Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Nov 2011, 2:41 pm

Actually, I take the "lunatic" part of that out. In fact, Leung is arguably a genius as far as making a name for himself. This bull crap has probably made his career. If you were to ask him candidly and completely off the record, though, he'd tell you the same thing I'm saying: if you value your life, do not take it to heart.



HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

29 Nov 2011, 3:20 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I feel bad causing issues on this forum and perhaps the title of my thread was too provocative.


I felt the title was fine since it got my attention immediately. I think the problem was people usually put their title as a question to mask their true feelings, especially concerning conspiracy theories. They do not intend to think about it like you did. There has been a rash of that lately.

jojoba wrote:
This is troubling to see. Few Americans know they have the condition, or have their Aids under control. Still lots of work to be done in understanding the disease.

"Just 1 in 4 With HIV Have Infection Under Control"

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/2 ... r-control/


Based on the comments on the article and the website, it appears there might have been a different spin and more subtle reason why this was posted.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Nov 2011, 4:58 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.


I'm not going to bother addressing this one. The OP's question was about the link between HIV and AIDS, not on the origins of HIV and AIDS.

Quote:
Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications. This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?


I am not aware of any antiretroviral therapies that have immune suppression as a clinically demonstrated side effect. In my view that would negate their clinical indication for treatment of almost any viral infection, let alone HIV. If the purpose of viral suppression is to protect CD4's, why on earth would we embark on a therapy that puts some other part of the immune system under threat?

It's important not to confuse toxic side effects with immune suppressive side effects. Many anti-retrovirals have toxic side effects and the selection of an appropriate anti-retroviral therapy must take into account not only the viral load response, but also the other patient impacts. Fortunately, there are a fairly wide range of options available so that in the event a patient presents a sensitivity to one or more drugs in one therapy, another can be substituted for it.

Quote:
I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.


_________________
--James


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Nov 2011, 5:04 pm

visagrunt wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.


I'm not going to bother addressing this one. The OP's question was about the link between HIV and AIDS, not on the origins of HIV and AIDS.

Quote:
Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications. This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?


I am not aware of any antiretroviral therapies that have immune suppression as a clinically demonstrated side effect. In my view that would negate their clinical indication for treatment of almost any viral infection, let alone HIV. If the purpose of viral suppression is to protect CD4's, why on earth would we embark on a therapy that puts some other part of the immune system under threat?

It's important not to confuse toxic side effects with immune suppressive side effects. Many anti-retrovirals have toxic side effects and the selection of an appropriate anti-retroviral therapy must take into account not only the viral load response, but also the other patient impacts. Fortunately, there are a fairly wide range of options available so that in the event a patient presents a sensitivity to one or more drugs in one therapy, another can be substituted for it.

Quote:
I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.


If AIDS had been engineered to wipe out the gay American population, why is it that it's victims in Africa, where it actually began(!), are overwhelmingly heterosexual?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Nov 2011, 1:47 am

Robdemanc wrote:
For the record. I think this is the best response to my question. Visagrunt shares with us the view of someone who has specialised in medicine and studied viral science. And they posted without any emotive slant. Thank you.

Visagrunt is good that way. :)



blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

30 Nov 2011, 2:18 am

I thought AIDS was a divine punishment for sexual decadence: deviating from the way of the missionary and no child in result.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Nov 2011, 2:22 am

blunnet wrote:
I thought AIDS was a divine punishment for sexual decadence: deviating from the way of the missionary and no child in result.


Ask any given person belonging to the religious right, and you're liable to get that answer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

30 Nov 2011, 9:00 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
If AIDS had been engineered to wipe out the gay American population, why is it that it's victims in Africa, where it actually began(!), are overwhelmingly heterosexual?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because Africa is insanely ass-backwards. Any 10-year-old should be able to understand how AIDS is spread and what can be done to prevent it. Talk to social workers from Africa. They can't get people to use condoms, or use them properly (which amazes me). The culture is ingrained with backwards beliefs that RAPING a virgin will cure the disease.

Even if HIV was targeted towards homosexual men, the first time it reached Africa, it spread to whomever was exposed...just as it spreads among heterosexuals via drug use (shared needles), unprotected sex and tainted blood transfusions.

So long as it never becomes transmittable in the air or water supply, it's a brilliant depopulation tool. The minds who are believed to be behind its development (which could have been done by tweaking an existing disease...just as most biological weapons are developed), pretty much believe only a select group of upper-class, white Europeans should dominate the world. Gays, prostitutes, "blacks," Latinos, etc. are all expendable chattel.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

30 Nov 2011, 9:10 am

visagrunt wrote:
I am not aware of any antiretroviral therapies that have immune suppression as a clinically demonstrated side effect. In my view that would negate their clinical indication for treatment of almost any viral infection, let alone HIV. If the purpose of viral suppression is to protect CD4's, why on earth would we embark on a therapy that puts some other part of the immune system under threat?

It's important not to confuse toxic side effects with immune suppressive side effects. Many anti-retrovirals have toxic side effects and the selection of an appropriate anti-retroviral therapy must take into account not only the viral load response, but also the other patient impacts. Fortunately, there are a fairly wide range of options available so that in the event a patient presents a sensitivity to one or more drugs in one therapy, another can be substituted for it.


You are correct about drugs with toxic side effects. STILL, people who die are generally classified as dying from HIV complications, I don't think you ever see the side effects of the meds getting the blame for why they died. Granted, there is a "but for" causality issue...without the HIV they wouldn't be on the drugs, but let's put the blame where it belongs.

As I understood HIV and AIDS, the disease does not "destroy" the immune system as much as it takes it over. Ultimately, yes, the immune system is shut down, but for a long time, it still works as the HIV makes the immune system attack anything BUT the HIV virus. In this time, at least for a while as I understood treatments for HIV, the strategy was to use immune-suppressing drugs to keep the HIV from using a body's immune system against itself. HENCE, if a person died of pneumonia while on the drug, did they die because of the HIV or that the drug trying to keep their immune system in check left them vulnerable to contracting and dying of pneumonia?

I'm quite certain all this retro-virus treatment stuff didn't not come into being until somewhat recently when you consider the life-span of the AIDS epidemic.



factotum666
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 146
Location: Las Vegas suburb

30 Nov 2011, 10:26 am

This shows a lot of research on your part. We know that there was a lot of research because you are "quite certain..." From your comments I am sure that you have put in many minutes researching this disease. Perhaps as much as an hour or two. You may have actually read an actual paper by an actual scientist, or at least a summation of a paper.

If it would not be to much trouble, I bet that you could produce a link to an actual peer reviewed paper on how a treatment for aids is to suppress and already compromised immune system. I will bet 10 cents.

I can just imagine the scientists sitting around ... These people have failing immune systems. Perhaps in a method of treatment similar to leaches, we could suppress it even further thereby giving the vital essence a chance to fix the body.

Seriously, do you even read what you write before posting?


_________________
You can fool people, but nature can not be fooled


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Nov 2011, 11:39 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If AIDS had been engineered to wipe out the gay American population, why is it that it's victims in Africa, where it actually began(!), are overwhelmingly heterosexual?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Because Africa is insanely ass-backwards. Any 10-year-old should be able to understand how AIDS is spread and what can be done to prevent it. Talk to social workers from Africa. They can't get people to use condoms, or use them properly (which amazes me). The culture is ingrained with backwards beliefs that RAPING a virgin will cure the disease.

Even if HIV was targeted towards homosexual men, the first time it reached Africa, it spread to whomever was exposed...just as it spreads among heterosexuals via drug use (shared needles), unprotected sex and tainted blood transfusions.

So long as it never becomes transmittable in the air or water supply, it's a brilliant depopulation tool. The minds who are believed to be behind its development (which could have been done by tweaking an existing disease...just as most biological weapons are developed), pretty much believe only a select group of upper-class, white Europeans should dominate the world. Gays, prostitutes, "blacks," Latinos, etc. are all expendable chattel.


Yes, AIDS spread through the initial ignorance of people, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be a conspiracy. I seriously doubt that there's a smoking gun behind the grassy knoll on this one..

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Nov 2011, 11:59 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Because Africa is insanely ass-backwards. Any 10-year-old should be able to understand how AIDS is spread and what can be done to prevent it. Talk to social workers from Africa. They can't get people to use condoms, or use them properly (which amazes me). The culture is ingrained with backwards beliefs that RAPING a virgin will cure the disease.

.


That is just about par for Africa's course. Africa consists mostly of primitive savages (that would be the central portion). Out in the hinterlands they eat monkey meat. Africa is the basket case of humanity. The only portion of the human race that will survive is that portion that left Africa, long, long ago.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Nov 2011, 12:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:

Because Africa is insanely ass-backwards. Any 10-year-old should be able to understand how AIDS is spread and what can be done to prevent it. Talk to social workers from Africa. They can't get people to use condoms, or use them properly (which amazes me). The culture is ingrained with backwards beliefs that RAPING a virgin will cure the disease.

.


That is just about par for Africa's course. Africa consists mostly of primitive savages (that would be the central portion). Out in the hinterlands they eat monkey meat. Africa is the basket case of humanity. The only portion of the human race that will survive is that portion that left Africa, long, long ago.

ruveyn


Africans have held on for millions of years, and God willing, they'll hang on for millions of years more.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Nov 2011, 12:14 pm

Is HIV a scam. Are all those purple lesions and cancerous lumps and wasting bodies an illusion? I doubt it.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 Nov 2011, 3:33 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
You are correct about drugs with toxic side effects. STILL, people who die are generally classified as dying from HIV complications, I don't think you ever see the side effects of the meds getting the blame for why they died. Granted, there is a "but for" causality issue...without the HIV they wouldn't be on the drugs, but let's put the blame where it belongs.


This is a very important issue, and one that should not be overlooked uncritically. I don't believe that the practice of covering up drug toxicity is as widespread as you make out--but neither will I suggest that you're concern is unreasonable.

Quote:
As I understood HIV and AIDS, the disease does not "destroy" the immune system as much as it takes it over. Ultimately, yes, the immune system is shut down, but for a long time, it still works as the HIV makes the immune system attack anything BUT the HIV virus. In this time, at least for a while as I understood treatments for HIV, the strategy was to use immune-suppressing drugs to keep the HIV from using a body's immune system against itself. HENCE, if a person died of pneumonia while on the drug, did they die because of the HIV or that the drug trying to keep their immune system in check left them vulnerable to contracting and dying of pneumonia?


Viruses reproduce by infecting cells, and then hijacking the cell's functions by turning it into a factory for reproducing the virus' DNA and the virus' protein shell. The cell then releases multiple copies of the virus--often dying in the process. HIV relies on CD4 cells for this process, so as the viral load increases, the CD4 cells are killed off in greater numbers--eventually falling below the body's ability to replace them.

CD4's play an important role in immune response by identifying pathogens--and 'remembering' the pathogens that the body has already encountered. When these cells are lost, there is nothing to trigger the immune system into action. This opens up the host to opportunistic infections.

You are quite correct--HIV doesn't kill the host directly, nor does it directly cause the conditions that eventually kill the host. But HIV is directly responsible for the circumstance that led to death.

So, while pneumonia might be the direct cause of death, HIV is still a causa sine qua non, since absent the destruction of the CD4's, the patient would not have been vulnerable to the pneumonia. So that's why we will often speak of "AIDS related pneumonia" or "AIDS related lymphoma" as a cause of death.

Quote:
I'm quite certain all this retro-virus treatment stuff didn't not come into being until somewhat recently when you consider the life-span of the AIDS epidemic.


The first effective anti-retrovirals were being tested in the 80's a few years after the virus was discovered. The "hit hard, hit early" approach began to be promoted in the mid-90's, so we have about 15 years of clinical experience with it.


_________________
--James