The Chemical Basis of AIDS

Doc Savage

[realpatriot71]

People who take the "HIV does not cause AIDS stance" have NO understanding, whatsoever, of the virology and pathophysiology of the dz.

[tallhappy]

Thanks. This is a perfect example of the problem. In no way do surveys such as these, in terms of experimental design, even come close to evaluating pathogenic spread.

And as they note, these are hand-wavy numbers and estimates.

Note. These numbers do not represent actual cases in persons with a diagnosis of HIV infection or AIDS. Rather, these numbers are point estimates of cases diagnosed that have been adjusted for reporting delays and for redistribution of cases in persons initially reported without an identified risk. The estimates have not been adjusted for incomplete reporting.

Data include persons in whom AIDS has developed and persons whose first diagnosis of HIV infection and the diagnosis of AIDS were made at the same time.

[tallhappy]

So what is the viral pathology. What is the current theory of the mechanism that cause T-Cells or other immune cells to all die out?

[InterceptPoint]

Johnson does not have full-blown AIDS. To maintain his health, he takes a cocktail of GlaxoSmithKline drugs as well as drugs made by other companies. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline said the message they're trying to get across is that Johnson looks good because he takes his medications every day.

So why the mystery about what he is taking? He could be taking a GlaxoSmithEline cocktail of vitamins and the statement above would still be true and it would prove nothing.

The specific medication that he takes, if any, should be published in medical journals so we can see what works in at least this one case. Until Magic comes out and tells the world what he is really taking and stops hiding behind all that medical record nonsense then nobody outside the AIDS profession is going to believe he is really taking your drugs. I don't.

Again: Why isn't Magic the subject of serious articles in medical journals. He should be your best "proof" that you can manage AIDS. Or alternatively, he could be the best example that an HIV positive test in a healthy non-drug using man like Magic is meaningless.

[1stFreedom]

After Mass today I spoke with some men who were new. I saw one of them in mass and he looked like something was odd about him -- druggie, alcholic, or a mental patient. He also looked somewhat like an older "cholo".

After mass I intro myself to him and he intro's his young friends. All 3 live in a drug rehab center (halfway house?) for addicts less than two blocks away. (BTW, I attend St. John the Evangelist Parish in Stamford Ct.)

We talk and I happen to mention how I saw herion addicts shoot up in jail -- and share needles. I mention the risk of AIDS and the older man tells me he has been HIV positive for 20 years -- he got it through sharing needles.

He also tells me that he has had two children in the mean time -- both HIV free. His wife is HIV free. He says he doesn't take any medicine. He looks worn out, but not from AIDS/HIV but from drugs. (I've seen plenty of druggies and they all have this beaten worn down aged look.)

Now, this doesn't mean anything, since I can't tell if he's telling the truth. He could be telling partial truths. That seems to be the weakest link in the the HIV/AIDS debate -- how to tell if someone is telling you the truth. He could indeed be positive, but he could be lying about how long. He could be lying about his kids, etc. Who knows.

However, it was a very intersting meeting. It doesn't disprove that HIV causes AIDS. It doesn't prove it either on the other hand. Can some people's immune system survive HIV, and not get full blown AIDS? Could he have had a false positive? Did his HIV mutate to a "harmless" form?

I am still convinced that HIV is directly related to AIDS. I myself wouldn't chance a HIV infection on the belief that it's not related. Better safe than sorry. This guy may be the exception to the rule.

[InterceptPoint]

This guy may be the exception to the rule.

He's not.

[aruanan]

I've been asking that question for over ten years and all I get is a run around from the HIV=AIDS people.

See #29 to begin with. From the rest of your answer, it's evident that you are the one who will never find an answer adequate because you have already decided that there is not one. You know the saying, "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

[aruanan]

I do have one question however. Even IF HIV was not the transmitting factor, and there is no such thing as heterosexual aids, then how would the rampant infections in Africa and Asia be explained.

Although this has been discussed for several years, there was just something within the past couple of weeks in the news from some organizations in Africa admitting that the numbers for AIDS cases in certain regions there have been overblown. AIDS in Africa, a continent awash in disease generally, receives more money for AIDS than for any other specific medical condition and almost more than for all other diseases combined. Organizations there are motivated to describe as many cases of disease as AIDS or HIV-related as they possibly can. Not only that, there are organizations in those countries that are created specifically for the purpose of taking advantage of all the money from the West being made available to fight AIDS/HIV.

This is not to say that there is not a higher rate of AIDS among heterosexuals there than in the US, just that the overall number is overstated. Also, the reason for the high rate of heterosexual AIDS is due to certain sexual practices--notably the desire of men in various African cultures for quick, rough, dry penetration. This, combined with the associated physical trauma such intercourse causes and a man with HIV, makes it far more likely there than in other parts of the world that there will be enough blood and trauma for infection to occur.

[realpatriot71]

Ooops wrong link, but you can check out all of the CDC data yourself, but I would like to give you a direct link to the Technical notes on the reporting and surviellence data . . . please note the 6th paragraph from the top:

"Over time, HIV infection may progress to AIDS and be reported to surveillance. Persons with HIV infection (not AIDS) who are later reported as having AIDS are deleted from the HIV infection (not AIDS) tables and added to the AIDS tables. Persons with HIV infection may be tested at any point on the clinical spectrum of disease; therefore, the time between diagnosis of HIV infection and diagnosis of AIDS differs. In addition, because surveillance practices differ, the reporting and updating of persons’ clinical and vital status differs among states. Completeness of reporting for HIV infection (not AIDS) is estimated at more than 85% [4]. By matching data in the national surveillance database, CDC estimates that approximately 2% of cases of HIV infection (not AIDS) are duplicates."

The people on these tables who have AIDS, by definition of the data, had HIV first, as reported! (With a few exceptions noted; ~20 cases of AIDS without any detectable HIV Ab). You do the math.

[tallhappy]

Thanks. I am actualy more interested in the current ideas on the virology and pathophysiology you mentioned in passing. What is the current molecular understanding of how the HIV virus cause the deaths of T-cells or other immune system cells?

[realpatriot71]

So what is the viral pathology. What is the current theory of the mechanism that cause T-Cells or other immune cells to all die out?

Good question, but one for the sake of time, I cannot type out completely here in this forum, besides it'd be VERY tedious. If you're really interested in the "whole story" go to your local library and ask to see Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine - read ad naseum :-)

Here's the reader's digest version: the virus binds to a specific receptor sites on a specific subset of T cells known as CD4 cells (Helper T's). It is this specific population of T cells that is diminished during the course of AIDS, and since this particular subset of T cells is responsible for directing and controlling most immune functions, you start to see the strange infectious and malignant phenomenon of AIDS. It has been shown that the virus in an effected indivdiual is latent in the exact cells that are deficient during AIDS, and that the body's own immune/response mechanisms to viral infections are alive and working to destroy these same cells when the virus is active.

[stig]

Dr. Peter Duesberg of UC Berkley covered this stuff years ago and got trashed by 'the establishment' for doing it. He covers in great detail alternative explainations for AIDS. But has since given up evangelizing the issue (at least to my knowledge).

I don't think Ryan White proves your case. As far as we know he was properly nurished, didn't have chemo, nor take recreational drugs. He was HIV positive and died from AIDS (though I do not know what ailment actually killed him.)

Ryan White was a hemophiliac and years of put foreign proteins into his blood can crash his immune system.

The most damning argument against your claims is that I have failed to see where AIDS has been produced from "poppers" and other drugs in lab specimins. If this were the case, it would be a tremendous discovery and the word would be out on the street. Bath houses would reopen (sans poppers) and anonymous orgies would once again rule the gay world. Condoms would fall by the wayside. Yet, this hasn't happened! Is this another FDA/CDC conspiracy to side with drug corporations?

It's my understanding that poppers are an integral part of the promiscous sex scene (esp. gay sex). It's also my understanding that homosexual men are the chief users of poppers in terms of quanity. Certainly heteros and lesbians if users tend to use the substance with alot less frequency. If they did than this population would be an excellent test to see if poppers do cause AIDS.

The other problem I have always had is that AZT has a laundry list of side effects many which end up in death. So your mortality rates for patients using the drugs would be high. Then when protease inhibitors arrive more people live longer, but these drugs are less dangerous than AZT (even though they are still pretty bad themselves in terms of side effects). So now we have people living longer so the new drugs appear better.

It's been a while since I did any medline searches on this stuff. But to my knowledge no double blind studies have been done on the current protocols for AIDS. Only randomized trials against previous treatment protocols. So once AZT was established all you have to do is beat AZT. You never have to go back and see if you're better than placebo.

[tallhappy]

I was thinking something more along the lines of this, Nef Harbors a Major Determinant of Pathogenicity for an AIDS-like Disease Induced by HIV-1 in Transgenic Mice but thanks anyhow.

[1stFreedom]

>>The other problem I have always had is that AZT has a laundry list of side effects many which end up in death.

Yea, AZT is controversial, with some AIDS groups/people denouncing it's use.

[realpatriot71]

I was thinking something more along the lines of this, Nef Harbors a Major Determinant of Pathogenicity for an AIDS-like Disease Induced by HIV-1 in Transgenic Mice but thanks anyhow

LOL - You were wanting a complete listing of every scientific paper that pertains to every particular area of the virology and pathophysiology of HIV in humans - PLEASE! - I don't that kind of time to spend on thsi forum.

Look, I'm a med student, currently immersed in this subject matter, and I've studied every aspect involved from the biochemistry to the cellular pathology. I can tell you without any doubt in my mind: HIV causes AIDS.

If that doesn't convince you, then read what I told you to. It's not a textbook, so much as a compendium of internal medicine knowledge that has kept up with as much scientific medical discovery as possible. If you read the few pages or so on HIV/AIDS abd still don't "buy it," nothing I'm going to say (or any other physician for that matter) will change your mind.

[realpatriot71]

If all the scientific data, statistical evidence, professional medical opinion is not enough for you, then there's not much more I'm going to say.

Enjoy your delusion.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The spread of AIDS (and accompanying HIV invection) to hemopheliacs doesn't seem to be explained by malnutrition.

[I got the rope]

Here's a good place to start...there are lots.

[I got the rope]

It's hard to understand where you are coming from or your rationales for thinking attributing the higher rates of disease and death in the homosexual community to unhealthy activities is somehow part of the homosexual agenda.

What's hard to understand is why they continue their behavior in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is harmful to their health.

Wait...let me guess your response..."What evidence?" LOL.

[I got the rope]

I believe he is on Protease Inhibitors.