SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (3928)12/8/2002 2:52:52 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901
 
Bottom line: practice safe sex.


And even that is not safe between two gay partners, one of whom as aids. I read a number the other day that their was a 15% infection rate even with partners that claimed they always used protection.

What annoys me is the attempt by the Media from the start in this country to claim that Heterosexuals in the USA were highly at risk. This was done in an attempt to take the onus off the Gay Community, but had led to the Media, and Public Health Departments, lying to the Public.



To: Ilaine who wrote (3928)12/8/2002 3:26:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 6901
 
The epidemiology of Chinese AIDS is pretty clear, too. People sold blood plasma which was pooled before it was reinjected into their bodies. These are the people who got AIDS. People who did not receive pooled plasma did not get AIDS, for the most part.

I think what Duesberg is saying is that HIV cannot be the cause because it does not express the same celluar destruction against white blood cells that lytic viruses do.. Thus, how can the the virus weaken the immune system unless it destroys white blood cells. All it does is replicate itself without destroying the cell.

But primarily Duesberg and Hogan claim that blaming AIDS on HIV is in violation of Koch's Postulates:

"The typical response to this violating of a basic principle that has served well for a century is either to ignore it or say that HIV is so complex that it renders Koch's Postulates obsolete. But Koch's Postulates are simply a formalization of common-sense logic, not a statement about microbes. The laws of logic don't become obsolete, any more than mathematics. And if the established criteria for infectiousness are thrown away, then by what alternative standard is HIV supposed to be judged infectious? Just clusterings of like symptoms? Simple correlations with no proof of any cause-effect relationship? That's called superstition, not science. It puts medicine back two hundred years."

(1) The microbe must be found in all cases of the disease.

(2) The microbe must be isolated from the host and grown in a pure culture.

This is to ensure that the disease was caused by the suspect germ and not by something unidentified in a mixture of substances. The tissues and body fluids of a patient with a genuine viral disease will have so many viruses pouring out of infected cells that it is a straightforward matter — a standard undergraduate exercise — to separate a pure sample and compare the result with known cataloged types.

(3) The microbe must be capable of reproducing the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.

(4) The microbe must be found present in the host so infected.

**************

But I think the most damning logic against HIV causing AIDS is the following:

"Viruses make you sick by killing cells. When viruses are actively replicating at a rate sufficient to cause disease, either because immunity hasn't developed yet or because the immune system is too defective to contain them, there's no difficulty in isolating them from the affected tissues. With influenza, a third of the lung cells are infected; with hepatitis, just about all of the liver cells. In the case of AIDS, typically 1 in 1000 T-cells shows any sign of HIV, even for terminally ill cases — and even then, no distinction is made of inactive or defective viruses, or totally non-functional viral fragments. But even if every one were a lethally infected cell, the body's replacement rate is 30 times higher. This simply doesn't add up to damage on a scale capable of causing disease.

That's not to say that HIV doesn't infect CD4 cells, because it clearly does. However, it doesn't seem to do it on the massive scale as other types of viruses..

And certainly not on a level that would independently threaten a healthy immune system... Thus, it could be that the immune system is being threatened by other viral activity, or generally weakened immunity from drug abuse.. etc.. Thus, as white blood cells fight repeating infections from other diseases, they inevitably absorb any HIV cells in the body, including the thymus and other locations where white blood cells are created, whereupon these "hijacked" CD4 cells gradually outnumber the non-infected CD4 cells because replacement is being inhibited by either the other diseases attacking the immune system, or the drugs being administered to interrupt cell replication (AZT), which also prevents new CD4 cells from being produced.

So the question is whether an already abused immune system becomes more receptive to what would normally be a relatively benign virus, or whether the introduction of HIV is the sole causitive agent in the destruction of the immune system.

And I look out there and see Magic Johnson, who is apparently HIV positive, yet he has never developed AIDS. That's because he's apparently athletic enough, and conscious enough to avoid destroying his immune system through abusive behavior such as drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol.

And it might be interesting to explore the use of anti-oxidants which help mitigate the effects of harmful toxicants in our system.

These guys may be wrong, but I think they raise sufficient questions that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Hawk

Far from being a common cause of the various conditions called "AIDS," HIV itself was an opportunistic infection that made itself known in the final stages of immune-system deterioration brought about in other ways. In a sense, AIDS caused HIV. Hence, it acted as a "marker" of high-risk groups, but was not in itself responsible for the health problems that those groups were experiencing. The high correlation between HIV and AIDS that was constantly being alluded to was an artifact of the way in which AIDS was defined: