. Luckily for him his father is a doctor who had friends and could help him get placed in trials. He talked about how he had no access to medical benefits when he lived in the south (New Orleans and Atlanta I think), or when he did, he was put on waiting lists for treatment because the conservatives down there refuse to spend state money on the old gay cancer. He's the one who told me that people move from all over the world to New York and California to get treatment, even though the U.S. is the only country in the world that still has a law meant to bar HIV + folks from immigrating.

It'd be nice if that became as high-priority as Prop 8 for activists, but it's not as sexy a cause. Too many people think they're invincible and that it would never affect them.

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2010, 07:01 PM
sometimes you don't have to be a weatherman to sense which way the wind is blowing

no, but the weatherman's a hell of a lot more accurate. and if you told people to take off their jackets and rely solely on a macrobiotic diet to protect them from the wind the weatherman could explain wind chill & convection to them. and - well this analogy was labored to begin with. the distrust of experts (unless they agree with you) is such an American thing.

also, w/r/t alternative medicine - if you will go back & read through the last few pages here you'll see the response was almost entirely positive. with qualifications, but that's hardly "ridicule". what there definitely was - ridiculing of your personal half-baked notions of alternative medicine and its powers. which, if you've backed off, then great.


no reasonable lines of inquiry is suppressed

2 things

1 - who is suppressing you? and how? who is suppressing any AIDS skeptic or denialist, in fact? argument, consideration & rejection by the (great majority) of the scientific community, even ridicule but clearly not suppression as these people manage to keep spreading their message to the world.

2 - do you realize how similar you sound to climate change skeptics? tho in that case there's almost certainly big $ behind creating that & in fairness to AIDS skeptics it seems most of them (S.A. govt aside) are motivated by personal conviction. anyway, it's the same game - cherrypick a quote here & an interview clip there & give them the same weight as majority scientific opinion to create the illusion of a debate. not every iconoclast is Einstein. very few of them are, in fact.

nomadthethird
12-01-2010, 10:40 PM
Tangentially related but interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12paleo.html) in the NYTimes today.

What seems strange to me about the "it must be a conspiracy!" reaction to complex phenomena, and I'm not just thinking about AIDS denialism here but all sorts of half-baked theories that arise out of ignorance and paranoia, is that the people who engage in that type of thinking have all kinds of time to construct fantasy scenarios, but so little time for actually making sure that they inform themselves and understand the specific complexities and circumstances involved in what they criticize.

Yeah, it's that cabbal, as usual...those fuckers! At it again.

Speaking of which Jesse Ventura of all people has a new TV show (http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html) that uncovers terrifying conspiracies like the lizard people and other such code-words for Jew.

zhao
13-01-2010, 05:50 AM
Padraig:

comparison with global warming does not work because of the very different levels of uncertainty involved.

global warming: pretty much none / nearly all scientists agree

HIV/AIDS: a fuck of a lot / contradictory phenomenon / contradictory explanations / contradictory treatment.

after 30 years of being told that you get it you die, now a major scientific source is saying all it takes is nutrition and good health to reverse it.

(Sloane is right that there were lots of disgreements and debates since the beginning, but not so much for the general public, who believed what they were told)

Nomad:

sure conspiracy buffs are often probably taking the easy way out.

but in this case i don't think foul play, or at least profit driven behavior which may have played an obfuscating or obtrusive role, on the part of global pharmaceutical companies can be ruled out.
we all know there are plenty of examples from the past of big companies acting not exactly in the interest of scientific truth, or the well being of patients.

zhao
13-01-2010, 06:03 AM
Tangentially related but interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12paleo.html) in the NYTimes today.

interesting article on Borna virus Nomad --

Ladies and Gents, we now have on our hands another major conspiracy theory which i think should be taken very seriously:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/12/science/12paleo-1/articleInline.jpg http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/usa/georgia/coca-cola-bottle-cap.jpg

i mean come on. the post-puncture motion of JFK's head falling forward or back is one thing, but this. this is non refutable evidence.

mms
13-01-2010, 07:47 AM
Padraig:

comparison with global warming does not work because of the very different levels of uncertainty involved.

global warming: pretty much none / nearly all scientists agree

HIV/AIDS: a fuck of a lot / contradictory phenomenon / contradictory explanations / contradictory treatment.

after 30 years of being told that you get it you die, now a major scientific source is saying all it takes is nutrition and good health to reverse it.

(Sloane is right that there were lots of disgreements and debates since the beginning, but not so much for the general public, who believed what they were told)

Nomad:

sure conspiracy buffs are often probably taking the easy way out.

but in this case i don't think foul play, or at least profit driven behavior which may have played an obfuscating or obtrusive role, on the part of global pharmaceutical companies can be ruled out.
we all know there are plenty of examples from the past of big companies acting not exactly in the interest of scientific truth, or the well being of patients.

aw man did you read the last 3 pages of discussion?

zhao
13-01-2010, 08:43 AM
aw man did you read the last 3 pages of discussion?

certainly. which part or parts do you feel were not taken into account when i made the last post?

mistersloane
13-01-2010, 09:22 AM
Speaking of which Jesse Ventura of all people has a new TV show (http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html) that uncovers terrifying conspiracies like the lizard people and other such code-words for Jew.

I believe in the lizard people, I'm just not sure that they're Jewish. I think it's power that turns people into lizards, and sometimes being in prison. People get that shark-eyed and shiny skinned thing. But then I've seen people I don't like turn into snakes in front of my eyes, so I should shut up and take some meds.

Mr. Tea
13-01-2010, 09:31 AM
I'd love to see a headline in The Onion that goes something like Masonic Communist Reptillian Space-Jews admit: We Rule World
with a sub-header saying Scientologists, conspiracy dicks 'smug'.

mistersloane
13-01-2010, 09:48 AM
HIV/AIDS: a fuck of a lot / contradictory phenomenon / contradictory explanations / contradictory treatment.

after 30 years of being told that you get it you die, now a major scientific source is saying all it takes is nutrition and good health to reverse it.
.

Just watched the Montagnier interview - I should have watched it before I said anything I think.

What Montagnier is talking about in that interview is much more subtle than the interviewer - and thus the public - gets.

He's talking about a point in time after exposure to the virus - very small window of a few weeks - where it appears than some people are able to be able to get rid of the virus without seroconversion - i.e. becoming HIV positive. As I said, this has been known from time. What isn't known yet is how that happens. I'm not sure that's saying quite the same thing as 'it's possible to reverse an HIV status', and to say so would be irresponsible.

From what I glean he's also coming from a humanistic point of view, which is that the money spent by Bill Gates etc on drug treatments could equally be spent on providing water and other sanitation facilities, rather than stating that this is all people need in order to avoid HIV infection.

zhao
13-01-2010, 10:19 AM
What Montagnier is talking about in that interview is much more subtle than the interviewer - and thus the public - gets.

He's talking about a point in time after exposure to the virus - very small window of a few weeks - where it appears than some people are able to be able to get rid of the virus without seroconversion - i.e. becoming HIV positive. As I said, this has been known from time. What isn't known yet is how that happens. I'm not sure that's saying quite the same thing as 'it's possible to reverse an HIV status', and to say so would be irresponsible.

From what I glean he's also coming from a humanistic point of view, which is that the money spent by Bill Gates etc on drug treatments could equally be spent on providing water and other sanitation facilities, rather than stating that this is all people need in order to avoid HIV infection.

however subtle, or how ever you want to read it, it is painting a picture with enough significant differences, or presenting other significant sides of the picture, than what has passed for "conventional knowledge" thus far. (edit: what was "conventional knowledge" to me. to someone who has not focused on or looked into the matter beyond the usual awareness level - i never bought books on it, i never was a part of activist groups, etc.)

the possibility that general health and nutrition MAY be more important than drugs for patients??? fairly shocking stuff don't you think? (edit: again, to a non-specialist) it will be interesting to see reactions when this full doc is out.

STN
13-01-2010, 11:47 AM
however subtle, or how ever you want to read it, it is painting a picture with enough significant differences, or presenting other significant sides of the picture, than what has passed for "conventional knowledge" thus far. (edit: what was "conventional knowledge" to me. to someone who has not focused on or looked into the matter beyond the usual awareness level - i never bought books on it, i never was a part of activist groups, etc.)

the possibility that general health and nutrition MAY be more important than drugs for patients??? fairly shocking stuff don't you think? (edit: again, to a non-specialist) it will be interesting to see reactions when this full doc is out.

Can 'conventional knowledge', when it comes to science, ever be fully conflated with 'what the public knows/thinks'?

padraig (u.s.)
13-01-2010, 01:58 PM
comparison with global warming does not work

w/r/t global warming - the only difference is you agree with the one & are "skeptical" about the other. you've already admitted you know next to nothing about AIDS & I doubt you know much more about global warming or the fake scientific "debates" around either. the M.O. is almost exactly the same, the major difference being that climate change skeptics have been much more successful.

anyway, by all means prove me wrong - cite some more sources, anything besides that one video clip. but you won't be able to; there's guys in the S.A. govt hip pocket like Duesburg & Rasnick, both of whom were on Thabo Mbeki's AIDS "advisory panel". Rasnick is also all tied up with the ultra-dodgy & ultra-crazy Rath Foundation (Matthias Rath is a snake oil salesman if ever there was one). and Kary Mullis*, who is f**king crazy whatever his views on AIDS are (see below, you'd love this dude). that's really it, as far as scientists. after that you get into the virulent homophobia of Henry Bauer (denialism appeals to a certain strain of conservatives for obvious reasons), the sheer craziness of Celia Farber & of course the prematurely dead like Christine Maggiore. that's your team.

*claims that PCR, for which he won a Nobel, came to him in an LSD hallucination. he also claims to have had a close encounter with fluorescent raccoon aliens - no, I'm not making that up (fits in well with the whole masonic lizard people thing tho). oh and to make it even more perfect he's also a climate change skeptic.


the possibility that general health and nutrition MAY be more important than drugs for patients??? fairly shocking stuff don't you think?

dude didn't rank anything by importance. he said that there was perhaps too much of a focus on drugs to detriment of other (cheaper, easier to implement) methods of prevention & preventative treatment, which seems like a valid question at least. he didn't say a single bad thing about antiretrovirals, a single thing about conspiracies, nothing to suggest that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that the AIDS situation in Africa is inflated. he made some ambiguous comments about the ability of people with strengthened immune systems to "fight off infections". & no, there's nothing shocking about the idea that nutrition is important, unless you're fairly clueless about AIDS.

this is what you always do; fixate on one guy (Bernal, Diamond etc.) - or in this case one video clip - & refuse to acknowledge anything else. I'm going to assume you didn't watch Montagnier's Nobel lecture I linked where he, among other things, directly refutes AIDS denialism.

Mr. Tea
14-01-2010, 01:40 PM
I believe in the lizard people, I'm just not sure that they're Jewish. I think it's power that turns people into lizards, and sometimes being in prison. People get that shark-eyed and shiny skinned thing.

Photo on today's beeb news:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47108000/jpg/_47108229_beckham_getty226b.jpg

:eek:

mistersloane
14-01-2010, 02:47 PM
Photo on today's beeb news:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47108000/jpg/_47108229_beckham_getty226b.jpg

:eek:

I think she looks really great! Well Cleopatra-era Liz Taylor. I'd love to go for a pint with her, I bet she's a right laugh. I'm being honest there n all, I always thought she was really good at being famous.

swears
14-01-2010, 02:57 PM
Kary Mullis*, who is f**king crazy whatever his views on AIDS are...

*claims that PCR, for which he won a Nobel, came to him in an LSD hallucination. he also claims to have had a close encounter with fluorescent raccoon aliens - no, I'm not making that up (fits in well with the whole masonic lizard people thing tho). oh and to make it even more perfect he's also a climate change skeptic.





Nice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

He's like something out of a David Foster Wallace novel:


"I was sagging as I walked out to my little silver Honda Civic. Neither [assistant] Fred, empty Beck's bottles, nor the sweet smell of the dawn of the age of PCR could replace Jenny. I was lonesome."


At a 1994 conference in Toledo, Spain, Mullis changed the topic of his speech from PCR to his idea that HIV does not cause AIDS, at the last minute. According to The New York Times, his supporting slides were "photographs he had taken of naked women with colored lights projected on their bodies."

nomadthethird
15-01-2010, 02:20 AM
I believe in the lizard people, I'm just not sure that they're Jewish. I think it's power that turns people into lizards, and sometimes being in prison. People get that shark-eyed and shiny skinned thing. But then I've seen people I don't like turn into snakes in front of my eyes, so I should shut up and take some meds.

Yeah, I know what you mean... I think there's an old thread on that topic... the whole lizard people thing seems like a good metaphor for the observation that sociopaths and the power-hungry tend to reach positions of power and influence before the worthy and upstanding...

The thing is, every video I've seen on the internet by one of the true believers either in the masonic or lizard conspiracy (or any other one, for that matter) is usually filled with virulent anti-semitism as well.


Kary Mullis

I bet he stopped believing in his meds, too. Typical, but sad.

James Watson arguably went off the deep end, too. Not that far, tho.

nomadthethird
15-01-2010, 02:39 AM
the possibility that general health and nutrition MAY be more important than drugs for patients??? fairly shocking stuff don't you think? (edit: again, to a non-specialist) it will be interesting to see reactions when this full doc is out.

But that's NOT what the guy's saying... good lord, Sloane makes a really good point and you twist it.

It may be just as important to pay for "infastructure" in Africa--I agree, but I also know what usually happens due to corruption when foreign aid comes in for those things. I agree with Sloane. But that doesn't mean that paying for infastructure (things like water, better sanitation, better schools, etc) is going to lower AIDS infection in and of itself. It's a step in the right direction, but nutrition alone has no clear affect on HIV.

Hell, if you're a doctor and get an accidental needle injury on the job, there are drugs they can give you to stop HIV dead in its tracks, with something like 80% success.

Think about this-- if food were the magic bullet, then the food industry could just as easily be over in Africa raking in the billions that you imagine drug companies are. As it is, the west is spending more money than it's making on the AIDS pandemic. I'm all for reforming Big Pharma but these weird "pull the trigger and spray bullets blindly" sort of criticisms aren't going to do anyone any good.

IdleRich
15-01-2010, 07:47 PM
sociopaths and the power-hungry tend to reach positions of power and influence before the worthy and upstanding...
Off topic but seems to tie in with this survey

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED23%20Aug%202009%2020%3A24%3A21%3A430

Mr. Tea
17-01-2010, 11:49 PM
Off topic but seems to tie in with this survey

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED23%20Aug%202009%2020%3A24%3A21%3A430

"Nosey, over-analytical people more likely to conduct spurious sociological studies, new survey shows"

nomadthethird
18-01-2010, 09:40 PM
I don't know, T, those results seem believable (if ehh a little trivial) to me.

Ok this is tangentially related too but it's relevant re denialism in its various incarnations...

a blogpost about the hypocrisy and ignorance of the autism-deniers/anti "biomed autism" movement:

Pumping autistic children full of an industrial chelator (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/pumping_autistic_children_full_of_an_ind.php?utm_s ource=mostactive&utm_medium=link)

luka
18-01-2010, 09:59 PM
its my thread! its called 'the enemy' i tried searching for it and failed.

Mr. Tea
18-01-2010, 11:14 PM
I don't know, T, those results seem believable (if ehh a little trivial) to me.


Well yeah, I'm not saying I don't believe the results - it just seems to come from a tradition of socio/psych studies that either tell us stuff we all intuitively know anyway, or to have been conducted purely to support some cliched parental maxim, or to simply be of no conceivable benefit to anyone even if they do turn up some unexpected result (says the former LHC grad student, yeah yeah...):

"'Benefit not felt' of coats donned before going outside"

"Breadcrust-eating children 'have curlier hair'"

"Dogs really do look like owners, new survey shows"

"Scientist wastes life developing mathematically optimal biscuit-dunking technique"

"£50m, ten-year-study probes why fish, chips taste better in North of England"

"Red cars 3.1% more likely to be involved in accidents"

"Oncologist takes life over 'science' column inches lavished on mindless bullshit"

...kinda thing.

nomadthethird
19-01-2010, 02:19 AM
Well yeah, I'm not saying I don't believe the results - it just seems to come from a tradition of socio/psych studies that either tell us stuff we all intuitively know anyway, or to have been conducted purely to support some cliched parental maxim, or to simply be of no conceivable benefit to anyone even if they do turn up some unexpected result (says the former LHC grad student, yeah yeah...):

"'Benefit not felt' of coats donned before going outside"

"Breadcrust-eating children 'have curlier hair'"

"Dogs really do look like owners, new survey shows"

"Scientist wastes life developing mathematically optimal biscuit-dunking technique"

"£50m, ten-year-study probes why fish, chips taste better in North of England"

"Red cars 3.1% more likely to be involved in accidents"

"Oncologist takes life over 'science' column inches lavished on mindless bullshit"

...kinda thing.

You don't have to convince me... I've seen some really ridiculous shit masquerading as "data"...

The worst was when I realized that sociologists don't use the null hypothesis or any type of control (usually) in their studies. (It really was kinda disappointing. Call me Pollyanna...)

You might just as well toss a poll up on a Myspace banner ad, the results would be just as scientifically sound...

vimothy
19-01-2010, 10:56 AM
The worst was when I realized that sociologists don't use the null hypothesis or any type of control (usually) in their studies. (It really was kinda disappointing. Call me Pollyanna...)

Ironically, this is totally untrue.

nomadthethird
19-01-2010, 06:53 PM
Ironically, this is totally untrue.


Social sciences in general don't work according to the null hypothesis even if they use controls (which is very hard to do in general and isn't always possible...)

Witness, for example, this gem:

Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness (http://people.virginia.edu/~gds6d/Sherman%20Haidt%20Coan%20--%20Cuteness%20and%20Carefulness%20(2009).pdf)

No null hypothesis! Just a bunch of lame associations made post hoc about "carefulness", which isn't necessarily what their study demonstrated, which is that looking at "cute" (whatever that means) images increases fine motor skills in participants.

I will say for psych studies like this one that at least they compared the self-reports to the actual performance of participants. Soc studies are no where near as rigorous, in general.

nomadthethird
19-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Oh look! Other people (http://psychologyofbeauty.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/careful-shes-cute/) have already critiqued this one.



Strengths

Controlled and assessed other cognitive/emotional influences of the animal images that were presented.

Cautions

Authors assume, but do not demonstrate, that the improved fine-motor performance in response to cuteness can lead to improved reproductive success because of the fragility of human infants/small children. This relationship between fine-motor activation and behaviors helpful to fragile children has not – to my knowledge – been demonstrated.
The nature of human infant/small child fragility is assumed, but neither demonstrated nor made explicit.

vimothy
20-01-2010, 09:57 AM
I can't speak for the undergrad syllabus, but hypothesis testing is boiler-plate for any post grad social sciences course. It's fully half the research methodology.

nomadthethird
20-01-2010, 07:13 PM
I can't speak for the undergrad syllabus, but hypothesis testing is boiler-plate for any post grad social sciences course. It's fully half the research methodology.

Research methods is required in MA programs here, too. And for psychology students, they start with research methods as sophomores in college. But social sciences generally don't use the null hypothesis.

Having experienced both humanities research methods and scientific ones, I think it's more than fair to say there's no comparison in terms of formal rigor.

vimothy
20-01-2010, 08:06 PM
But social sciences generally don't use the null hypothesis.

You're wrong about this. Hypothesis testing is bread and butter for fully half of all social research methodology. Why do you think social scientists use quantitative methods in the first place? If you were applying it here, you wouldn't be making such hideously out of touch generalisations, so I guess you're almost proving proving yourself right.

padraig (u.s.)
23-01-2010, 01:44 AM
interesting little article from TIME on David Ho & the search for an AIDS vaccine (& the difficulties thereof: The Man Who Could Beat AIDS (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953703,00.html). talks a bit in the same molecular bio tip I was on about upthread, in this case designing vaccine that would work by some altering or binding HIV to make it physically impossible for the virus to enter cells.

on a separate note, normally I'd steer well clear of a dispute between Vim & Nomad about social science research methodology, but by coincidence I happen to be taking "Social Research" this semester; normally I try to avoid the social "sciences" as much as possible - at least in classes I'm paying for - but research methodology is far more tolerable, interesting & relevant than listening to some due gob about critical theory or whatever (tho mainly I'm just taking it cause it's an honors course). anyway, from my limited knowledge, w/r/t to the null hypothesis, doesn't it depend entirely on what social science you're looking at (i.e., psychology is more likely to be rigorous than sociology, & so on)? and in fact, what study?

vimothy
23-01-2010, 03:26 PM
It depends on whether the research is quantitative (or mixed methods), or not. If it is, well, hypothesis testing is the sine qua non of quantitative research. It doesn't matter what sub-field of the social sciences we're talking about--it could be econometrics, quantitative sociological research, or whatever. Generalising from a sample to the population necessarily involves hypothesis testing. All SPSS (or whatever stats package you're using) does when it generates a p value is give you a measure of the probability that the null hypothesis is true.

Of course, there are large swathes of social science research that don't use hypothesis testing: non-quantitative research, or research that doesn't use hypothesis testing. But that's totally obvious, to say nothing of totally circular. This is a slightly silly debate though. I just thought it was ironic that Nomad was making an incorrect generalisation about social science's use of a methodology that is supposed to prevent researchers from making incorrect generalisations.

EDIT: Just to add, that I do work for a mixed methods social science research project that employs two statisticians (one full and one part time). Hypothesis testing is hard wired into the most basic and fundamental quantitative procedure, which exists to 1, establish if a relationship exists between two or more variables in a dataset and 2, establish if that relationship exists in the population. No. 2 is a test of the probability that the null hypothesis is true (i.e. that the relationship does not exist in the population). This is the essence of quantitative social research methods.

nomadthethird
23-01-2010, 05:39 PM
Good article padraig.


It depends on whether the research is quantitative (or mixed methods), or not. If it is, well, hypothesis testing is the sine qua non of quantitative research. It doesn't matter what sub-field of the social sciences we're talking about--it could be econometrics, quantitative sociological research, or whatever. Generalising from a sample to the population necessarily involves hypothesis testing. All SPSS (or whatever stats package you're using) does when it generates a p value is give you a measure of the probability that the null hypothesis is true.

Of course, there are large swathes of social science research that don't use hypothesis testing: non-quantitative research, or research that doesn't use hypothesis testing. But that's totally obvious, to say nothing of totally circular. This is a slightly silly debate though. I just thought it was ironic that Nomad was making an incorrect generalisation about social science's use of a methodology that is supposed to prevent researchers from making incorrect generalisations.

EDIT: Just to add, that I do work for a mixed methods social science research project that employs two statisticians (one full and one part time). Hypothesis testing is hard wired into the most basic and fundamental quantitative procedure, which exists to 1, establish if a relationship exists between two or more variables in a dataset and 2, establish if that relationship exists in the population. No. 2 is a test of the probability that the null hypothesis is true (i.e. that the relationship does not exist in the population). This is the essence of quantitative social research methods.

Dude, you still don't get it. This is not a debate. It was a statement about FORMAL RIGOR, and how social science has less than the other sciences. (Econ being possibly excepted in some cases.) Social scientists often test things that simply can't be quantified as easily as, say, genetic drift or allele frequency can.

And as far as chi-square/p values go, no shit... but you can test a fucking shit hypothesis with a chi-square, and still get a p value. That doesn't make your hypothesis good, it just makes your data set nice and "statistically significant"...which again, doesn't mean that what you're saying makes any sense. Any number of anomalies can get you a really low p number. (which is a measure of whether your hypothesis, not the null hypothesis, is stat. sign.)

The null hypothesis should be "our research will not produce usable results" or you're not doing it right.

vimothy
23-01-2010, 06:28 PM
No, that's not right. You said:


I realized that sociologists don't use the null hypothesis or any type of control (usually) in their studies.

EDIT: You're also wrong about p-values. A p-value tests the null hypothesis (we want to avoid type I errors). A low p-value means a low chance the null hypothesis is correct, means there's a good chance your relationship holds in the population. Low p-values make us happy.

nomadthethird
24-01-2010, 05:16 PM
No, that's not right. You said:



EDIT: You're also wrong about p-values. A p-value tests the null hypothesis (we want to avoid type I errors). A low p-value means a low chance the null hypothesis is correct, means there's a good chance your relationship holds in the population. Low p-values make us happy.

No, chi-squares/p values test your data, and the likelihood that such results could have resulted from chance, not the null hypothesis. You can't really test the null hypothesis with a chi square, since the null hypothesis is kind of like a big old nothing.

A low p value is in fact a good thing, but not because it tests the null hypothesis. It's a good thing because it indicates that *your results* are *statistically significant* which means that they probably mean something. (What that something is, however, is not whether the null hypothesis is correct or incorrect...)

From wikipedia:


There are several common misunderstandings about p-values.[2][3]


The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true. (This false conclusion is used to justify the "rule" of considering a result to be significant if its p-value is very small (near zero).)
In fact, frequentist statistics does not, and cannot, attach probabilities to hypotheses. Comparison of Bayesian and classical approaches shows that a p-value can be very close to zero while the posterior probability of the null is very close to unity. This is the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox.
The p-value is not the probability that a finding is "merely a fluke." (Again, this conclusion arises from the "rule" that small p-values indicate significant differences.)
As the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone, it patently cannot also be used to gauge the probability of that assumption being true. This is subtly different from the real meaning which is that the p-value is the chance that null hypothesis explains the result: the result might not be "merely a fluke," and be explicable by the null hypothesis with confidence equal to the p-value.
The p-value is not the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. This error is a version of the so-called prosecutor's fallacy.
The p-value is not the probability that a replicating experiment would not yield the same conclusion.
1 − (p-value) is not the probability of the alternative hypothesis being true (see (1)).
The significance level of the test is not determined by the p-value.
The significance level of a test is a value that should be decided upon by the agent interpreting the data before the data are viewed, and is compared against the p-value or any other statistic calculated after the test has been performed.
The p-value does not indicate the size or importance of the observed effect (compare with effect size).

vimothy
26-01-2010, 02:55 PM
Okay, okay, the null hypothesis is "true" by default (the status quo ante). A low p value means a low chance of committing a type I error, i.e. a low chance of observing a test statistic as extreme as that observed, if the results were distributed as in the null hypothesis. Or,


alpha (or the p value) = P(Rejecting H0|H0)

It doesn't really change my argument, though.

I think better arguments / critiques of social science are that quantitative methods is in fact all about qualities (moreso than qualitative methods, perhaps), and that quantiative methods can replace critical thought with statistical ritual.

On the latter point, this (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~bioep740/yr2009/topics/Gigerenzer-jSoc-Econ-1994.pdf) is an interesting paper.


Abstract:

Statistical rituals largely eliminate statistical thinking in the social sciences. Rituals are indispensable for identification with social groups, but they should be the subject rather than the procedure of science. What I call the “null ritual” consists of three steps: (1) set up a statistical null hypothesis, but do not specify your own hypothesis nor any alternative hypothesis, (2) use the 5% significance level for rejecting the null and accepting your hypothesis, and (3) always perform this procedure. I report evidence of the resulting collective confusion and fears about sanctions on the part of students and teachers, researchers and editors, as well as textbook writers.

nomadthethird
26-01-2010, 11:57 PM
Ok, that makes sense. I mostly think that you run the riskk of being able to force the numbers to fit when you're testing qualitative sorts of hypotheses...

And can I just say, that video from the other thread with Dr. Luke M. is horrible, facile and outright wrong.

"Oxidative stress"? Is that interviewer serious? If eating anti-oxidants prevented HIV/AIDS, then sub-Saharan Africa, an area where the average diet is MUCH healthier than it is the U.S. and where people are FAR less likely to be exposed to mutagens/carcinogens and "oxidative stress" than Westerners are, would have the lowest HIV rates in the world.

Likewise with China versus the U.S. Newsflash people: food cannot and will not prevent you from being infected with anything. It might, in some cases, speed up your recovery. But as far as transmission goes: food is irrelevant to exposure/transmission of viruses.

When he said "I believe that people get infected with HIV all the time and their immune system fights it off" I almost pissed myself. Citations please!! That's ludicrous, beyond belief, just flat out wrong.