NationStates Jolt Archive

This was a new one on me, and I have no medical understanding whatsoever, so who here can clue me in?

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/AIDS_dissident

This was a new one on me, and I have no medical understanding whatsoever, so who here can clue me in?

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/AIDS_dissident

I saw a documentary on one particular AIDS dissident when I was in college. He basically said something like "no STD, in itself is fatal. AIDS is an STD, therefore it cannot itself be fatal." Nice logic, right? :p I always thought syphilis was ultimately fatal, but I think he sidestepped that one somehow.

I saw a documentary on one particular AIDS dissident when I was in college. He basically said something like "no STD, in itself is fatal. AIDS is an STD, therefore it cannot itself be fatal." Nice logic, right? :p I always thought syphilis was ultimately fatal, but I think he sidestepped that one somehow.

It seems more or less that these dissidents believe that AIDS is not caused by HIV, and that AIDS itself is just a blanket diagnosis that catches many different ailments.

It smells like a conspiracy theory, but I definitely do not trust the medical community considering they will receive billions in AIDS research grants. That is how all conspiracy theories work, they magnify all of the sources of doubts (like the inability to test directly for HIV, the shifting definition of AIDS, and the conflict of interest in AIDS researchers), without faithfully displaying the whole story.

This was a new one on me, and I have no medical understanding whatsoever, so who here can clue me in?

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/AIDS_dissidentSo if HIV does not cause AIDS, what does?

They think that HIV does not cause AIDS. They are wrong in every single point they have ever brought up. It's completely ridiculous. They're like damned creationists.

The Foo Fighters actually support this cause: Alive and Well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_and_Well).

The Foo Fighters actually support this cause: Alive and Well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_and_Well).HIV denial is that wide spread?

That's it! The pool's closed! Pool's closed due to aids.

Someone had to say it.

Well actually I think (?) doctors will say that HIV does not necessarily directly cause AIDs, but does normally lead the body to it though some people may have HIV and may not get AIDs. Its more complex than saying AIDs is an STD or even specifically and accurately a disease, its an disorder as named.

As the first line on Wikipedia says " Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans"

So it is a collection of symptoms and infections that cause damage to the immune system, that may be as a result of HIV but can also be from complications of other things other than HIV.

Well actually I think (?) doctors will say that HIV does not necessarily directly cause AIDs, but does normally lead the body to it though some people may have HIV and may not get AIDs. Its more complex than saying AIDs is an STD or even specifically and accurately a disease, its an disorder as named.

As the first line on Wikipedia says " Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans"

So it is a collection of symptoms and infections that cause damage to the immune system, that may be as a result of HIV but can also be from complications of other things other than HIV.
no.

First, it isn't "AIDs". It isn't plural, it is an acronym.

A collection of symptoms is a disease. Sort of like sore muscles, fatigue, coughing, sore throat, headache and fever are all symptoms of influenza. Yes, they can all be caused by many other diseases. But it isn't the flu unless it is caused by a member of the Orthomyxoviridae family of viruses.

ALL diseases are collections of symptoms. AIDS is the disease caused by the HIV virus in the same way that influenza is the disease caused by the Orthomyxoviridae virus or tuberculosis is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Yes, some people will not progress to full AIDS. That doesn't mean that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (in recent tests of the human adult population, nearly 90% showed the antibodies associated with mono, meaning that most human adults have had exposure to the virus. Fewer than 10% of these people were diagnosed with mono within their lives, showing that the majority had either weak symptoms (headache, sore throat), or no symptoms). Just because the disease doesn't fully progress in all infected people doesn't mean the virus doesn't cause it. That is flawed logic, sort of like saying "I smoke. I don't have cancer. Therefore, smoking doesn't cause cancer).

Oh, and read that first sentence of Wiki again. It says "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans"
The symptoms are a result of damage caused by HIV. You seem to have read it as AIDS does the damage to the immune system.

Pool's closed due to aids.
Desu.

It seems more or less that these dissidents believe that AIDS is not caused by HIV, and that AIDS itself is just a blanket diagnosis that catches many different ailments.

It smells like a conspiracy theory, but I definitely do not trust the medical community considering they will receive billions in AIDS research grants. That is how all conspiracy theories work, they magnify all of the sources of doubts (like the inability to test directly for HIV, the shifting definition of AIDS, and the conflict of interest in AIDS researchers), without faithfully displaying the whole story.
Let me try something...

It smells like a conspiracy theory, but I definitely do not trust the climatology community considering they will receive billions in global warming research grants. That is how all conspiracy theories work, they magnify all of the sources of doubts (like the inability to test directly for global warming, the shifting definition of global warming, and the conflict of interest in global warming researchers), without faithfully displaying the whole story.

I thought so...

It seems more or less that these dissidents believe that AIDS is not caused by HIV, and that AIDS itself is just a blanket diagnosis that catches many different ailments.

It smells like a conspiracy theory, but I definitely do not trust the medical community considering they will receive billions in AIDS research grants. That is how all conspiracy theories work, they magnify all of the sources of doubts (like the inability to test directly for HIV, the shifting definition of AIDS, and the conflict of interest in AIDS researchers), without faithfully displaying the whole story.

um...we can test directly for HIV. Hence how someone can know they are HIV positive but not have AIDS. Specifically, we can test for the antibodies, RNA, or antigens produced by or as a result of HIV.

And what shifting definition of what AIDS is? There are four stages:
Stage I: HIV infection is asymptomatic and not categorized as AIDS
Stage II: includes minor mucocutaneous manifestations and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections
Stage III: includes unexplained chronic diarrhea for longer than a month, severe bacterial infections and pulmonary tuberculosis
Stage IV: includes toxoplasmosis of the brain, candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs and Kaposi's sarcoma; these diseases are indicators of AIDS.
Those are about as concrete as you get...a list of symptoms that occur in somewhat distinct groupings (you'll find similar for cancer)

And what conflict of interest among AIDS researchers?

maybe you don't have the full known story. Doctors and researchers do, and it is available to the general public.

if it smells like a conspiracy theory, and it acts like a conspiracy theory...

So if HIV does not cause AIDS, what does?

the internet?

there I just single handedly explained the aids situation in Nigeria :p

So if HIV does not cause AIDS, what does?

some people believe it is caused by the medication used to treat HIV, some other people believe it's caused by a number of random factors and is just something doctors tell you that you have based purely on symptoms.

That's it! The pool's closed! Pool's closed due to aids.

In one month it will be the one year anniversary of the Great Raid...

First off, I was referring to the AIDS denialists as not presenting the full story, not the other side. AIDS dissidence appears to be the trumped up conspiracy theory. I do not know anything about this subject, so I will go with the established status quo that HIV leads to AIDS.

um...we can test directly for HIV. Hence how someone can know they are HIV positive but not have AIDS. Specifically, we can test for the antibodies, RNA, or antigens produced by or as a result of HIV.

This is what I mean, AIDS denialists can point to the inability of medical field to find the actual virus, and say "We can't even find it, so it doesn't seem likely that it can break down immunities so much."

And what shifting definition of what AIDS is? There are four stages:
Stage I: HIV infection is asymptomatic and not categorized as AIDS
Stage II: includes minor mucocutaneous manifestations and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections
Stage III: includes unexplained chronic diarrhea for longer than a month, severe bacterial infections and pulmonary tuberculosis
Stage IV: includes toxoplasmosis of the brain, candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs and Kaposi's sarcoma; these diseases are indicators of AIDS.
Those are about as concrete as you get...a list of symptoms that occur in somewhat distinct groupings (you'll find similar for cancer)

This is an example of their point. (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbdef.htm)

And what conflict of interest among AIDS researchers?

The conflict of interest whenever a disease creates financial security.

This was a new one on me, and I have no medical understanding whatsoever, so who here can clue me in?

Well, if you've ever heard of Holocaust denial...

This is what I mean, AIDS denialists can point to the inability of medical field to find the actual virus, and say "We can't even find it, so it doesn't seem likely that it can break down immunities so much."

What are you talking about? We can find the actual virus. We can test for virus particles and RNA, and do do so regularly to measure the efficacy of antiretroviral medication.

These "AIDS denialists" are like flat-earthers.

This is what I mean, AIDS denialists can point to the inability of medical field to find the actual virus, and say "We can't even find it, so it doesn't seem likely that it can break down immunities so much."What is the logic behind this? How many viruses does it take to kill enough Helper-T-cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helper_T_cell) in a human body so the immune system is rendered defenseless after a while?

Not surprising, considering how delusional some of these "alternative medicine" groups are.

I have cousins who won't get their kids vaccinated because they think it will give them autism!

What are you talking about? We can find the actual virus. We can test for virus particles and RNA, and do do so regularly to measure the efficacy of antiretroviral medication.

These "AIDS denialists" are like flat-earthers.Oh yes,oh yes :rolleyes: (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

some people believe it is caused by the medication used to treat HIV, some other people believe it's caused by a number of random factors and is just something doctors tell you that you have based purely on symptoms.

Which is of course ridiculous, seeing as antiretroviral medication is proven to postpone AIDS, and you cannot have AIDS (i.e. the collection of symptoms and laboratory findings and opportunistic infections and so on) without being at the same time HIV positive. If you have those symptoms, but are HIV negative you have some other, probably immunological, disease, for instance SCID in children.

Oh yes,oh yes :rolleyes: (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

Wait... they're not joking?

Which is of course ridiculous, seeing as antiretroviral medication is proven to postpone AIDS, and you cannot have AIDS (i.e. the collection of symptoms and laboratory findings and opportunistic infections and so on) without being at the same time HIV positive. If you have those symptoms, but are HIV negative you have some other, probably immunological, disease, for instance SCID in children.The definition of AIDS is:

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans, and similar viruses in other species (SIV, FIV, etc.).

There is no AIDS without HIV infection. Dissenters may dissent, but that's not going to change what AIDS is.


Wait... they're not joking?are such folks joking? ever?

I have cousins who won't get their kids vaccinated because they think it will give them autism!

Still with that nonsense? The study that found that "link" was thoroughly discredited, most of its co-authors reneged on it, the Lancet regretted its publication, and subsequent, much better and large studies have failed to show any link.

I guess there's no curing stupid once it sets in...

There is no AIDS without HIV infection.

Precisely.

Not surprising, considering how delusional some of these "alternative medicine" groups are.

I have cousins who won't get their kids vaccinated because they think it will give them autism!what?

what?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13697.html

are such folks joking? ever?

Good point. Although, they are making jokes of themselves...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13697.html
well, i vaguely remember having read something on this. and dismissing it...

Still with that nonsense? The study that found that "link" was thoroughly discredited, most of its co-authors reneged on it, the Lancet regretted its publication, and subsequent, much better and large studies have failed to show any link.

I guess there's no curing stupid once it sets in...
It's still quite a thing in this country amongst both fundies and delusionals in general.

Luckily most states in the US require up-to-date shot records before they'll let people enroll their kids in school. So those who opt out have to either home school or cough up the dough for private school.

Well, if you've ever heard of Holocaust denial...

I see no reason for holocaust survivors to lie.

What are you talking about? We can find the actual virus. We can test for virus particles and RNA, and do do so regularly to measure the efficacy of antiretroviral medication.

What is the logic behind this? How many viruses does it take to kill enough Helper-T-cells in a human body so the immune system is rendered defenseless after a while?

I am just restating their arguments:

This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV – but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don’t exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.

I see no reason for holocaust survivors to lie.

I know. I'm just saying it seems like Holocaust deniers and AIDS dissenters have a similar mindset.

---

That is such a load of bull... that I don't even know where to start mocking it.

"PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place."

This is so ridiculous, I laughed out loud. It shows that whoever wrote it has a very poor understanding of the principles behind the methods he/she is critiquing, let alone of microbiological diagnostics.

It's like saying: "Why do they have to culture bacteria in the lab? If these bacteria cause disease, we should be able to detect them easily without culturing them!"

I know. I'm just saying it seems like Holocaust deniers and AIDS dissenters have a similar mindset.

What I meant was that the medical community has a devoted interest (even if it is not a conscious plan) in promoting AIDS research. Of course this does not imply that AIDS is false, but it does provide for a trend to promote the existing paradigm concerning how science views AIDS and HIV.

I don't see any reason for historians to promote history involving the holocaust other than the truth of it.

And holocaust denial is a product of an ideological vendetta, what ideology do AIDS denialists follow?

What I meant was that the medical community has a devoted interest (even if it is not a conscious plan) in promoting AIDS research.

We have a vested interesting in promoting research into diseases? Get outta town! It's like saying NASA has a vested interest in the Earth being round, and that casting aspersion on the fact that the Earth is round... no, wait, the "fact" that the Earth is round. :rolleyes:

And holocaust denial is a product of an ideological vendetta, what ideology do AIDS denialists follow?

I'm inclined to say anti-homosexuality.

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

I don't know, though.

This is so ridiculous, I laughed out loud. It shows that whoever wrote it has a very poor understanding of the principles behind the methods he/she is critiquing, let alone of microbiological diagnostics.

If we want to play the authority game, she probably has you topped in expertise.

Rebecca Culshaw Vitae (http://math.uttyl.edu/rculshaw/vitae.htm)
Summary (http://reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Rebecca_Culshaw)

Good point. Although, they are making jokes of themselves...

Look under the 'Current Events' section of their website:

In the small town of Grass Roots, MO, one of our members has successfully infiltrated the public education system. By being hired on as a teacher in the district, she was able to gain a foothold that has allowed us to "replace" nearly every lower grade teacher in the entire town with loyal Flat Earthers. The students are now undergoing deprogramming measures and are expected to be released when they reach their mid-thirties.

Do you really think they're serious? :p

EDIT: The rest is just as funny so I'll post a few more extracts:

After spending over sixteen million dollars and using over 48 thousand yards of industrial strength strapping tape, we of the Flat Earth Society were able to construct an enormously powerful neurotransmitter that can implant suggestions directly into the brains of the nearby non-Flat Earthers. Having set it up just outside of the Russian Antarctic exploration post (Vostok), we are awaiting word that all three scientists and 174 penguins have been shown the light.

Three loyal Flat Earth Society members, during a camping trip to the small African nation of Tunisia, came across a privately-owned 59 minute photo stand in the isolated northernmost corner of the desert country. Employing guerilla warfare techniques learned under Mao Zedong in the early 1920's, they were able to effortlessly seize control of the stand and are now using it to distribute pro-Flat Earth propaganda throughout the West African region.

...

Your dog has joined us.

...

the Flat Earth Society has reluctantly embraced technology as the means of getting our message out. Although more effective on a grass-roots level, our traditional means of pamphlet distribution, door-to-door support gathering, harassment and kidnapping of close relatives, threatening phone calls and abduction/brainwashing have been both slow to work and generally discouraged. So, despite four hundred-plus years of tradition, we have revised our philosophy, and have adopted a more insidious means of undoing Efimovich once and for all: subliminal messages.

We have a vested interesting in promoting research into diseases? Get outta town! It's like saying NASA has a vested interest in the Earth being round, and that casting aspersion on the fact that the Earth is round... no, wait, the "fact" that the Earth is round. :rolleyes:

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-U-S-Federal-Funding-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf

The US Government spent 21 billion on HIV/AIDS programs in 2006. That is plenty incentive.

Look under the 'Current Events' section of their website:



Do you really think they're serious? :p

Yes. I really do. :(

If we want to play the authority game, she probably has you topped in expertise.[/URL]

Her "expertise" is in mathematics, and lo and behold, she has books to hawk.

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-U-S-Federal-Funding-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf

The US Government spent 21 billion on HIV/AIDS programs in 2006. That is plenty incentive.

And its budget for NASA is around 15 billion. What an incentive, eh? So, is the Earth flat?

I'm inclined to say anti-homosexuality.

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

I don't know, though.

I don't think AIDS denialists had anything to do with that title.

Do you have any other evidence.

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-U-S-Federal-Funding-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf

The US Government spent 21 billion on HIV/AIDS programs in 2006. That is plenty incentive.

Any scientist who could show that HIV was not linked to AIDS, was caused by anti-viral drugs, or was a blanket diagnosis for a whole bunch of problems would be pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize and tenure at any university they liked. That's a major incentive.

Any scientist who could show that HIV was not linked to AIDS, was caused by anti-viral drugs, or was a blanket diagnosis for a whole bunch of problems would be pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize and tenure at any university they liked. That's a major incentive.

I've also googled this Rebecca Culshaw. I can barely find any mention of her apart from on these "AIDS dissident" sites, and it would seem that she was quite unknown and unsuccessful in her field of "HIV mathematics".

Now, all of a sudden, since she "switched sides" she seems almost an icon among these "dissidents", who listen to her, interview her and buy her crap. Quite the incentive, eh?

Her "expertise" is in mathematics, and lo and behold, she has books to hawk.

Of course her master's and Ph.D. work was devoted to mathematical models of HIV infections, as well as several papers and conference presentations.

Tell me, do you have the expertise to counter this paper (http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/culshaw.pdf) on the inefficacies of HIV testing?

Any scientist who could show that HIV was not linked to AIDS, was caused by anti-viral drugs, or was a blanket diagnosis for a whole bunch of problems would be pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize and tenure at any university they liked. That's a major incentive.

That's something all these conspiracy loons fail to understand about science. In the scientific world, you don't get accolades for parroting what others say. You get recognition for proving others wrong.

And its budget for NASA is around 15 billion. What an incentive, eh?

That is a shit-load of incentive to show the benefits of space exploration.

So, is the Earth flat?

I just don't get this.

Any scientist who could show that HIV was not linked to AIDS, was caused by anti-viral drugs, or was a blanket diagnosis for a whole bunch of problems would be pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize and tenure at any university they liked. That's a major incentive.

Certainly it is an incentive, but of course it goes against the existing paradigm of AIDS research.

One does not make great scientific advancements in a vacuum. At least not figuratively.

Now, all of a sudden, since she "switched sides" she seems almost an icon among these "dissidents", who listen to her, interview her and buy her crap. Quite the incentive, eh?

Very much so.

you don't get accolades for parroting what others say. You get recognition for proving others wrong.

You get sure money for parroting others, though.

Going outside the scientific paradigm usually results in ridicule...

Of course her master's and Ph.D. work was devoted to mathematical models of HIV infections, as well as several papers and conference presentations.

And, yet, she isn't actually known or holds that much of a reputation, it would seem.

Tell me, do you have the expertise to counter this paper (http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/culshaw.pdf) on the inefficacies of HIV testing?

Nothing in it is new or puts into question that HIV causes AIDS. Having quickly perused this small review ("paper" would suggest there is some sort of new knowledge of research presented in it, but it isn't), it tells me nothing I haven't already known: that current HIV treatment models aren't perfect. The "paper" itself isn't even about "inefficacies of HIV testing" (i.e. detection of HIV infection - so there's nothing for me to counter about these "inefficiencies of HIV testing" ) - it is about repeating the already widely known (that mathematical models have come short of being able to explain/predict aspects of HIV-AIDS progression and that treatment in some cases thus becomes suboptimal, in large part due to insufficient understanding of the relevant immunology now and at the time the models were devised) and mentioning an alternate model to be used as an addition.

She really suggests nothing that isn't already known. Pick up any textbook in microbiology that has a decent chapter on HIV and you'll see for yourself. Nothing in the "paper" (again, it's more a short review) casts aspersions on the HIV-AIDS relationship, and she weighs her words well because she probably knew it would never get published as the small review that it was if she had claimed such a thing.

That is a shit-load of incentive to show the benefits of space exploration.

It's a shit load of incentive to propagate that the Earth is round, no? Thus, according to your logic, it casts aspersions on the "fact" that the Earth is round, no?

I just don't get this.

You're using the same argument that the flat-earthers use. "Why would NASA conspire to make us believe the Earth is round? Because there's money in it."

TEH AIDS IS A CONSPURACEE BY DAH CIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or not......

TEH AIDS IS A CONSPURACEE BY DAH CIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or not......

No, apparently it's a world-wide conspiracy by pharmaceuticals and the medical profession to suck you dry of money. Just like cancer.

No, apparently it's a world-wide conspiracy by pharmaceuticals and the medical profession to suck you dry of money. Just like cancer.

Except not everyone gets cancer or AIDS. Now, the common cold.... ;) (or rather, the common COLDS.....)

Except not everyone gets cancer or AIDS. Now, the common cold.... ;) (or rather, the common COLDS.....)

Did you know primary HIV infection can manifest in flu and cold-like symptoms? So, you better hush, child, lest we... well, let's not get into that.

And, yet, she isn't actually known or holds that much of a reputation, it would seem.

Probably a greater reputation than you, though.

Nothing in it is new or puts into question that HIV causes AIDS. Having quickly perused this small review ("paper" would suggest there is some sort of new knowledge of research presented in it, but it isn't), it tells me nothing I haven't already known: that current HIV treatment models aren't perfect. The "paper" itself isn't even about "inefficacies of HIV testing" (i.e. detection of HIV infection - so there's nothing for me to counter about these "inefficiencies of HIV testing" ) - it is about repeating the already widely known (that mathematical models have come short of being able to explain/predict aspects of HIV-AIDS progression and that treatment in some cases thus becomes suboptimal, in large part due to insufficient understanding of the relevant immunology now and at the time the models were devised) and mentioning an alternate model to be used as an addition.

She consistently attempts to undermine the statistical modeling which stands as the basis for the HIV - AIDS link as well as the validity of Viral load and CD4+ testing in showing the level of HIV infection. Maybe she didn't come out and say, "HIV doesn't exist and AIDS is a false diagnosis", but you can quickly derive the denialist position from her review.

Nevertheless the validity of her argument is not the point. I merely posted that review in order to counter your opinion that her article "shows that whoever wrote it has a very poor understanding of the principles behind the methods he/she is critiquing, let alone of microbiological diagnostics."

It's a shit load of incentive to propagate that the Earth is round, no?

I'm not really sure why, but ok.

Thus, according to your logic, it casts aspersions on the "fact" that the Earth is round, no?

Actually you quoted this post but I will go ahead and quote myself with added emphasis:


What I meant was that the medical community has a devoted interest (even if it is not a conscious plan) in promoting AIDS research. Of course this does not imply that AIDS is false, but it does provide for a trend to promote the existing paradigm concerning how science views AIDS and HIV.

I just wanted to cast doubt on the perceived authority that corporatist medical industry appears to have. They aren't out for the truth, so much as they are out for government grants.

So far AIDS denialists have been dismissed as being similar to creationists, holocaust deniers, and flat-earthers, but I haven't seen their arguments dismissed.

We would be wise to ignore the perceived authority of the establishment and examine this on the merits of their arguments.

Probably a greater reputation than you, though.

You're the one trying to use her as some sort of authority, when she's not an authority. My reputation is irrelevant to your attempt to depict her as a reputable scientist.

She consistently attempts to undermine the statistical modeling which stands as the basis for the HIV - AIDS link

No, she doesn't, because the HIV-AIDS relationship is not founded on those models (really, this is where it's becoming quite apparent that you weren't exaggerating when you said you had no medical understanding in the OP), and, as I mentioned, their shortcomings are widely known and have never been secrets, and do not in any way put into question the HIV-AIDS relationship.

as well as the validity of Viral load and CD4+ testing in showing the level of HIV infection.

Viral load and CD4+ testing aren't used "in showing the level of HIV infection" - they are used as quotidian methods to monitor progress of treatment and failure of such, and as any textbook on microbiology with a decent HIV chapter will tell you, none of the shortcomings as a method even for that are "new" or "secret". They are well-known and are taken into consideration by every clinician who knows what he's doing. Why are they used, you may ask - because better methods that are practical for daily use haven't been devised yet. That also seems to be the point of this review - to repeat what we know ("the methods we use have certain shortcomings") and to point to an alternate method that might be interesting to implement if it stands review.

You don't read too many of these sorts of reviews, do you?

Maybe she didn't come out and say, "HIV doesn't exist and AIDS is a false diagnosis", but you can quickly derive the denialist position from her review.

Actually, no you can't, because nothing even close to being so questionable is raised by her in that review.

Nevertheless the validity of her argument is not the point. I merely posted that review in order to counter your opinion that her article "shows that whoever wrote it has a very poor understanding of the principles behind the methods he/she is critiquing, let alone of microbiological diagnostics."

Her argument does indeed imply that she has a very poor understanding of the principles behind the methods he/she is critiquing, let alone of microbiological diagnostics. Her statement alone that since we have to use PCR to amplify DNA/RNA to detect it somehow is supposed to show that the HIV virus is benign is among the biggest load of shit I've read today, and mind you I've had time to peruse certain threads on General already... and, as I said, that was just where I could even bring myself to begin mocking her nonsense. I was too busy laughing even more at the rest.

I just wanted to cast doubt on the perceived authority that corporatist medical industry appears to have.

And you did so with a completely shitty argument.

You're the one trying to use her as some sort of authority, when she's not an authority. My reputation is irrelevant to your attempt to depict her as a reputable scientist.

The only authority that I am giving her is due to the fact that she knows a great deal more about the subject than I do.

I simply assume that she has done reputable research work as it got her an Ph.D.

No, she doesn't, because the HIV-AIDS relationship is not founded on those models (really, this is where it's becoming quite apparent that you weren't exaggerating when you said you had no medical understanding in the OP), and, as I mentioned, their shortcomings are widely known and have never been secrets, and do not in any way put into question the HIV-AIDS relationship.

I have never had any reason to learn about the infectious nature of HIV other than what I have read the past two nights, so please forgive me if I don't understand the current models. I really don't understand HIV and AIDS, but I have some level of reading comprehension, so I started this thread.

But why would our inability to accurately model and monitor an HIV infection not put the current understanding of the HIV-AIDS relationship?

Viral load and CD4+ testing aren't used "in showing the level of HIV infection" - they are used as quotidian methods to monitor progress of treatment and failure of such, and as any textbook on microbiology with a decent HIV chapter will tell you, none of the shortcomings as a method even for that are "new" or "secret". They are well-known and are taken into consideration by every clinician who knows what he's doing. Why are they used, you may ask - because better methods that are practical for daily use haven't been devised yet. That also seems to be the point of this review - to repeat what we know ("the methods we use have certain shortcomings") and to point to an alternate method that might be interesting to implement if it stands review.

Well the point of the review is that our current testing abilities make the current trends in modeling impossible, and alternative modeling (which could cause medical science to look at HIV as a consequence and not a cause of AIDS). And no, I do not read many of these scholarly reviews of microbiology.

But again, why doesn't this raise a level of skepticism of our present understanding of AIDS? What slams the door shut?

Actually, no you can't, because nothing even close to being so questionable is raised by her in that review.


The role of HIV in the GSH:GSSG ratio remains unclear, and it
has been proposed that the expression of phenomena believed
specific to HIV is a consequence rather than the cause of the Th1-to-
Th2 shift.

From what I understand of her paper, AIDS is caused by the immunodeficiency caused by the bodies loss of Th1 cells. So this statement seems to imply that HIV may not be the cause of the loss of Th1 cells, and therefore not the cause of AIDS.