Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 218
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: HIV/AIDS denialism

  1. #1 HIV/AIDS denialism 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    Some have claimed that AIDS is largely caused by drug abuse.

    Putting poison in the dope would only increase any such effect.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    Some have claimed that AIDS is largely caused by drug abuse.

    Putting poison in the dope would only increase any such effect.
    And those claims have been thoroughly and completely debunked by multiple medical organization around the globe. AIDS can be transmitted by use of dirty needles, but is not caused by the drugs themselves.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I'm sure he meant that in the way that "mosquitoes cause malaria".
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'm sure he meant that in the way that "mosquitoes cause malaria".
    It still needed correction, as there was a longstanding assertion that the drugs were the cause and not the virus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    But are you aware that many would equate such thinking with Nazism?
    I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. A few years ago I had a run in with a drug addict in Portland, who I gave a ride because it was cold outside. I ended up having to leave my car and he stole my radio.

    I hope you'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of sympathy toward drug addicts.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    But are you aware that many would equate such thinking with Nazism?
    I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. A few years ago I had a run in with a drug addict in Portland, who I gave a ride because it was cold outside. I ended up having to leave my car and he stole my radio.

    I hope you'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of sympathy toward drug addicts.
    Illegal drugs being spiked with poison does actually happen.

    Apparently it's a not an uncommon occurrence for cannabis to be 'wetted' with formaldehyde, a substance that doesn't do you a lot of good. In fact it's a suspect carcinogen.

    But then again if you consume any soft drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame, one of the by-products of digesting this sweetener is formaldehyde. Yum, yum!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    Some have claimed that AIDS is largely caused by drug abuse.

    Putting poison in the dope would only increase any such effect.
    And those claims have been thoroughly and completely debunked by multiple medical organization around the globe. AIDS can be transmitted by use of dirty needles, but is not caused by the drugs themselves.
    And have they managed to debunk the following:


    1. That there people with AIDS who don't have HIV.

    2. There are people with HIV who don't get AIDS.

    3. HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses are harmless to the host cell.

    4. HIV does not harm the T-lymphocytes in a test tube.


    Take it away Paleoichneum................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Follow The Money 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,803
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    3. HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses are harmless to the host cell.
    where do you get that baseless assertion from - the denialist manual to life, the universe and everything ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    3. HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses are harmless to the host cell.
    where do you get that baseless assertion from - the denialist manual to life, the universe and everything ?
    No marnixR, from science books.

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

    Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2] a condition in humans in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive.
    Retroviruses are used experimentally in gene therapy and retroviruses are considered largely harmless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,803
    that is because most viruses are harmless
    it doesn't mean ALL viruses are
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    that is because most viruses are harmless
    it doesn't mean ALL viruses are
    What are you claiming I have said that is in error?

    Please specify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Follow The Money 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,803
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Retroviruses are used experimentally in gene therapy and retroviruses are considered largely harmless.
    the important word being "largely" - it's the exceptions cause the problem, whether it's for retro- or other viruses
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Retroviruses are used experimentally in gene therapy and retroviruses are considered largely harmless.
    the important word being "largely" - it's the exceptions cause the problem, whether it's for retro- or other viruses
    But my original point was they don't destroy the host cell.

    Am I right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,803
    one of the characteristics of a virus is that they use the host cell's machinery to make more of themselves

    when it comes to retroviruses the tactics vary : some of them lie dormant for some time but when they multiply destroy the host cell, whereas others proliferate by causing their host cell to multiply, i.e. grow cancerous

    neither is good news for the host organism
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    Some have claimed that AIDS is largely caused by drug abuse.

    Putting poison in the dope would only increase any such effect.
    And those claims have been thoroughly and completely debunked by multiple medical organization around the globe. AIDS can be transmitted by use of dirty needles, but is not caused by the drugs themselves.
    And have they managed to debunk the following:


    1. That there people with AIDS who don't have HIV.

    2. There are people with HIV who don't get AIDS.

    3. HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses are harmless to the host cell.

    4. HIV does not harm the T-lymphocytes in a test tube.


    Take it away Paleoichneum................
    1. Known to be false information

    2. Common as HIV can have a decades long dormancy period

    3. Already addressed by marnixR

    4. Known misapplication of testing procedures by Roberto Giraldo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    But are you aware that many would equate such thinking with Nazism?
    I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. A few years ago I had a run in with a drug addict in Portland, who I gave a ride because it was cold outside. I ended up having to leave my car and he stole my radio.

    I hope you'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of sympathy toward drug addicts.
    Illegal drugs being spiked with poison does actually happen.

    Apparently it's a not an uncommon occurrence for cannabis to be 'wetted' with formaldehyde, a substance that doesn't do you a lot of good. In fact it's a suspect carcinogen.

    But then again if you consume any soft drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame, one of the by-products of digesting this sweetener is formaldehyde. Yum, yum!

    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on, but not for similarly idiotic teenagers who decide to take a mind altering drug knowing full well what they might become if they do. Maybe I'm not a perfect Darwinist?

    Perhaps its just because I've seen how dangerous drug addicts are that I want them all to die. It's not just me. The father of a family that lived up the street where I grew up was killed in cold blood by a pair of meth addicts who invaded his home to get money to buy drugs. They stripped him naked before shooting him. I think the danger of keeping these people alive outweighs the benefit of trying to help them get clean. Certain drugs can change a person who was otherwise law abiding and compassionate into a perfect sociopath.

    I'd actually be happy if someone decided to do a public service by selling poison laced meth.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The problem with your approach kojax is that when they (the protectors of society) come for you and put you up against a wall there is no one left to speak in your defence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on....
    Wow, thats a rather massive stereotypic comment. ugh
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on....
    Wow, thats a rather massive stereotypic comment. ugh
    Oh, no. I didn't mean to imply that everyone who gets aids gets so undeservedly. I mean I feel bad for the ones who actually do get it deservedly. I feel even worse for victims of forced prostitution, or people in third world countries who never got any health education, or get it from an undermaintained hospital .... etc. Or babies born to mothers who already have it....

    Sometimes I do act like a Neo Nazi, but it was a genuine accident this time.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Follow The Money 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I didn't mean to imply that everyone who gets aids gets so undeservedly. I mean I feel bad for the ones who actually do get it deservedly.
    Can you please elaborate on this idea you've proposed that there exist human beings who deserve to get AIDS, and why they deserve this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Follow The Money 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Sometimes I do act like a Neo Nazi, but it was a genuine accident this time.
    Would that be much in the same way as Hitler accidentaly wrote Mein Kampf?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on....
    Wow, thats a rather massive stereotypic comment. ugh
    I didn't mean to imply that everyone who gets aids gets so undeservedly. I mean I feel bad for the ones who actually do get it deservedly.
    I agree with inow, when is there ever a point that someone would deserve to get HIV/AIDS. Especially given your stated context of MSM relations only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    But are you aware that many would equate such thinking with Nazism?
    I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. A few years ago I had a run in with a drug addict in Portland, who I gave a ride because it was cold outside. I ended up having to leave my car and he stole my radio.

    I hope you'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of sympathy toward drug addicts.
    Illegal drugs being spiked with poison does actually happen.

    Apparently it's a not an uncommon occurrence for cannabis to be 'wetted' with formaldehyde, a substance that doesn't do you a lot of good. In fact it's a suspect carcinogen.

    But then again if you consume any soft drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame, one of the by-products of digesting this sweetener is formaldehyde. Yum, yum!

    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on, but not for similarly idiotic teenagers who decide to take a mind altering drug knowing full well what they might become if they do. Maybe I'm not a perfect Darwinist?

    Perhaps its just because I've seen how dangerous drug addicts are that I want them all to die. It's not just me. The father of a family that lived up the street where I grew up was killed in cold blood by a pair of meth addicts who invaded his home to get money to buy drugs. They stripped him naked before shooting him. I think the danger of keeping these people alive outweighs the benefit of trying to help them get clean. Certain drugs can change a person who was otherwise law abiding and compassionate into a perfect sociopath.

    I'd actually be happy if someone decided to do a public service by selling poison laced meth.
    Do all people who are addicted to crystal meth behave this way?

    There are people out there who are not addicted to crystal meth who do these sorts of things as well but it does not therefore follow that non-addicts are inclined to sociopathic behaviour also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    Some have claimed that AIDS is largely caused by drug abuse.

    Putting poison in the dope would only increase any such effect.
    And those claims have been thoroughly and completely debunked by multiple medical organization around the globe. AIDS can be transmitted by use of dirty needles, but is not caused by the drugs themselves.
    And have they managed to debunk the following:


    1. That there people with AIDS who don't have HIV.

    2. There are people with HIV who don't get AIDS.

    3. HIV is a retrovirus and retroviruses are harmless to the host cell.

    4. HIV does not harm the T-lymphocytes in a test tube.


    Take it away Paleoichneum................
    1. Known to be false information

    2. Common as HIV can have a decades long dormancy period

    3. Already addressed by marnixR

    4. Known misapplication of testing procedures by Roberto Giraldo

    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome can be caused by a number of different things. If you have AIDS, then by definition it simply means your immune system has become damaged.

    There was a famous story that was made into a film of a women who only ate fruit because she thought it was good for her and eventually her deficient diet permanently damaged her immune system. As a result she had to live the rest of her life in a plastic bubble. People with damaged immune systems get all the symptoms of AIDS.

    In fact if you didn't have HIV or AIDS and were perfectly healthy and took the anti-HIV drug AZT, you would get AIDS anyway. And if you look how AZT works it's not surprising. As far as healthy people are concerned it's a poison.

    And why is there such a huge interval of time between infection with HIV and development of AIDS? Ten years is a long time for a virus to remain dormant. What was it doing all this time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome can be caused by a number of different things. If you have AIDS, then by definition it simply means your immune system has become damaged.

    There was a famous story that was made into a film of a women who only ate fruit because she thought it was good for her and eventually her deficient diet permanently damaged her immune system. As a result she had to live the rest of her life in a plastic bubble. People with damaged immune systems get all the symptoms of AIDS.

    In fact if you didn't have HIV or AIDS and were perfectly healthy and took the anti-HIV drug AZT, you would get AIDS anyway. And if you look how AZT works it's not surprising. As far as healthy people are concerned it's a poison.

    And why is there such a huge interval of time between infection with HIV and development of AIDS? Ten years is a long time for a virus to remain dormant. What was it doing all this time?
    Please supply references for these assertions, as the sources I can find only list HIV as the cause of AIDS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Follow The Money 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome can be caused by a number of different things. If you have AIDS, then by definition it simply means your immune system has become damaged.

    There was a famous story that was made into a film of a women who only ate fruit because she thought it was good for her and eventually her deficient diet permanently damaged her immune system. As a result she had to live the rest of her life in a plastic bubble. People with damaged immune systems get all the symptoms of AIDS.

    In fact if you didn't have HIV or AIDS and were perfectly healthy and took the anti-HIV drug AZT, you would get AIDS anyway. And if you look how AZT works it's not surprising. As far as healthy people are concerned it's a poison.

    And why is there such a huge interval of time between infection with HIV and development of AIDS? Ten years is a long time for a virus to remain dormant. What was it doing all this time?
    Please supply references for these assertions, as the sources I can find only list HIV as the cause of AIDS.
    The only source I can quote is Peter Duesberg whose book on AIDS I read.

    Another problem with the HIV/AIDS theory is why, if an infected individual can develop an anti-body response to HIV, does the body not fight the disease of AIDS more effectively given that it is such a slow and weak virus?

    And why after all the effort have they never developed a successful HIV vaccine?

    All you really need to do is inactivate the live virus with UV light and hey presto you've got a vaccine! And I don't even have a Ph.D. in immunology!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome can be caused by a number of different things. If you have AIDS, then by definition it simply means your immune system has become damaged.

    There was a famous story that was made into a film of a women who only ate fruit because she thought it was good for her and eventually her deficient diet permanently damaged her immune system. As a result she had to live the rest of her life in a plastic bubble. People with damaged immune systems get all the symptoms of AIDS.

    In fact if you didn't have HIV or AIDS and were perfectly healthy and took the anti-HIV drug AZT, you would get AIDS anyway. And if you look how AZT works it's not surprising. As far as healthy people are concerned it's a poison.

    And why is there such a huge interval of time between infection with HIV and development of AIDS? Ten years is a long time for a virus to remain dormant. What was it doing all this time?
    Please supply references for these assertions, as the sources I can find only list HIV as the cause of AIDS.
    The only source I can quote is Peter Duesberg whose book on AIDS I read.

    Another problem with the HIV/AIDS theory is why, if an infected individual can develop an anti-body response to HIV, does the body not fight the disease of AIDS more effectively given that it is such a slow and weak virus?

    And why after all the effort have they never developed a successful HIV vaccine?

    All you really need to do is inactivate the live virus with UV light and hey presto you've got a vaccine! And I don't even have a Ph.D. in immunology!
    Peter Duesberg's claims regarding HIV as harmless have been thoroughly been rejected and dis-proven by the general scientific community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    It is possible for people to have compromised immunity, which results in symptoms similar to AIDS. However, none of that invalidates HIV as a virus which causes severe immune compromise. HIV denialism requires outlandishly ignoring the evidence. Not only does HIV satisfy Koch's postulates in animal models, but the physiological pathways and the virus' life cycle is understood in great detail. That is why new HAART has quadrupled life expectancies of HIV patients.

    AZT was initially given by physicians in the early 80s in too high doses when it was a new drugs, in some cases it probably did do more harm than good for a few people. However, years of testing has refined anti-retroviral treatments. Now HIV patients can live off of a "cocktail" of only a few pills a day, rather than the upwards of 15-30 pills in the 90s. There has been a lot of advances in drug treatments.

    And Gale, as someone who does have a degree in microbiology and immunology, I'm afraid that is not how you can make a vaccine. Killed HIV is unfortunately not antigenic. Besides, other methods that have successfully produced HIV antigens have not been successful at stopping disease.

    (Edit: Anyway, can a mod cut off the HIV denialism and send it to pseudoscience, this sort of stuff doesn't belong in the serious sections of the forum.)
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    (Edit: Anyway, can a mod cut off the HIV denialism and send it to pseudoscience, this sort of stuff doesn't belong in the serious sections of the forum.)
    Seconded with afterburner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Follow The Money 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on....
    Wow, thats a rather massive stereotypic comment. ugh
    I didn't mean to imply that everyone who gets aids gets so undeservedly. I mean I feel bad for the ones who actually do get it deservedly.
    I agree with inow, when is there ever a point that someone would deserve to get HIV/AIDS. Especially given your stated context of MSM relations only.
    I think pimps who run forced prostitution rings deserve to get aids.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.
    I hope that doesn't include adding poison to the dope to speed up the process?
    Sure why not? Kill them faster, get it over and done with.
    But are you aware that many would equate such thinking with Nazism?
    I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. A few years ago I had a run in with a drug addict in Portland, who I gave a ride because it was cold outside. I ended up having to leave my car and he stole my radio.

    I hope you'll understand if I don't hold out a lot of sympathy toward drug addicts.
    Illegal drugs being spiked with poison does actually happen.

    Apparently it's a not an uncommon occurrence for cannabis to be 'wetted' with formaldehyde, a substance that doesn't do you a lot of good. In fact it's a suspect carcinogen.

    But then again if you consume any soft drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame, one of the by-products of digesting this sweetener is formaldehyde. Yum, yum!

    It's strange that I feel bad for people who die of HIV for being unable to keep their pants on, but not for similarly idiotic teenagers who decide to take a mind altering drug knowing full well what they might become if they do. Maybe I'm not a perfect Darwinist?

    Perhaps its just because I've seen how dangerous drug addicts are that I want them all to die. It's not just me. The father of a family that lived up the street where I grew up was killed in cold blood by a pair of meth addicts who invaded his home to get money to buy drugs. They stripped him naked before shooting him. I think the danger of keeping these people alive outweighs the benefit of trying to help them get clean. Certain drugs can change a person who was otherwise law abiding and compassionate into a perfect sociopath.

    I'd actually be happy if someone decided to do a public service by selling poison laced meth.
    Do all people who are addicted to crystal meth behave this way?

    There are people out there who are not addicted to crystal meth who do these sorts of things as well but it does not therefore follow that non-addicts are inclined to sociopathic behaviour also.
    I'm sure it's a disproportionately high number. People who are addicted to something they can't afford, who think they're dying if they have to go without it for even a few days, get pretty desperate for money.

    Going without their addiction is essentially like being strapped to a table and tortured with knives. What measures would you go to? How many cycles would it take to turn you into a psychopath?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    It is possible for people to have compromised immunity, which results in symptoms similar to AIDS. However, none of that invalidates HIV as a virus which causes severe immune compromise. HIV denialism requires outlandishly ignoring the evidence. Not only does HIV satisfy Koch's postulates in animal models, but the physiological pathways and the virus' life cycle is understood in great detail. That is why new HAART has quadrupled life expectancies of HIV patients.

    AZT was initially given by physicians in the early 80s in too high doses when it was a new drugs, in some cases it probably did do more harm than good for a few people. However, years of testing has refined anti-retroviral treatments. Now HIV patients can live off of a "cocktail" of only a few pills a day, rather than the upwards of 15-30 pills in the 90s. There has been a lot of advances in drug treatments.

    And Gale, as someone who does have a degree in microbiology and immunology, I'm afraid that is not how you can make a vaccine. Killed HIV is unfortunately not antigenic. Besides, other methods that have successfully produced HIV antigens have not been successful at stopping disease.

    (Edit: Anyway, can a mod cut off the HIV denialism and send it to pseudoscience, this sort of stuff doesn't belong in the serious sections of the forum.)
    But how many people have died from the effects of AZT rather than of AIDS? The facts are AZT would kill you eventually anyway even if you were otherwise perfectly healthy. That's got to be bad!

    And how do we know the symptoms of AIDS spoken of were not largely caused by AZT?

    Your opinion is just so sweeping..........

    Again you use what I can only describe as a form of Newspeak is referring to HIV scepticism as "pseudoscience".



    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    It is possible for people to have compromised immunity, which results in symptoms similar to AIDS. However, none of that invalidates HIV as a virus which causes severe immune compromise. HIV denialism requires outlandishly ignoring the evidence. Not only does HIV satisfy Koch's postulates in animal models, but the physiological pathways and the virus' life cycle is understood in great detail. That is why new HAART has quadrupled life expectancies of HIV patients.

    AZT was initially given by physicians in the early 80s in too high doses when it was a new drugs, in some cases it probably did do more harm than good for a few people. However, years of testing has refined anti-retroviral treatments. Now HIV patients can live off of a "cocktail" of only a few pills a day, rather than the upwards of 15-30 pills in the 90s. There has been a lot of advances in drug treatments.

    And Gale, as someone who does have a degree in microbiology and immunology, I'm afraid that is not how you can make a vaccine. Killed HIV is unfortunately not antigenic. Besides, other methods that have successfully produced HIV antigens have not been successful at stopping disease.

    (Edit: Anyway, can a mod cut off the HIV denialism and send it to pseudoscience, this sort of stuff doesn't belong in the serious sections of the forum.)
    But how many people have died from the effects of AZT rather than of AIDS? The facts are AZT would kill you eventually anyway even if you were otherwise perfectly healthy. That's got to be bad!

    And how do we know the symptoms of AIDS spoken of were not largely caused by AZT?

    Your opinion is just so sweeping..........

    Again you use what I can only describe as a form of Newspeak is referring to HIV scepticism as "pseudoscience".
    Show us you have anything beyond a misunderstanding of the science of HIV/AIDS biology that ISNT from debunked HIV/AIDS denialist's book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    But how many people have died from the effects of AZT rather than of AIDS? The facts are AZT would kill you eventually anyway even if you were otherwise perfectly healthy. That's got to be bad!
    Clinical trials.

    No drug is perfect, everyone wants a fucking miracle pill that will solve all their health problems without trouble. That just isn't realistic. We have to balance the cost and the benefits, at this point Anti-retroviral therapy extends the life of HIV patients, and it improves their quality of life. Despite the issues of hepatotoxicity and other side-effects. Your opinion is not only based on misunderstanding of the science, it is also very dangerous. HIV denialist prey on the hopes and fears of HIV patients, it's not only scientifically unsound it is morally bankrupt.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Show us you have anything beyond a misunderstanding of the science of HIV/AIDS biology that ISNT from debunked HIV/AIDS denialist's book.
    I freely admit that my knowledge does not go beyond what I have read in an HIV denialist book.

    Do you find this surprising?

    As for my alleged "misunderstanding", please point out exactly where my science is wrong. So far you have just offered dismissive comments with no real sources at all. I am not convinced by this at all and no one else should be either.

    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Clinical trials.

    No drug is perfect, everyone wants a fucking miracle pill that will solve all their health problems without trouble. That just isn't realistic. We have to balance the cost and the benefits, at this point Anti-retroviral therapy extends the life of HIV patients, and it improves their quality of life. Despite the issues of hepatotoxicity and other side-effects. Your opinion is not only based on misunderstanding of the science, it is also very dangerous. HIV denialist prey on the hopes and fears of HIV patients, it's not only scientifically unsound it is morally bankrupt.
    The obvious answer to that is that denialists would claim that because AIDS is such big business, the AIDS companies themselves are preying on the hopes and fears of AIDS patients.

    How many quack cures have we seen already from the big pharmaceutical companies that have been shown to be entirely reliant on the placebo effect? I've lost count as have publications like the New Scientist who report on stories like this.

    And how many of these same quack cures have also been shown to have dangerous side effect, including death?

    According to Dr. Carolyn Dean in "Death by Modern Medicine", the single biggest killer in the western world above cancer, smoking, heart disease and all the rest, is medical malpractice which includes drugs side effects, hospital infections, surgical procedures which went wrong, misdiagnosis etc.

    It seems illness IS big business and is making someone billions upon billions in profits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I freely admit that my knowledge does not go beyond what I have read in an HIV denialist book.
    Then go do a LOT more research before spreading the misinformation that was presented in the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Do you find this surprising?
    To be honest, no

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    As for my alleged "misunderstanding", please point out exactly where my science is wrong. So far you have just offered dismissive comments with no real sources at all. I am not convinced by this at all and no one else should be either.

    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    That is because I am familiar with your style of argument, just look at your persistent denial that mechanical weathering creates sand, even with he detailed explanations given.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,803
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    you want debunking of denialist claims ? just look at the damage government-sponsored "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" denialism has caused in South Africa
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I freely admit that my knowledge does not go beyond what I have read in an HIV denialist book.
    Then go do a LOT more research before spreading the misinformation that was presented in the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Do you find this surprising?
    To be honest, no

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    As for my alleged "misunderstanding", please point out exactly where my science is wrong. So far you have just offered dismissive comments with no real sources at all. I am not convinced by this at all and no one else should be either.

    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    That is because I am familiar with your style of argument, just look at your persistent denial that mechanical weathering creates sand, even with he detailed explanations given.
    NO!!! You do more research!!

    As far as I am concerned it is your word against Peter Duesberg et al.

    And what evidence have you presented? Next to nothing!

    The best you can present is cocksure slogans.

    Bah!


    pulling_out_hair.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I freely admit that my knowledge does not go beyond what I have read in an HIV denialist book.
    Then go do a LOT more research before spreading the misinformation that was presented in the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Do you find this surprising?
    To be honest, no

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    As for my alleged "misunderstanding", please point out exactly where my science is wrong. So far you have just offered dismissive comments with no real sources at all. I am not convinced by this at all and no one else should be either.

    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    That is because I am familiar with your style of argument, just look at your persistent denial that mechanical weathering creates sand, even with he detailed explanations given.
    NO!!! You do more research!!

    As far as I am concerned it is your word against Peter Duesberg et al.

    And what evidence have you presented? Next to nothing!

    The best you can present is cocksure slogans.

    Bah!
    Why should I you are the one that seems very proud that the only knowledge you have of the subject is from a denialists book. You seem proud that all your information is from the one source. We are not here to do your research and fact checking for you. As marniX already said: Present specifics that you want t odiscuss and we will go from there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I freely admit that my knowledge does not go beyond what I have read in an HIV denialist book.
    Then go do a LOT more research before spreading the misinformation that was presented in the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Do you find this surprising?
    To be honest, no

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    As for my alleged "misunderstanding", please point out exactly where my science is wrong. So far you have just offered dismissive comments with no real sources at all. I am not convinced by this at all and no one else should be either.

    As for these denialist theories being debunked, please proved that this is nothing more than just a sweeping opinion. Again give detail and sources.
    That is because I am familiar with your style of argument, just look at your persistent denial that mechanical weathering creates sand, even with he detailed explanations given.
    NO!!! You do more research!!

    As far as I am concerned it is your word against Peter Duesberg et al.

    And what evidence have you presented? Next to nothing!

    The best you can present is cocksure slogans.

    Bah!
    Why should I you are the one that seems very proud that the only knowledge you have of the subject is from a denialists book. You seem proud that all your information is from the one source. We are not here to do your research and fact checking for you. As marniX already said: Present specifics that you want t odiscuss and we will go from there.
    BS!

    I have already presented my specifics. Four clearly numbered points in total.

    The best you lot could do was deny these at point blank without any reference or source.

    Not good enough!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    BS!

    I have already presented my specifics. Four clearly numbered points in total.

    The best you lot could do was deny these at point blank without any reference or source.

    Not good enough!
    Your points are silly Gale.

    The first point is simply false, you are confusing general immune compromise with AIDS. Of course, people can have compromised immunity from a number of ways, from cancer to heavy doses of certain steroids. However, the etiology of these kinds of immune compromise are radically different from what you see with an HIV infection. Moreover, we are capable of tracing the slow decline of CD4 T cells in HIV patients, and the molecular basis of anti-retroviral therapy explains why those with HIV who are treated live longer than those with HIV who are not treated. For example, in HIV patients you see depletion of peripheral T cells in the mucosa, and you see specifically a decline in CD4 T cells. Leukemia and steroid use causes relatively equal drops in lymphocyte levels and doesn't show any particular preference for certain cell types and tissues.

    Your second point is silly because it is well understood how HIV progressively causes AIDS, you can read entire text books on the subject discussing the molecular basis, and the life cycle of HIV is understood down to the shuttling proteins involved in bringing viral RNA into the nucleus.

    Your third point is simply wrong. I work in the veterinary field so I encounter Feline Leukemia Virus (There is also a murine leukemia virus that effects mice) and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus somewhat regularly, both are retroviruses that are quite deadly for cats, both viruses cause immune compromise as well. Then there is the SIV which causes AIDS like illness in simians. Other pathogenic retroviruses include the very interesting carcinogenic viruses, Mouse Mammary Tumour Virus and the Human T-Lymphotropic Virus. The one thing pathogenic retroviruses have in common is that they kill slowly, because of the nature of their lifecycle.

    It should also be noted that Hepatitis B virus is closely related to retroviruses, except it has a DNA genome instead of an RNA genome. So it is classified separately.

    HIV does harm T-lymphocytes in vitro. What it causes initially is a sharp increase in cell-mediated killing, where the t-cells attempt to kill the infected ones off the bat. Moreover, you can view the formation of lymphocyte syncytium in vitro from infected blood. This is a process of cell fusing which transforms the lymphocytes into a giant HIV factory that is short lived and burst to release HIV into the blood. HIV achieves this through the production of gp120 by the host cell, which induces lymphocyte cell-cell fusion.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    BS!

    I have already presented my specifics. Four clearly numbered points in total.

    The best you lot could do was deny these at point blank without any reference or source.

    Not good enough!
    Your points are silly Gale.

    The first point is simply false, you are confusing general immune compromise with AIDS. Of course, people can have compromised immunity from a number of ways, from cancer to heavy doses of certain steroids. However, the etiology of these kinds of immune compromise are radically different from what you see with an HIV infection. Moreover, we are capable of tracing the slow decline of CD4 T cells in HIV patients, and the molecular basis of anti-retroviral therapy explains why those with HIV who are treated live longer than those with HIV who are not treated. For example, in HIV patients you see depletion of peripheral T cells in the mucosa, and you see specifically a decline in CD4 T cells. Leukemia and steroid use causes relatively equal drops in lymphocyte levels and doesn't show any particular preference for certain cell types and tissues.

    Your second point is silly because it is well understood how HIV progressively causes AIDS, you can read entire text books on the subject discussing the molecular basis, and the life cycle of HIV is understood down to the shuttling proteins involved in bringing viral RNA into the nucleus.

    Your third point is simply wrong. I work in the veterinary field so I encounter Feline Leukemia Virus (There is also a murine leukemia virus that effects mice) and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus somewhat regularly, both are retroviruses that are quite deadly for cats, both viruses cause immune compromise as well. Then there is the SIV which causes AIDS like illness in simians. Other pathogenic retroviruses include the very interesting carcinogenic viruses, Mouse Mammary Tumour Virus and the Human T-Lymphotropic Virus. The one thing pathogenic retroviruses have in common is that they kill slowly, because of the nature of their lifecycle.

    It should also be noted that Hepatitis B virus is closely related to retroviruses, except it has a DNA genome instead of an RNA genome. So it is classified separately.

    HIV does harm T-lymphocytes in vitro. What it causes initially is a sharp increase in cell-mediated killing, where the t-cells attempt to kill the infected ones off the bat. Moreover, you can view the formation of lymphocyte syncytium in vitro from infected blood. This is a process of cell fusing which transforms the lymphocytes into a giant HIV factory that is short lived and burst to release HIV into the blood. HIV achieves this through the production of gp120 by the host cell, which induces lymphocyte cell-cell fusion.
    I dispute that the symptoms of AIDS are aetiologically different from persons with a general immune system compromise.

    For a start the description of the symptoms of AIDS varies dramatically. Check it out for yourselves. The initial symptoms of an HIV infection are even more vague.

    And anyone with a damaged immune system resulting from a general compromise will get the same cancers an 'AIDS' patient gets.

    What you are repeating is simply the 'official' story of what is going on.

    I stand by what I have said concerning the toxicity of AZT and that a healthy person taking it would eventually get AIDS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    But you have already said all your knowledge is from one source only. Why are you committed to that source?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    But you have already said all your knowledge is from one source only. Why are you committed to that source?
    Because I am wise enough to know what the game is.

    Duesberg's and others' work is not a misleading fabrication from start to finish. Rather apologists for the official line attempt to whitewash over all the embarrassing detail with polite excuses and fictions.

    And you are one of these people Paleoichneum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    I stand by what I have said concerning the toxicity of AZT and that a healthy person taking it would eventually get AIDS.
    This is just nonsense. AZT is a nucleoside analog that competitively binds DNA polymerase, and so it interferes with DNA replication. It happens to bind HIV DNA polymeraze preferentially, but it also has a slight affinity for mitochondrial DNA polymerase. This is why AZT in high enough doses causes muscular and cardiovascular damage. And since it inhibits our cellular DNA polymerase a little bit, it causes slight anemia since we are constantly producing red blood cells. Like any drug people take longterm in high doses, there can be issues with build up in the liver causing hepatotoxicity. Moreover, AZT is not the only drug HIV patients take these days, some go on therapies without the drug when the side effects are too severe.

    One thing AZT does not cause is immune compromise. There is no clinical evidence of such. And there is no molecular or physiological explanation of how it could cause immune compromise. Moreover, arguing that AZT is unhealthy is a moot point, of course it is unhealthy, it is a rough drug. However, it's better than dying of AIDS in 5-8 years, which is the average prognosis for untreated HIV.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    But you have already said all your knowledge is from one source only. Why are you committed to that source?
    Because I am wise enough to know what the game is.

    Duesberg's and others' work is not a misleading fabrication from start to finish. Rather apologists for the official line attempt to whitewash over all the embarrassing detail with polite excuses and fictions.

    And you are one of these people Paleoichneum.
    All that from the one dissenting source you could find? Interesting, especially since i was not aware I was mentioned at any point, so your assertions of my motivation are interesting also
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    I stand by what I have said concerning the toxicity of AZT and that a healthy person taking it would eventually get AIDS.
    This is just nonsense. AZT is a nucleoside analog that competitively binds DNA polymerase, and so it interferes with DNA replication. It happens to bind HIV DNA polymeraze preferentially, but it also has a slight affinity for mitochondrial DNA polymerase. This is why AZT in high enough doses causes muscular and cardiovascular damage. And since it inhibits our cellular DNA polymerase a little bit, it causes slight anemia since we are constantly producing red blood cells. Like any drug people take longterm in high doses, there can be issues with build up in the liver causing hepatotoxicity. Moreover, AZT is not the only drug HIV patients take these days, some go on therapies without the drug when the side effects are too severe.

    One thing AZT does not cause is immune compromise. There is no clinical evidence of such. And there is no molecular or physiological explanation of how it could cause immune compromise. Moreover, arguing that AZT is unhealthy is a moot point, of course it is unhealthy, it is a rough drug. However, it's better than dying of AIDS in 5-8 years, which is the average prognosis for untreated HIV.
    This is what Peter Duesberg Ph.D. and John Yiamouyiannis Ph.D. have to say regarding AZT:

    AZT was developed some 40 years ago to kill cancer cells and to stop the cancer going metastatic (Horwitz, 1964; Cohen, 1987; Yarchoan and Broder, 1987a; Yarchoa, et al., 1991)

    AZT therefore cannot distinguish between an infected cell and an uninfected cell, it simply kills rapidly dividing cells, the cells that are producing the most DNA (Cretton, et al., 1991; Chernov, 1986; Elwell, et al., 1987; Yarchoan and Broder, 1987b; Smother, 1991; Yarchoan, et al., 1991)

    That AZT can destroy the immune system without the presence of HIV was even acknowledged by the producer of AZT, Burroughs Wellcome who said in the Physician's Desk Reference: "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse effects possibly associated with Zidovudine [AZT] administration from underlying signs of HIV disease....."

    AZT is an analogue of thymidine, one of the four building blocks of DNA. However AZT lacks the complete structure to continue the replication of the DNA chain, so when the enzyme which builds the DNA uses AZT instead of thymidine, the chain is broken.

    Without DNA replication in your body eventually you will die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    AZT does distinguish, it binds viral DNA polymerase with higher affinity than the cellular one, and it also binds mitochondrial DNA polymerase with a slightly higher affinity. Thus, the dose at which it inhibits HIV (and to mitochondria) is lower than the dose it becomes toxic to most human cells. That is part of the reason why it was never a very good cancer drug.

    As to it's similarities to the underlying symptoms of HIV, they probably mean anemia, neutropenia and weight loss. Out of context quotes from a non peer reviewed statement by a pharmaceutical company isn't even relevant. Please feel three to actually provide a peer reviewed paper that actually shows that AZT harms the adaptive immune system.

    Please, do not try to explain things to me that you clearly have no understanding of the science behind. Feel three to try to explain how AZT could target mucosal lymphocytes preferentially, and how it could deplete CD4 T cells rapidly without targeting CD8 T cells. How it could cause syncitium. And what about HIV patients being treated with out nucleoside analogs like lamivudine, or by protease inhibitors instead? Why do people not suddenly get better when their HIV strain becomes AZT resistant and they get off the AZT. Why does AZT resistance cause rapid deterioration in health?
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    AZT does distinguish, it binds viral DNA polymerase with higher affinity than the cellular one, and it also binds mitochondrial DNA polymerase with a slightly higher affinity. Thus, the dose at which it inhibits HIV (and to mitochondria) is lower than the dose it becomes toxic to most human cells. That is part of the reason why it was never a very good cancer drug.
    We don't appear to see eye to eye on the issue on how AZT works.

    See the following quote from Thymidine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    Before the boom in thymidine use caused by the need for thymidine for the production of the antiretroviral drug azidothymidine (AZT), much of the world's thymidine production came from herring sperm.[1] Thymidine occurs almost exclusively in DNA but also occurs in the T-loop oftRNA.
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?

    Please, do not try to explain things to me that you clearly have no understanding of the science behind. Feel three to try to explain how AZT could target mucosal lymphocytes preferentially, and how it could deplete CD4 T cells rapidly without targeting CD8 T cells. How it could cause syncitium. And what about HIV patients being treated with out nucleoside analogs like lamivudine, or by protease inhibitors instead? Why do people not suddenly get better when their HIV strain becomes AZT resistant and they get off the AZT. Why does AZT resistance cause rapid deterioration in health?
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    Last edited by galexander; July 24th, 2011 at 02:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?
    You're just repeating that AZT is a nucleoside analog. What you fail to understand is that this analog binds the viral polymerase of HIV with a higher affinity. What this means is that you can use a concentration of the drug that does not significantly inhibit the cellular polymerases but is effective at interfering with viral DNA replication. That is how the drug therapy works.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    Uh, first of all Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by Herpes Simplex Virus-8, it appears in immune compromised individuals because healthy immune systems control the virus relatively easily. You also see outbreaks of KS in organ transplant recipients who have their immune system inhibited by steroids. I don't know what miraculous factors you are talking about here.

    How HIV causes dementia is related to infected macrophages in the brain, why you think this is miraculous is beyond me. AZT would not explain those symptoms but HIV does, since dendritic macrophages are susceptible to HIV infection along with CD4 T-cells. Moreover, the prevalence of AIDS related dementia amongst HIV positive individuals has declined with the use of anti-retrovirals.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?
    You're just repeating that AZT is a nucleoside analog. What you fail to understand is that this analog binds the viral polymerase of HIV with a higher affinity. What this means is that you can use a concentration of the drug that does not significantly inhibit the cellular polymerases but is effective at interfering with viral DNA replication. That is how the drug therapy works.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    Uh, first of all Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by Herpes Simplex Virus-8, it appears in immune compromised individuals because healthy immune systems control the virus relatively easily. You also see outbreaks of KS in organ transplant recipients who have their immune system inhibited by steroids. I don't know what miraculous factors you are talking about here.

    How HIV causes dementia is related to infected macrophages in the brain, why you think this is miraculous is beyond me. AZT would not explain those symptoms but HIV does, since dendritic macrophages are susceptible to HIV infection along with CD4 T-cells. Moreover, the prevalence of AIDS related dementia amongst HIV positive individuals has declined with the use of anti-retrovirals.
    Nucleotides do not 'bind' with polymerase in the production of DNA or RNA. The nucleotides bind with each other. I cannot follow what you are talking about here. Besides AZT was designed for fighting human cancer cells not viruses.

    What makes macrophages specific to the brain? Or why does HIV specifically infect macrophages in the brain to cause dementia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?
    You're just repeating that AZT is a nucleoside analog. What you fail to understand is that this analog binds the viral polymerase of HIV with a higher affinity. What this means is that you can use a concentration of the drug that does not significantly inhibit the cellular polymerases but is effective at interfering with viral DNA replication. That is how the drug therapy works.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    Uh, first of all Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by Herpes Simplex Virus-8, it appears in immune compromised individuals because healthy immune systems control the virus relatively easily. You also see outbreaks of KS in organ transplant recipients who have their immune system inhibited by steroids. I don't know what miraculous factors you are talking about here.

    How HIV causes dementia is related to infected macrophages in the brain, why you think this is miraculous is beyond me. AZT would not explain those symptoms but HIV does, since dendritic macrophages are susceptible to HIV infection along with CD4 T-cells. Moreover, the prevalence of AIDS related dementia amongst HIV positive individuals has declined with the use of anti-retrovirals.
    So viruses like herpes simplex cause cancer?

    What about other viruses like the common cold?

    And how could you prove that the virus caused the cancer? Apparently they found fragments of the herpesvirus in the cancer cells. But how is this possible if it took over 10 years to map the human genome involving a large number of teams spread out across the globe? It would have been like looking for a needle in haystack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Nucleotides do not 'bind' with polymerase in the production of DNA or RNA. The nucleotides bind with each other. I cannot follow what you are talking about here. Besides AZT was designed for fighting human cancer cells not viruses.
    It does both, the nucleoside must bind in the right pocket of the DNA polymerase for the chain extension to be catalyzed. The polymerase has to make sure that the wrong nucleotide doesn't get placed, (which occurs occasionally even when there aren't nucleoside analogs hanging around) the hydrogen bonds between purines and pyrimidines are not what determine this alone, the DNA polymerase relies on how the nucleoside fits into it's binding pocket to determine whether it will catalyse the reaction. Human DNA polymerase-delta recognizes AZT as not thymidine better than viral reverse transcriptase, which is a non-template dependent DNA polymerase and has less proofreading ability. Human DNA polymerase is much more likely to reject AZT than HIV reverse transcriptase because it does not bind well to the elongation pocket of human DNA polymerase. What makes AZT so effective is that HIV reverse transcriptase can not distinguish well between AZT and dTTP.

    You cannot follow what I am saying because you have a rudimentary understanding of molecular biology.
    Moreover, AZT was never designed to kill tumours, it was designed to kill retroviruses which were suspected of causing cancer. There was an interest in this because a few cancer causing viruses were discovered in birds and the molecular basis of cancer in humans wasn't well understood in the 60s. It was shelved in the trial period because it was useless as a cancer drug, it didn't inhibit tumours at all. It was discovered as an effective anti-retroviral in random drug screenings when interest in anti-retrovirals was renewed with the discovery of HIV.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    What makes macrophages specific to the brain? Or why does HIV specifically infect macrophages in the brain to cause dementia?
    Macrophages are not specific to the brain, they are found all over the body. However, the cytokines infected macrophages produce are neurotoxic. Altered cytokine production is a normal result of viral infection of any cell. Usually, it increases virulence, sometimes it is just a side effect of some regulatory factor the virus fucks with for its own reproduction.
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; July 25th, 2011 at 07:19 PM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So viruses like herpes simplex cause cancer?

    What about other viruses like the common cold?

    And how could you prove that the virus caused the cancer? Apparently they found fragments of the herpesvirus in the cancer cells. But how is this possible if it took over 10 years to map the human genome involving a large number of teams spread out across the globe? It would have been like looking for a needle in haystack.
    How they did it is through a simple, though brilliant, technique called representational difference analysis. What they did is they took DNA from a lesion and DNA from a healthy cell from the same patient. What you do is you cut up the DNA from the lesion with an exonuclease that leaves a known sticky end that you can add a marker of known sequence to. Then you do the same with the other DNA using a different marker so that you can then amplify that DNA. Then you mix and amplify and filter over and over again using the marker sequence you added to the primers you've added to the lesion DNA. What you end up with is that eventually this process removes DNA that is complementary between both samples until all you have left is DNA only found in the lesion sequence. It's less like finding a needle in a haystack than finding a single black ball in a pile of white balls, it takes some work to find it but it's not that difficult a task.

    Also, once you know you may have a virus from a known genus, it is quite simple to use primers to sequence the genome because you would expect some conserved genes between related viruses.

    The virus has been found in every single Kaposi Sarcoma lesion ever tested since the virus was recognized. Also, viruses causing cancer is not abnormal, we've already talked about two carcinogenic viruses earlier in the thread. Viruses manipulate the expression of genes in cells, so if they interfere with cell cycle and apoptosis (most viruses do this) they can cause tumours. HPV is another well known oncovirus that is a common cause of cervical cancer. Moreover, Epstein Barr Virus, another Herpes virus, is closely related and causes cancer too.

    Herpes Simplex Viruses are a diverse family of viruses that cause diseases ranging from cold sores, to genital legions, to chicken pox, to shingles, to Epstein Barr. Your incredulity about this doesn't matter to me.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    AZT does distinguish, it binds viral DNA polymerase with higher affinity than the cellular one, and it also binds mitochondrial DNA polymerase with a slightly higher affinity. Thus, the dose at which it inhibits HIV (and to mitochondria) is lower than the dose it becomes toxic to most human cells. That is part of the reason why it was never a very good cancer drug.
    We don't appear to see eye to eye on the issue on how AZT works.

    See the following quote from Thymidine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    Before the boom in thymidine use caused by the need for thymidine for the production of the antiretroviral drug azidothymidine (AZT), much of the world's thymidine production came from herring sperm.[1] Thymidine occurs almost exclusively in DNA but also occurs in the T-loop oftRNA.
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?

    Please, do not try to explain things to me that you clearly have no understanding of the science behind. Feel three to try to explain how AZT could target mucosal lymphocytes preferentially, and how it could deplete CD4 T cells rapidly without targeting CD8 T cells. How it could cause syncitium. And what about HIV patients being treated with out nucleoside analogs like lamivudine, or by protease inhibitors instead? Why do people not suddenly get better when their HIV strain becomes AZT resistant and they get off the AZT. Why does AZT resistance cause rapid deterioration in health?
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    What part of "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (AIDS), don't you understand? All AIDS does is drop your immune system so that you're defenseless against other diseases. The other diseases do the rest. Nobody dies directly from AIDS itself.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So the junk thymidine in the form of AZT breaks the chain in the production of DNA. And this is how AZT works right?
    You're just repeating that AZT is a nucleoside analog. What you fail to understand is that this analog binds the viral polymerase of HIV with a higher affinity. What this means is that you can use a concentration of the drug that does not significantly inhibit the cellular polymerases but is effective at interfering with viral DNA replication. That is how the drug therapy works.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    On the contrary HIV is alleged to do some pretty miraculous things that AIDS scientists have a problem explaining. For example HIV infected cells are claimed to produce factors that in turn affect uninfected cells to produce Kaposi's sarcoma; the latter being a classic symptom of AIDS. Also these same infected cells are said to produce toxins which kill neurons causing the symptoms of dementia found in many AIDS patients.
    Uh, first of all Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by Herpes Simplex Virus-8, it appears in immune compromised individuals because healthy immune systems control the virus relatively easily. You also see outbreaks of KS in organ transplant recipients who have their immune system inhibited by steroids. I don't know what miraculous factors you are talking about here.

    How HIV causes dementia is related to infected macrophages in the brain, why you think this is miraculous is beyond me. AZT would not explain those symptoms but HIV does, since dendritic macrophages are susceptible to HIV infection along with CD4 T-cells. Moreover, the prevalence of AIDS related dementia amongst HIV positive individuals has declined with the use of anti-retrovirals.
    You may find the following of interest.

    Here is a list of some of the side-effects from taking AZT and applies to persons with AIDS, persons without AIDS and laboratory animals dosed with AZT (Smothers, 1991; McLeod and Hammer, 1992; Physician’s Desk Reference, Medical Economics Data, 1992):
    1. Anemia (depressed red blood cell count).
    2. Leukopenia (depressed white blood cell count).
    3. Severe nausea resulting from intestinal intoxication.
    4. Muscle atrophy and polymyositis.
    5. Lymphomas (cancer of the lymphatic system).
    6. Acute hepatitas.
    7. Neurological disease including headaches, insomnia and dementia.
    8. Male impotence.
    9. Vaginal squamous carcinomas in mice.
    You might note that this is the list of syptoms that has killed many ‘AIDS’ sufferers of the years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Nucleotides do not 'bind' with polymerase in the production of DNA or RNA. The nucleotides bind with each other. I cannot follow what you are talking about here. Besides AZT was designed for fighting human cancer cells not viruses.
    It does both, the nucleoside must bind in the right pocket of the DNA polymerase for the chain extension to be catalyzed. The polymerase has to make sure that the wrong nucleotide doesn't get placed, (which occurs occasionally even when there aren't nucleoside analogs hanging around) the hydrogen bonds between purines and pyrimidines are not what determine this alone, the DNA polymerase relies on how the nucleoside fits into it's binding pocket to determine whether it will catalyse the reaction. Human DNA polymerase-delta recognizes AZT as not thymidine better than viral reverse transcriptase, which is a non-template dependent DNA polymerase and has less proofreading ability. Human DNA polymerase is much more likely to reject AZT than HIV reverse transcriptase because it does not bind well to the elongation pocket of human DNA polymerase. What makes AZT so effective is that HIV reverse transcriptase can not distinguish well between AZT and dTTP.

    You cannot follow what I am saying because you have a rudimentary understanding of molecular biology.
    Moreover, AZT was never designed to kill tumours, it was designed to kill retroviruses which were suspected of causing cancer. There was an interest in this because a few cancer causing viruses were discovered in birds and the molecular basis of cancer in humans wasn't well understood in the 60s. It was shelved in the trial period because it was useless as a cancer drug, it didn't inhibit tumours at all. It was discovered as an effective anti-retroviral in random drug screenings when interest in anti-retrovirals was renewed with the discovery of HIV.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    What makes macrophages specific to the brain? Or why does HIV specifically infect macrophages in the brain to cause dementia?
    Macrophages are not specific to the brain, they are found all over the body. However, the cytokines infected macrophages produce are neurotoxic. Altered cytokine production is a normal result of viral infection of any cell. Usually, it increases virulence, sometimes it is just a side effect of some regulatory factor the virus fucks with for its own reproduction.
    The problem here however is that there are far more healthy cells than there are infected cells by a huge ratio.

    Healthy cells will still die.

    But one question, once the virus has incorporated it's genetic information into the host cell isn't it human enzyme which then does the replicating?
    Last edited by galexander; July 26th, 2011 at 10:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    So viruses like herpes simplex cause cancer?

    What about other viruses like the common cold?

    And how could you prove that the virus caused the cancer? Apparently they found fragments of the herpesvirus in the cancer cells. But how is this possible if it took over 10 years to map the human genome involving a large number of teams spread out across the globe? It would have been like looking for a needle in haystack.
    How they did it is through a simple, though brilliant, technique called representational difference analysis. What they did is they took DNA from a lesion and DNA from a healthy cell from the same patient. What you do is you cut up the DNA from the lesion with an exonuclease that leaves a known sticky end that you can add a marker of known sequence to. Then you do the same with the other DNA using a different marker so that you can then amplify that DNA. Then you mix and amplify and filter over and over again using the marker sequence you added to the primers you've added to the lesion DNA. What you end up with is that eventually this process removes DNA that is complementary between both samples until all you have left is DNA only found in the lesion sequence. It's less like finding a needle in a haystack than finding a single black ball in a pile of white balls, it takes some work to find it but it's not that difficult a task.

    Also, once you know you may have a virus from a known genus, it is quite simple to use primers to sequence the genome because you would expect some conserved genes between related viruses.

    The virus has been found in every single Kaposi Sarcoma lesion ever tested since the virus was recognized. Also, viruses causing cancer is not abnormal, we've already talked about two carcinogenic viruses earlier in the thread. Viruses manipulate the expression of genes in cells, so if they interfere with cell cycle and apoptosis (most viruses do this) they can cause tumours. HPV is another well known oncovirus that is a common cause of cervical cancer. Moreover, Epstein Barr Virus, another Herpes virus, is closely related and causes cancer too.

    Herpes Simplex Viruses are a diverse family of viruses that cause diseases ranging from cold sores, to genital legions, to chicken pox, to shingles, to Epstein Barr. Your incredulity about this doesn't matter to me.
    I couldn't follow that method at all.

    And isn't it a coincidence that almost all the cancer causing viruses just happen to be sexually transmitted as well? Human Papilloma Virus, Hepatitus B, Hepatitus C and Human Herpes Virus 8?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    You may find the following of interest.

    Here is a list of some of the side-effects from taking AZT and applies to persons with AIDS, persons without AIDS and laboratory animals dosed with AZT (Smothers, 1991; McLeod and Hammer, 1992; Physician’s Desk Reference, Medical Economics Data, 1992):
    1. Anemia (depressed red blood cell count).
    2. Leukopenia (depressed white blood cell count).
    3. Severe nausea resulting from intestinal intoxication.
    4. Muscle atrophy and polymyositis.
    5. Lymphomas (cancer of the lymphatic system).
    6. Acute hepatitas.
    7. Neurological disease including headaches, insomnia and dementia.
    8. Male impotence.
    9. Vaginal squamous carcinomas in mice.

    You might note that this is the list of syptoms that has killed many ‘AIDS’ sufferers of the years.
    Once again you ignore the subtleties. AZT negatively effects cells which require a lot of mitochondria and which are produced rapidly, this includes neutrophils and red blood cells, which are recycled rapidly in the blood. Leukopenia here refers to a depression in the amount of neutrophils. The problem for you though is that this doesn't involve specific killing of circulating T-cells, and it does not negatively effect the production of new T-cells significantly. Moreover, current doses of AZT are much less likely to cause these problems, and they are often counter-acted with new drugs which help to stimulate the production of blood cells.

    Several studies have reported no link between lymphomas and AZT.

    The other symptoms we've already discussed, and are moot. The point isn't that AZT is healthy, which it obviously isn't, the point is that it can not account for AIDS in any way shape or form, and it is indisputable that it extends the life of AIDS patients and HIV positive individuals.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I couldn't follow that method at all.
    And that's my problem how?

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    And isn't it a coincidence that almost all the cancer causing viruses just happen to be sexually transmitted as well? Human Papilloma Virus, Hepatitus B, Hepatitus C and Human Herpes Virus 8?
    No, it's a successful means of transmission since all people have sex so we would expect many viruses to spread well through close contact. Most of these viruses are simply transmitted in saliva or by touch, they are only sexually transmitted in the sense that sex tends to be a place where people exchange saliva and touch each other a lot. Most strains of HPV are not carcinogenic, it is a virus that infect epithelial cells and it is transmitted by touch. A few strains happen to cause warts on the genitals or growths on the female cervix, these ones are considered sexually transmitted because they involve touching between genitals. One wouldn't consider an HPV strain that would cause a wart on your thumb sexually transmitted, but the mechanism of infection is essentially the same.

    Also, Hep C is not sexually transmitted, it is spread through blood. It can be spread through sex if bleeding is involved. The major source of Hep C infections world wide is intravenous drug use followed by unsanitized dental equipment.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    You may find the following of interest.Here is a list of some of the side-effects from taking AZT and applies to persons with AIDS, persons without AIDS and laboratory animals dosed with AZT (Smothers, 1991; McLeod and Hammer, 1992; Physician’s Desk Reference, Medical Economics Data, 1992):
    1. Anemia (depressed red blood cell count).
    2. Leukopenia (depressed white blood cell count).
    3. Severe nausea resulting from intestinal intoxication.
    4. Muscle atrophy and polymyositis.
    5. Lymphomas (cancer of the lymphatic system).
    6. Acute hepatitas.
    7. Neurological disease including headaches, insomnia and dementia.
    8. Male impotence.
    9. Vaginal squamous carcinomas in mice.
    You might note that this is the list of syptoms that has killed many ‘AIDS’ sufferers of the years.
    Once again you ignore the subtleties. AZT negatively effects cells which require a lot of mitochondria and which are produced rapidly, this includes neutrophils and red blood cells, which are recycled rapidly in the blood. Leukopenia here refers to a depression in the amount of neutrophils. The problem for you though is that this doesn't involve specific killing of circulating T-cells, and it does not negatively effect the production of new T-cells significantly. Moreover, current doses of AZT are much less likely to cause these problems, and they are often counter-acted with new drugs which help to stimulate the production of blood cells.Several studies have reported no link between lymphomas and AZT.The other symptoms we've already discussed, and are moot. The point isn't that AZT is healthy, which it obviously isn't, the point is that it can not account for AIDS in any way shape or form, and it is indisputable that it extends the life of AIDS patients and HIV positive individuals.
    Subtleties, you must be joking..........

    A lower dose of AZT means less infected cells are killed. However due to the toxicity of AZT a lower dose of AZT would mean the patient would die slower.

    AZT does negatively effect mitochondrial DNA causing muscle wastage.

    You are making excuses for a highly toxic drug.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I couldn't follow that method at all.
    And that's my problem how?

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    And isn't it a coincidence that almost all the cancer causing viruses just happen to be sexually transmitted as well? Human Papilloma Virus, Hepatitus B, Hepatitus C and Human Herpes Virus 8?
    No, it's a successful means of transmission since all people have sex so we would expect many viruses to spread well through close contact. Most of these viruses are simply transmitted in saliva or by touch, they are only sexually transmitted in the sense that sex tends to be a place where people exchange saliva and touch each other a lot. Most strains of HPV are not carcinogenic, it is a virus that infect epithelial cells and it is transmitted by touch. A few strains happen to cause warts on the genitals or growths on the female cervix, these ones are considered sexually transmitted because they involve touching between genitals. One wouldn't consider an HPV strain that would cause a wart on your thumb sexually transmitted, but the mechanism of infection is essentially the same.

    Also, Hep C is not sexually transmitted, it is spread through blood. It can be spread through sex if bleeding is involved. The major source of Hep C infections world wide is intravenous drug use followed by unsanitized dental equipment.
    Your explanation of how the viral fragments were located on the human DNA strand was not complete or clear enough for the average person to understand.

    And what about my question as to the replication of viruses? Do they not use human enzymes and not their own in the replication of nucleic acid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    A lower dose of AZT means less infected cells are killed. However due to the toxicity of AZT a lower dose of AZT would mean the patient would die slower.
    No, it means you need a lower dose of the drug to interfere with viral reverse transcriptase than would cause severe harm to human cells. This is very common in pharmacology, many antimycotics and antibiotics are toxic to human cells but work effectively as drugs because we can take advantage of different susceptibilities. It is unrealistic to expect that we will be able to exploit differences in all cases to produce completely safe drugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    AZT does negatively effect mitochondrial DNA causing muscle wastage.
    Yes, this is well documented. However, it is reversible and possible to switch the drugs for a patient having severe side effects. When a patient can no longer tolerate any of the available drugs, they will be in trouble.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    You are making excuses for a highly toxic drug.
    No, I am merely being realistic. The drug has side effects, highly toxic is an exaggeration since people can live several years on the drug. The drug is no longer given in isolation in high doses, it is given at lower doses in combination with complementary drugs. This has helped to make HIV more manageable and has extended lives. AZT extends lives, no matter how nasty its side effects, that is a fact, and that is all that really matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    And what about my question as to the replication of viruses? Do they not use human enzymes and not their own in the replication of nucleic acid?
    They use a combination of host and viral enzymes. HIV reverse transcriptase is not an enzyme found in human beings.

    I'll give explaining the technique another go.

    You have Sample DNA A from a healthy cell, and Sample DNA B from an infected KS lesion. Most of the DNA should be roughly identical in both. You take the DNA from B and you cut it up with an enzyme called an endonuclease, these are enzymes that recognize specific sequences and make snips in DNA. Because of the way these endonucleases work they leave what is called a sticky end on the DNA, which is essentially an overhang of a known sequence. This allows you to add marker sequences onto the ends of the DNA, so essentially you end up with all your DNA in sample B being marked at each end with a sequence you know.

    When amplifying DNA you need to have a primer added, which is a little chunk of complementary RNA that will allow the taq polymerase to start replicating your DNA. Because sample B DNA is marked at each end with a known sequence you can use a primer that will recognize only DNA from your marker.

    Now what you do with your two samples is that you amplify both of them. Then you mix them together and you perform PCR with primers for the marker sequence. Since the DNA from both samples came from the same patient what will happen is that sample A DNA will randomly bind mostly complementary DNA from sample B, except for DNA that is only found in sample B. Only B DNA bound to B DNA will have the marker at both ends, this results in PCR exponentially replicating those sequences. You do this multiple times and what will happen is that you will get exponentially greater numbers of the viral DNA fragments, because their DNA is only present in sample B and thus will always have two copies of the marker.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Also, Hep C is not sexually transmitted, it is spread through blood. It can be spread through sex if bleeding is involved. The major source of Hep C infections world wide is intravenous drug use followed by unsanitized dental equipment.
    Hepatitis C is classed as a sexually transmitted disease.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    And what about my question as to the replication of viruses? Do they not use human enzymes and not their own in the replication of nucleic acid?
    They use a combination of host and viral enzymes. HIV reverse transcriptase is not an enzyme found in human beings.
    Reverse transcriptase is also found in human cells.

    The drug has side effects, highly toxic is an exaggeration since people can live several years on the drug.
    And how many years would they have lived if they had not taken AZT?

    Only B DNA bound to B DNA will have the marker at both ends, this results in PCR exponentially replicating those sequences.
    So you end up with lots of replications of double B DNA. But where does that get you but back to square one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    The following article in of interest: HIV & AIDS - Everybody reacts positive on the ELISA test for HIV

    And here is a rather awesome quote which gets you thinking:


    Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.

    This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people -the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1]- would have had a lower level of exposure to HIV.

    And also:


    3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.

    It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with a deadly virus that causes immunodeficiency (3-4-5-6). Therefore, the positive reactions of all undiluted sera would mean that everybody, or at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, infected with this «deadly» virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of «deadly» infection than the «deadly» infection has by the ones that reacts positive only with undiluted serum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Human cells do not express HIV reverse transcriptase, and the only place in the entire human body where a reverse transcriptase is expressed is for telomere extension in gametes, or in cancerous cells. Moreover, it is an entirely different enzyme.

    You are delusional.

    And that moron doesn't understand how to do a proper ELISA, the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain of IgG, thus if you use pure serum without making sure you have blocking agents and enough dilution there will be unspecific binding simply from the high amount of antibodies present in the serum, which gives you a false positive. Some kook who doesn't even know how to run a proper ELISA shouldn't be listened to. The goal with a good ELISA should be as much dilution as possible to avoid false positives, thus optimizing the accuracy of the test, without compromising the specificity of the test.
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; July 28th, 2011 at 03:40 PM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    So you end up with lots of replications of double B DNA. But where does that get you but back to square one?
    No, you will end up with exponentially more of fragments of DNA that only exist in the B sample. You would be able to differentiate this with DNA electrophoresis, the bands corresponding to the viral DNA fragments would be much stronger than other bands. So, you would know exactly which DNA to sequence.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    So you end up with lots of replications of double B DNA. But where does that get you but back to square one?
    No, you will end up with exponentially more of fragments of DNA that only exist in the B sample. You would be able to differentiate this with DNA electrophoresis, the bands corresponding to the viral DNA fragments would be much stronger than other bands. So, you would know exactly which DNA to sequence.
    But the sequences specific to the B sample have not been marked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Human cells do not express HIV reverse transcriptase, and the only place in the entire human body where a reverse transcriptase is expressed is for telomere extension in gametes, or in cancerous cells. Moreover, it is an entirely different enzyme.

    You are delusional.

    And that moron doesn't understand how to do a proper ELISA, the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain of IgG, thus if you use pure serum without making sure you have blocking agents and enough dilution there will be unspecific binding simply from the high amount of antibodies present in the serum, which gives you a false positive. Some kook who doesn't even know how to run a proper ELISA shouldn't be listened to. The goal with a good ELISA should be as much dilution as possible to avoid false positives, thus optimizing the accuracy of the test, without compromising the specificity of the test.
    But antibodies are highly specific. How can the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain IgG?

    Not all ELISA's or immunoassays use dilution of the serum, far from it and they all follow the same common principle. Antibodies don't usually bind to each other, they bind to the target antigen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Human cells do not express HIV reverse transcriptase, and the only place in the entire human body where a reverse transcriptase is expressed is for telomere extension in gametes, or in cancerous cells. Moreover, it is an entirely different enzyme.

    You are delusional.

    And that moron doesn't understand how to do a proper ELISA, the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain of IgG, thus if you use pure serum without making sure you have blocking agents and enough dilution there will be unspecific binding simply from the high amount of antibodies present in the serum, which gives you a false positive. Some kook who doesn't even know how to run a proper ELISA shouldn't be listened to. The goal with a good ELISA should be as much dilution as possible to avoid false positives, thus optimizing the accuracy of the test, without compromising the specificity of the test.
    The problem with false positives in the case of HIV testing may be even worse than you claim.

    Check out the following: HIV TESTS CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV INFECTION


    6. False positive reactions on the HIV tests.

    There are abundant scientific publications explaining that there are more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection (Johnson 1993, 1995, 1996a,b; Hodgkinson 1996; Turner 1996, 1997/8; Shenton 1998; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993; Giraldo 1997d, 2000a; Giraldo et al 1999).

    Some of the conditions that cause false positives on the so-called "AIDS test" are: past or present infection with a variety of bacteria, parasites, viruses, and fungi including tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis, influenza, the common cold, leprosy and a history of sexually transmitted diseases; the presence of polyspecific antibodies, hypergammaglobulinemias, the presence of auto-antibodies against a variety of cells and tissues, vaccinations, and the administration of gamma globulins or immunoglobulins; the presence of auto-immune diseases like erythematous systemic lupus, sclerodermia, dermatomyositis and rheumatoid arthritis; the existence of pregnancy and multiparity; a history of rectal insemination; addiction to recreational drugs; several kidney diseases, renal failure and hemodialysis; a history of organ transplantation; presence of a variety of tumors and cancer chemotherapy; many liver diseases including alcoholic liver disease; hemophilia, blood transfusions and the administration of coagulation factor; and even the simple condition of aging and some vaccinations, to mention the most important (Johnson 1993, 1995, 1996a,b; Hodgkinson 1996; Turner 1996, 1997/8; Shenton 1998; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993; Giraldo 1997d, 2000a).
    And this is not the full list as the software on this forum would not allow me to paste in such a large amount of text.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Human cells do not express HIV reverse transcriptase, and the only place in the entire human body where a reverse transcriptase is expressed is for telomere extension in gametes, or in cancerous cells. Moreover, it is an entirely different enzyme.

    You are delusional.

    And that moron doesn't understand how to do a proper ELISA, the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain of IgG, thus if you use pure serum without making sure you have blocking agents and enough dilution there will be unspecific binding simply from the high amount of antibodies present in the serum, which gives you a false positive. Some kook who doesn't even know how to run a proper ELISA shouldn't be listened to. The goal with a good ELISA should be as much dilution as possible to avoid false positives, thus optimizing the accuracy of the test, without compromising the specificity of the test.
    I admit I am not qualified in biology but the following observation must surely prove that HIV does not cause AIDS.

    The transmission rate of HIV from a positive mother to her unborn child in the womb is about 30%. See [Transmission of HIV From Mother to Child]


    Not every HIV-infected pregnant woman will pass HIV on to her baby; without any clinical interventions, about 3 out of every 10 HIV-infected pregnant women would transmit HIV to their children.

    However the blood supply of the mother and the unborn child are connected via the placenta. The blood of the mother and the unborn child are one and the same since the child has no other form of nutrition, so how can the unborn child not contract HIV?

    They have been sharing the same blood supply for nine months.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    This thread is so full of utter nonsense on the part of the OP that it is a wonder it doesn't come with a free tin-foil hat.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is always funny to watch people with limited knowledge of a subject make complete fools of themselves.

    Carry on. I'll get some popcorn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    This thread is so full of utter nonsense on the part of the OP that it is a wonder it doesn't come with a free tin-foil hat.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is always funny to watch people with limited knowledge of a subject make complete fools of themselves.

    Carry on. I'll get some popcorn.
    If you can't produce a reasoned argument to explain exactly why I am wrong then I take that as a sign of defeat.

    Explain to me why some 70% of unborn children do not contract HIV from there mothers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    But the sequences specific to the B sample have not been marked.
    Yes they have, all the DNA fragments from sample B have been marked. Those who have a greater chance of binding to complimentary strands from only sample B will be amplified exponentially more than those who have some chance of binding to complimentary strands from sample A. Since the viral DNA only exists in sample B, it has a 100% chance of always being double marked and being amplified exponentially.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    But antibodies are highly specific. How can the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain IgG?

    Not all ELISA's or immunoassays use dilution of the serum, far from it and they all follow the same common principle. Antibodies don't usually bind to each other, they bind to the target antigen.
    Not quite, antibodies can bind non-specifically with rather high frequency in vitro. This can be due to structural homology between the epitopes on HIV and something else present, or simply from chemical interactions between the plastic, or the viral samples, you're testing for. In an ELISA some antibodies will stick around in your well simply because of ionic and hydrophobic interactions. Sometimes non-specific binding can be a huge barrier to perfecting an effective ELISA test.

    How the ELISA works is that you have the wells coated with an HIV protein. Then you use your primary antibody, the serum, and you wash. Then you use your secondary antibody which is usually goat/rabbit/horse/cow anti-human IgG heavy chain. This secondary antibody is combined with an enzyme which allows you to produce colour which you can measure in a spectrophotometer.

    If some amount of your primary antibody sticks around because of reasons other than the antibody specifically binding by recognizing an epitope, you get a false positive. You dilute to mute out the effect of these non-specific interactions. The optimal dilution for the best specificity and accuracy of your test is usually determined through vigorous testing.

    Edit: False positives occur, but that is why multiple testings are done before a diagnosis is made. False positives are sufficiently rare that double testing will rule out the likelihood that someone is misdiagnosed.
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; July 30th, 2011 at 03:14 PM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I would prefer to avoid double posting, but there is a limit on how long you can edit.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    However the blood supply of the mother and the unborn child are connected via the placenta. The blood of the mother and the unborn child are one and the same since the child has no other form of nutrition, so how can the unborn child not contract HIV?

    They have been sharing the same blood supply for nine months.
    The placenta has some filtering capabilities, and infected T-cells from the mother can not pass through the placenta. How the nutrient exchange is achieved is through diffusion, where maternal blood in the placenta flows over small blood vessels attached to the fetus, and oxygen and nutrients diffuse from the maternal blood into the fetal blood. So the blood doesn't actually mix in the sense you are thinking. HIV virus particles are under normal conditions incapable of crossing the placenta. With some cases, when women are malnourished or taking drugs the placenta can become permeable to substances it wouldn't usually, and HIV can be transmitted to an unborn fetus. Usually, mother-to-child transmission occurs during childbirth where mingling of blood can occur.

    Also, anti-retrovirals are known to reduce transmission, which would also refute your idea that those drugs cause AIDS.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    But the sequences specific to the B sample have not been marked.
    Yes they have, all the DNA fragments from sample B have been marked. Those who have a greater chance of binding to complimentary strands from only sample B will be amplified exponentially more than those who have some chance of binding to complimentary strands from sample A. Since the viral DNA only exists in sample B, it has a 100% chance of always being double marked and being amplified exponentially.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    But antibodies are highly specific. How can the secondary marked antibody recognizes the heavy chain IgG?

    Not all ELISA's or immunoassays use dilution of the serum, far from it and they all follow the same common principle. Antibodies don't usually bind to each other, they bind to the target antigen.
    Not quite, antibodies can bind non-specifically with rather high frequency in vitro. This can be due to structural homology between the epitopes on HIV and something else present, or simply from chemical interactions between the plastic, or the viral samples, you're testing for. In an ELISA some antibodies will stick around in your well simply because of ionic and hydrophobic interactions. Sometimes non-specific binding can be a huge barrier to perfecting an effective ELISA test.

    How the ELISA works is that you have the wells coated with an HIV protein. Then you use your primary antibody, the serum, and you wash. Then you use your secondary antibody which is usually goat/rabbit/horse/cow anti-human IgG heavy chain. This secondary antibody is combined with an enzyme which allows you to produce colour which you can measure in a spectrophotometer.

    If some amount of your primary antibody sticks around because of reasons other than the antibody specifically binding by recognizing an epitope, you get a false positive. You dilute to mute out the effect of these non-specific interactions. The optimal dilution for the best specificity and accuracy of your test is usually determined through vigorous testing.

    Edit: False positives occur, but that is why multiple testings are done before a diagnosis is made. False positives are sufficiently rare that double testing will rule out the likelihood that someone is misdiagnosed.
    I get the impression you are trying to blind us with science. You say the following:

    Yes they have, all the DNA fragments from sample B have been marked.
    How have you managed to locate the viral fragments in the B DNA strand so as to mark them?

    With regard to the non-specific binding in ELISA tests, how does a neat serum sample increase non-specific binding to the HIV protein coated wall?

    I used to work in a company developing immunoassays and non-specific binding to protein coated wells wasn't really an issue with the test kits I worked on. Immunoassays all follow the same principle it's just that ELISA's use an enzyme to produce a colour change. We never used any sample dilution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    How have you managed to locate the viral fragments in the B DNA strand so as to mark them?
    You don't have to locate them to mark them beforehand. All the DNA from the B sample has been digested with endonucleases, which creates small overhangs of DNA of known sequence referred to as sticky ends, which allow the easy addition of markers to the end of every snipped piece of DNA. I've already gone over this.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    With regard to the non-specific binding in ELISA tests, how does a neat serum sample increase non-specific binding to the HIV protein coated wall?
    Undiluted serum would contain a high number of antibodies. That should be pretty obvious, undiluted serum would inevitably have a higher concentration of antibodies. A higher concentration of antibodies means non-specific binding will happen more frequently. Even diluted we would expect some level of non-specific binding to occur. However, the dilution mutes this effect sufficiently so that we can distinguish between specific binding of anti-HIV antibodies and the non-specific binding.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I used to work in a company developing immunoassays and non-specific binding to protein coated wells wasn't really an issue with the test kits I worked on. Immunoassays all follow the same principle it's just that ELISA's use an enzyme to produce a colour change. We never used any sample dilution.
    Of course it was an issue, that's why we go through the trouble of using blocking agents and dilutions. Whether dilution is appropriate or not, and the amount of dilution required, depends on the kind of assay you are trying to perform. Though, dilution of primary and secondary antibody. or of test samples, is common in all ELISAs. I'm not making this up, it is standard protocol. Hell the first link on a search for ELISA protocols in google turns up this: http://www.abcam.com/ps/pdf/protocols/Direct ELISA protocol.pdf And on the first page it says "primary and secondary antibody should be diluted in 1x blocking solution to prevent non-specific binding."

    Also, I wonder if you have ever seen an ELISA done, it is common to space out a number of dilutions over several wells so that you can plot a graph and determine the likely concentration of what you're looking for from your sample.
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; July 31st, 2011 at 05:14 AM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    How have you managed to locate the viral fragments in the B DNA strand so as to mark them?
    You don't have to locate them to mark them beforehand. All the DNA from the B sample has been digested with endonucleases, which creates small overhangs of DNA of known sequence referred to as sticky ends, which allow the easy addition of markers to the end of every snipped piece of DNA. I've already gone over this.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    With regard to the non-specific binding in ELISA tests, how does a neat serum sample increase non-specific binding to the HIV protein coated wall?
    Undiluted serum would contain a high number of antibodies. That should be pretty obvious, undiluted serum would inevitably have a higher concentration of antibodies. A higher concentration of antibodies means non-specific binding will happen more frequently. Even diluted we would expect some level of non-specific binding to occur. However, the dilution mutes this effect sufficiently so that we can distinguish between specific binding of anti-HIV antibodies and the non-specific binding.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    I used to work in a company developing immunoassays and non-specific binding to protein coated wells wasn't really an issue with the test kits I worked on. Immunoassays all follow the same principle it's just that ELISA's use an enzyme to produce a colour change. We never used any sample dilution.
    Of course it was an issue, that's why we go through the trouble of using blocking agents and dilutions. Whether dilution is appropriate or not, and the amount of dilution required, depends on the kind of assay you are trying to perform. Though, dilution of primary and secondary antibody. or of test samples, is common in all ELISAs. I'm not making this up, it is standard protocol. Hell the first link on a search for ELISA protocols in google turns up this: http://www.abcam.com/ps/pdf/protocols/Direct ELISA protocol.pdf And on the first page it says "primary and secondary antibody should be diluted in 1x blocking solution to prevent non-specific binding."

    Also, I wonder if you have ever seen an ELISA done, it is common to space out a number of dilutions over several wells so that you can plot a graph and determine the likely concentration of what you're looking for from your sample.



    The following quote is rather revealing because it is antibodies (antibodies to HIV) that are being tested for in the first place:


    Undiluted serum would contain a high number of antibodies. That should be pretty obvious, undiluted serum would inevitably have a higher concentration of antibodies. A higher concentration of antibodies means non-specific binding will happen more frequently.
    If you get false positive readings from just any antibodies in the serum then how on earth are you going to measure antibodies against HIV?


    QUESTION: While we are still on the subject I would just like to ask how many diseases are actually caused by retroviruses apart from AIDS and some other obscure tropical disease no-one has ever heard of?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    If you get false positive readings from just any antibodies in the serum then how on earth are you going to measure antibodies against HIV?
    Because as you dilute the potential for false positives decreases, but the dilution has a far lesser effect on the test's ability to detect specific binding of anti-HIV antibodies. The optimal dilutions are determined experimentally through trials during the development of the test kit.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    QUESTION: While we are still on the subject I would just like to ask how many diseases are actually caused by retroviruses apart from AIDS and some other obscure tropical disease no-one has ever heard of?
    I thought I already did that a few pages back.

    I'm not sure why that would be relevant though. The vast majority of viruses are harmless. After all, we can take a genus of viruses like the picornaviridae, and we can look within that genus at the Rhinoviridae, which causes the common cold, or at its cousin the polyo virus. They're both part of the same genus, should we then take the fact that Rhino viruses are relatively harmless as evidence that polyo is just a nasty head cold?
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; July 31st, 2011 at 06:49 AM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    [The vast majority of viruses are harmless. After all, we can take a genus of viruses like the picornaviridae, and we can look within that genus at the Rhinoviridae, which causes the common cold, or at its cousin the polyo virus. They're both part of the same genus, should we then take the fact that Rhino viruses are relatively harmless as evidence that polyo is just a nasty head cold?
    I entirely agree. Just because HIV is a virus does not therefore mean that it must cause disease because as you say the vast majority of viruses are harmless.

    And because HIV is a retrovirus means that it is even less likely to cause disease.


    * * * *


    I'd like to quote from the reviews of the following HIV/AIDS sceptical book: Amazon.com: Ten Lies About Aids (9781425154264): Etienne De Harven, Jean-Claude Roussez: Books


    971388_370.jpg


    Even the ELISA test manufacturers' brochures say that a positive reaction to their test kits cannot be used, in itself, a as diagnosis for AIDS.
    If "HIV" doesn't exist, it is clear that the "HIV-test" won't produce anything that is relevant. The Western Blot test reacts on ten (10) proteins considered to be the hypothetical building blocks of the hypothetical HIV-virus. International consensus on the interpretation of this test doesn't exist. Dr de Harven says : "because the lack of an international standard, patients can be diagnosed HIV positive or negative according to which country they live in. Out of the ten test bands which Western Blot counts, two are sufficient in order to be judged "positive" and declared infected in Africa. In Great Britain, it would need three; and four in Australia. More embarrassingly, the tests have such a questionable specificity that the manufacturers themselves state that they cannot be used to confirm or disprove the presence of "HIV"".
    De Harven's long career in the field of electron microscopy and virology provides him with all the necessary credentials to linger on his second lie "There is an AIDS virus: HIV". He states that the so-called retrovirus "HIV" has never been isolated because HIV has never been purified according to accepted standards for the isolation of a retrovirus. He rejects the announcement in Science, May 1983 claiming the isolation of HIV through the observation of the enzymatic activity of reverse transcriptase (a molecular marker said to demonstrate the presence of a retrovirus) in a fraction sedimenting at 1.16 g/ml (the density band at which retroviruses sediment). De Harven refutes this on the grounds that reverse transcriptase is not a specific marker for retroviruses and that at 1.16 g/ml the density gradient is full of cell debris such as "microvesicles".
    Last edited by galexander; July 31st, 2011 at 08:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    Wow, could you have taken i_feel_tiredsleepy's comment any more out od context and twisted it any more to fit your opinion?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Because as you dilute the potential for false positives decreases, but the dilution has a far lesser effect on the test's ability to detect specific binding of anti-HIV antibodies. The optimal dilutions are determined experimentally through trials during the development of the test kit.

    I quote from the following link: http://www.robertogiraldo.com/reference/HIVTestsCannotDiagnoseHIVInfection_April_2006.pdf





    The pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and commercialize these test kits acknowledge the inaccuracy of these kits. This explains the seemingly surprising statement included in the kits: "ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggest a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" (Abbot 1997).

    The insert for one of the kits administering the Western Blot warns: "Do not use this kit for the sole diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Epitope Organon Teknika).

    In like manner, the insert that accompanies a very frequently used test for PCR Viral Load warns: "the Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as diagnostic test to confirm the presence of an HIV infection" (Roche 2003).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,002
    And we should believe Robert Giraldo over multiple independent researchers across the globe who say otherwise why? Since when did one person saying one thing trump many unassociated people saying the opposite why?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And we should believe Robert Giraldo over multiple independent researchers across the globe who say otherwise why? Since when did one person saying one thing trump many unassociated people saying the opposite why?
    What reading level are you on?

    The manufacturers of these tests are saying it themselves. It isn't just what Robert Giraldo is saying, not to mention a whole team of others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Yes a single ELISA is not used to diagnose HIV, the two step testing protocol is standard because it reduces the chances of a false positive to a practical impossibility (when it is repeated). While, let's say if you are doing hundreds of thousands of single ELISA test, several false diagnoses would happen.

    To be diagnosed as positive in the developed world they must have two ELISAs that detect anti-HIV antibodies, and then after that you need a confirmatory Western Blot which detects the presence of antibodies to a spectrum of HIV proteins. Moreover, standard procedure in developed countries would repeat this testing process again after half a year. The statements from the manufacturers are not statements about the inaccuracies of the tests, but simply part of the legal hoops companies jump through to protect their asses these days. Giraldo is engaging in out of context quote mining. The manufacturers are simply insisting that the test be used according to the standardized diagnostic procedures that are recognized by major medical associations, so that they can't be sued.

    Edit: And since I'm not willing to look up the test kits identified, it is also entirely possible that they are tests designed for HIV research and so have never gone through FDA approval, and thus they have to include disclaimers so that their tests are not used in clinical settings.
    Last edited by i_feel_tiredsleepy; August 2nd, 2011 at 05:05 PM.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Yes a single ELISA is not used to diagnose HIV, the two step testing protocol is standard because it reduces the chances of a false positive to a practical impossibility (when it is repeated). While, let's say if you are doing hundreds of thousands of single ELISA test, several false diagnoses would happen.

    To be diagnosed as positive in the developed world they must have two ELISAs that detect anti-HIV antibodies, and then after that you need a confirmatory Western Blot which detects the presence of antibodies to a spectrum of HIV proteins. Moreover, standard procedure in developed countries would repeat this testing process again after half a year. The statements from the manufacturers are not statements about the inaccuracies of the tests, but simply part of the legal hoops companies jump through to protect their asses these days. Giraldo is engaging in out of context quote mining. The manufacturers are simply insisting that the test be used according to the standardized diagnostic procedures that are recognized by major medical associations, so that they can't be sued.

    Edit: And since I'm not willing to look up the test kits identified, it is also entirely possible that they are tests designed for HIV research and so have never gone through FDA approval, and thus they have to include disclaimers so that their tests are not used in clinical settings.

    Thank you. Your final "Edit" says it all.


    Edit: And since I'm not willing to look up the test kits identified, it is also entirely possible that they are tests designed for HIV research and so have never gone through FDA approval, and thus they have to include disclaimers so that their tests are not used in clinical settings.

    If the tests are not designed for use in clinical settings but only for research then that would very much suggest that the medical world isn't really certain what the test kits are actually measuring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post


    If the tests are not designed for use in clinical settings but only for research then that would very much suggest that the medical world isn't really certain what the test kits are actually measuring.
    It suggests no such thing. For one, I did not say these kits are not for use in clinical settings, I am saying that it is entirely possible Giraldo misleadingly quote mined from the inserts of kits not made for clinical settings. For example, the PCR kit is clearly designed for the measure of viral loads and not for the diagnosis of HIV infection. Then I clearly explained why such disclaimers appear on perfectly functional ELISA kits, because the standard diagnostic protocol requires multiple test and secondary testing with a Western Blot.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post


    If the tests are not designed for use in clinical settings but only for research then that would very much suggest that the medical world isn't really certain what the test kits are actually measuring.
    It suggests no such thing. For one, I did not say these kits are not for use in clinical settings, I am saying that it is entirely possible Giraldo misleadingly quote mined from the inserts of kits not made for clinical settings. For example, the PCR kit is clearly designed for the measure of viral loads and not for the diagnosis of HIV infection. Then I clearly explained why such disclaimers appear on perfectly functional ELISA kits, because the standard diagnostic protocol requires multiple test and secondary testing with a Western Blot.
    Hmmm................plenty of if's and but's.

    I'm not sure there is much of a market for experimental kits these days and besides names like Roche and Abbot are pretty well established in the industry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Look at the symptoms of an early HIV infection. And this list apparently tends to vary from person to person somewhat:


    • High fever
    • Sore throat
    • Headache
    • Rash
    • Chest infection or cough
    • Mouth ulcers
    • Diarrhoea
    • Vomiting
    • Large lymph glands(neck, armpits and groins)
    • Pains in the joints or muscles
    However we are told the following regarding an HIV antibody response: "During the 'window period' between the initial infection and the period in which antibodies are detectable (which can be from 2 weeks to 6 months, but is usually around 3 months), standard HIV antibody testing may be negative, even though a person is infected--it is too early for the antibody test to be positive."

    So how does the body fight an infection which is causing a high fever, vomiting and diarrhoea without producing antibodies?

    And what parts of the body is the HIV infection attacking to cause such a list of symptoms? So presumably it doesn't just infect the lymphocytes and macrophages?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The acute infection is limited by CD8 T cells, which do not rely on antibodies. And the symptoms are common innate immune responses caused by the release of cytokines by dying and infected cells. Seroconversion from IgM to IgG response relies on CD4 T Helper cells interacting with the B cells, unfortunately the CD4 cells are killed off in large numbers in the initial HIV infection before the virus goes latent. So, it takes time (varying between individuals and possibly the severity of the acute infection) for the CD4 T cells to recover and for significant antibody production to begin.

    B cells assist in the initial immune response as well, but largely through the T cell independent production of short lived IgM producing plasma cells.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    The acute infection is limited by CD8 T cells, which do not rely on antibodies. And the symptoms are common innate immune responses caused by the release of cytokines by dying and infected cells. Seroconversion from IgM to IgG response relies on CD4 T Helper cells interacting with the B cells, unfortunately the CD4 cells are killed off in large numbers in the initial HIV infection before the virus goes latent. So, it takes time (varying between individuals and possibly the severity of the acute infection) for the CD4 T cells to recover and for significant antibody production to begin.

    B cells assist in the initial immune response as well, but largely through the T cell independent production of short lived IgM producing plasma cells.
    I summarize your answer to my questions with the following quote:


    the CD4 cells are killed off in large numbers in the initial HIV infection before the virus goes latent.

    So if the CD4 T-lymphocytes are killed off in large quantities in the initial infection why does it take several years for the symptoms of AIDS to appear? And where is the list of secondary infections like chronic pneumonia?

    And if the immune system has been so compromised by the initial HIV infection, what exactly stopped the virus in its tracks and caused it to go latent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    There is a bounce back after the acute infection to below normal levels but not to immediate immune compromise. Then the decline from there is gradual.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Really, the world and the universe is an infinite flate plane, the goverments are poor and are forced to work for aliens, taking all our profits. We don't really know what is around us, US tv is just computer graphics, the US does not exist.

    Do a google image search for an image of the real earth, there not the same, there all computer graphics.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 6th, 2011 at 09:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Really, the world and the universe is an infinite flate plane, the goverments are poor and are forced to work for aliens, taking all our profits. We don't really know what is around us, US tv is just computer graphics, the US does not exist.

    Do a google image search for an image of the real earth, there not the same, there all computer graphics.
    Correction...........

    The world and the universe is actually a hologram (this idea has been seriously suggested by the quantum physicist David Bohm); the governments are hopelessly in debt and are actually controlled by a megalomanical banking fraternity; scientists admit that what they know is quite limited but what they don't admit is a lot of what they claim to know is actually wrong; US TV is designed to placate the masses; and the US is actually run by the Mafia, what's left of the German Nazi party and megalomanical bankers.

    Didn't you already know all this? You've got a lot of catching up to do!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    There is a bounce back after the acute infection to below normal levels but not to immediate immune compromise. Then the decline from there is gradual.
    But what part of the human immune system finally defeats the initial HIV infection without producing any antibodies at all?

    And even with just a few T-lymphocytes left you would still get some antibody response surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    There is a bounce back after the acute infection to below normal levels but not to immediate immune compromise. Then the decline from there is gradual.
    But what part of the human immune system finally defeats the initial HIV infection without producing any antibodies at all?

    And even with just a few T-lymphocytes left you would still get some antibody response surely?
    Antibodies are produced, but they are short lived IgM, it takes time for a seroconversion to IgG to occur, the depletion of T cells interferes with the seroconversion. A few HIV infected individuals seroconvert at a normal rate, within a week or two of initial infection, most take a few more weeks. By 3 months the vast majority of HIV infected people will have produced measurable amounts of IgG. The 6 month guideline is considered obsolete, but is still sometimes used as a protocol. Co-infection with other viruses can also interfere with seroconversion and lead to delays.

    When IgG antibodies start being produced it takes time for them to build up to a measurable level in the bloodstream. For one because they end up bound to viral antigens and thus become undetectable, and secondly the test relies on a threshold to prevent false positives.

    Like I said before, the initial infection is limited largely by the CD8 response, in conjunction with the IgM response. The CD8 T cells do not rely on antibodies, they rely on the presentation of viral antigens by infected cells, which they then kill. They are actually responsible for the death of the infected CD4 cells. The details are not fully understood and we don't yet know all the mechanisms behind the shift from acute infection to latency.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    There is a bounce back after the acute infection to below normal levels but not to immediate immune compromise. Then the decline from there is gradual.
    But what part of the human immune system finally defeats the initial HIV infection without producing any antibodies at all?

    And even with just a few T-lymphocytes left you would still get some antibody response surely?
    Antibodies are produced, but they are short lived IgM, it takes time for a seroconversion to IgG to occur, the depletion of T cells interferes with the seroconversion. A few HIV infected individuals seroconvert at a normal rate, within a week or two of initial infection, most take a few more weeks. By 3 months the vast majority of HIV infected people will have produced measurable amounts of IgG. The 6 month guideline is considered obsolete, but is still sometimes used as a protocol. Co-infection with other viruses can also interfere with seroconversion and lead to delays.

    When IgG antibodies start being produced it takes time for them to build up to a measurable level in the bloodstream. For one because they end up bound to viral antigens and thus become undetectable, and secondly the test relies on a threshold to prevent false positives.

    Like I said before, the initial infection is limited largely by the CD8 response, in conjunction with the IgM response. The CD8 T cells do not rely on antibodies, they rely on the presentation of viral antigens by infected cells, which they then kill. They are actually responsible for the death of the infected CD4 cells. The details are not fully understood and we don't yet know all the mechanisms behind the shift from acute infection to latency.
    Regarding IgM response to HIV see this link: HIV Antibody Assays


    And I quote the following:


    (2) Although tests are available to detect specific HIV immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody, these tests have shown little utility in identifying early infection because IgM responses to HIV are not produced consistently during early infection.(4) The ability of some tests (eg, third-generation tests) to detect IgM antibody simultaneously with immunoglobulin G (IgG) detection, however, may be responsible for their higher analytical sensitivity.

    Also the maths does not quite add up. If the immune system when depleted of CD4 lymphocytes can still beat the initial infection, why can't it continue to win against what is a very slow virus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    Also the maths does not quite add up. If the immune system when depleted of CD4 lymphocytes can still beat the initial infection, why can't it continue to win against what is a very slow virus?
    It's a complicated question. First of all, the acute infection essentially wipes out the mucosal lymphocytes around the intestines. They never recover. Macrophages and glial cells in the nervous system and follicular vessels are capable of acting as reservoirs out of reach from the immune response. Overtime, the thymus, which is the organ that produces T-cells, starts to break down from being infected with HIV (which can be related to HIV switching tropism), which means the body can no longer replenish T-cells effectively. T-cells in the blood die in part due to direct HIV infection, but also die due to apoptosis and normal cell death. The HIV thus leads to a slow depletion of the circulating T-cells, until a critical point is reached where the immune system starts to collapse.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post

    Also the maths does not quite add up. If the immune system when depleted of CD4 lymphocytes can still beat the initial infection, why can't it continue to win against what is a very slow virus?
    It's a complicated question. First of all, the acute infection essentially wipes out the mucosal lymphocytes around the intestines. They never recover. Macrophages and glial cells in the nervous system and follicular vessels are capable of acting as reservoirs out of reach from the immune response. Overtime, the thymus, which is the organ that produces T-cells, starts to break down from being infected with HIV (which can be related to HIV switching tropism), which means the body can no longer replenish T-cells effectively. T-cells in the blood die in part due to direct HIV infection, but also die due to apoptosis and normal cell death. The HIV thus leads to a slow depletion of the circulating T-cells, until a critical point is reached where the immune system starts to collapse.
    And how does the immune system collapse after the T-cells are gone? The immune system is rather multi-faceted to say the least.

    After the initial symptoms and the depletion of T-cells, and after the immune system has won the battle against the initial infection, I see no reason why the virus cannot be completely eradicated altogether and the T-cells make a complete recovery?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does HIV cause AIDS?
    By Samuel P in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 10th, 2011, 09:05 PM
  2. way to slow aids
    By medlakeguy in forum Biology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 26th, 2008, 09:02 PM
  3. AIDS
    By munja100 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2006, 08:46 AM
  4. An end to AIDS?
    By Harajuku in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2006, 05:45 PM
  5. AIDS/HIV?
    By btimsah in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2006, 01:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •