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

factotum666
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 146
Location: Las Vegas suburb

28 Nov 2011, 3:16 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.

Some links would be nice. But that would be about as likely as links that show evidence that the world was created in seven days by the flying spaghetti monster.

Quote:

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.

No they do not. Really, it is hard to suppress an immune system, that for all practical purposes, no longer exists. Really, where do you find this stuff, and do you have even a bare minimum understanding of either science or medicine?
Quote:
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?


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt.... And before the medicines no one actually died from the complications. They just went to the doctors because they had nothing else to do, and suggested that the doctors give them something to make them sick thus vindicating their hypochondria. And of course you have all those not dead people in africa who take no medications
Quote:
I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.


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


factotum666
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 146
Location: Las Vegas suburb

28 Nov 2011, 3:32 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.
No there is not, any more than there is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster created the earth in seven days. Though a link would have been nice. And you would want to include the evidence of the conspiracy that all those tissue samples showing HIV dating back to the 50's I believe. You may want to use the same wayback machine used by birthers to get the announcements of Obamas birth in both Hawaii newspapers
Quote:

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.


Not likely. What is the purpose of immune suppression medications to suppress something, that for all practical purposes is no longer there? Do you know what HIV stands for? Do you have even a basic understanding of how science works, and how medical research works? Lest you call this name calling, I am pointing out that you are demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge on these subjects.
Quote:
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?

rrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhhttttttt... And all those people who died before taking any medications? Or those who still do die, because they can not afford the medications? How did that happen? They went to a doctor and said, hey doc, I feel great, could you give me something to destroy my immune system and validate my hypocondria? Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that anti-retroviral drugs are similar to immune suppressing drugs? Do you even know what a retrovirus is? Do you know anything about current protocols and survival rates? Do you care?
Quote:

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


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


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,068
Location: Stendec

28 Nov 2011, 3:38 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.

Please provide at least 3 unique links to the alleged evidence.

zer0netgain wrote:
Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.

Antiretrovirals are the main type of treatment for HIV or AIDS. They do not cure, but can stop people from becoming ill for many years. The aim of antiretroviral treatment is to keep the amount of HIV in the body at a low level. This stops any weakening of the immune system and allows it to recover from any damage that HIV might have caused already. Anti-retrovirals do not involve suppressing the immune system.

zer0netgain wrote:
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?

Your syllogism is flawed. When someone dies of "complications", they may die because of a hidden allergy to the HIV medications, because they took another drug that neutralized or altered the effects of the HIV medications, because their systems were so badly weakened by the time they began treatment that the treatment was ineffective, or because of some hidden disease or systemic flaw that the anti-HIV medication was not designed to treat.

It seems that you have fallen for the anti-gay rhetoric of various Conspiracy Theory groups. These groups have no evidence to support their claims, but instead use false data, baseless assumptions, convoluted logic, and faulty syllogisms to assert their claims. Fortunately, people who follow these Conspiracy Theories are not the same people that treat HIV patients.

There are five groups of antiretroviral drugs. Each of these groups attacks HIV in a different way.
  • Nucleoside/Nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors interfere with the action of an HIV protein called reverse transcriptase, which the virus needs to make new copies of itself.
  • Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors also stop HIV from replicating within cells by inhibiting the reverse transcriptase protein.
  • Protease Inhibitors inhibit protease, which is another protein involved in the HIV replication process.
  • Fusion or entry inhibitors prevent HIV from binding to or entering human immune cells.
  • Integrase inhibitors interfere with the integrase enzyme, which HIV needs to insert its genetic material into human cells.
None of these drugs are designed to inhibit the immune system, only those proteins that HIV exploits for its own replication.

You would do well to obtain and actually read your own copy of this document: "HIV and Its Treatment" as soon as possible.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

28 Nov 2011, 6:59 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
LKL wrote:
Wow, that's an unusually humble admission. Good for you. :)


I am presuming you refer to my last post? I don't think theres anything wrong with admitting you have been wrong or mistaken. I have always been very scientific and appreciate the scientific method. But I have always been cynical and skeptical too. The film I saw was very well made and is perhaps the only documentary film I have come across about HIV/AIDS. So seeing it and also seeing a report on Russia Today which indicated there is disagreement within the scientific community about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS sparked my head, put this together with my cynicism about multi nationals and our governments and I was easily duped for a short time by the film "House of Numbers" which hinted that it was a scam.

In light of the banking crisis, the questionable wars, and in Britain our politicians have been shown to be untrustworthy with public money......it is a wonder anyone believes anything they tell us anymore...

Nothing wrong with it at all, but it is rare enough that it speaks quite well of you as a person that you're willing and able to do so.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

28 Nov 2011, 7:09 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.

The genetic evidence that HIV originated in Africa from a simian virus that crossed the species barrier is absolutely overwhelming.
A basic overview:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... hivorigins

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?

This is absolute bullshit. The way you know HIV drugs are effective is that the person's immune system comes back; their T4 count goes back up to normal. I see this personally on a semi-regular basis, because I work in a clinical laboratory. HIV drugs -especially the 1st generation ones - are very harsh, but they're NOT worse than the disease. The patients themselves know this, and live the effects every single day. Do you think no one's ever gone off their meds, or been non-compliant, either through fatigue or laziness or perversity? When they do, they get worse.

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

Well, that's a start I guess.



Last edited by LKL on 29 Nov 2011, 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,154
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Nov 2011, 7:14 pm

LKL 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.[/quote}
The genetic evidence that HIV originated in Africa from a simian virus that crossed the species barrier is absolutely overwhelming.
A basic overview:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... hivorigins

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?

This is absolute bullshit. The way you know HIV drugs are effective is that the person's immune system comes back; their T4 count goes back up to normal. I see this personally on a semi-regular basis, because I work in a clinical laboratory. HIV drugs -especially the 1st generation ones - are very harsh, but they're NOT worse than the disease. The patients themselves know this, and live the effects every single day. Do you think no one's ever gone off their meds, or been non-compliant, either through fatigue or laziness or perversity? When they do, they get worse.

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

Well, that's a start I guess.


If drugs for HIV caused death, then Magic Johnson would've been in the grave a long time ago.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 963
Location: United States

28 Nov 2011, 7:14 pm

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I don't see what the OP did as an act of a "simpleton troll." The guy was just merely asking a question because he had no clue at all what to think, and one should not be reprimanded for trying to get information from other people. If I believed he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, my response would have been much different, (I think we all know if you have seen my other posts). I guess I should have been more detailed with giving him references...



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,154
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Nov 2011, 7:16 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I don't see what the OP did as an act of a "simpleton troll." The guy was just merely asking a question because he had no clue at all what to think, and one should not be reprimanded for trying to get information from other people. If I believed he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, my response would have been much different, (I think we all know if you have seen my other posts). I guess I should have been more detailed with giving him references...


I agree.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,922

29 Nov 2011, 4:26 am

I didnt realize it would cause lots of problems. I really just wanted to know if people had seen "The House of Numbers" and what they thought of it. It is strange that people would go to such lengths as to make a professional documentary that implies HIV could be wrong.

I don't know what a "troll" is.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

29 Nov 2011, 5:55 am

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.

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

Image

Also, there is a clear correlation between a HIV patient that takes his meds and gets to live far more than one who doesn't. The anti-drug scare from zer0 is not surprising seeing his previous history of showing antivaxer tendencies. However, this is very dangerous. I hope no HIV positive person gets to read zer0's insane post and conclude it is correct (and thus risk his life).

I hope that zer0 understands that the anti-HIV med fear mongering is not just a funny conspiracy theory but one that could get people killed. I wonder if he ever ponders the idea that he might be responsible for deaths of people because of crap he says in forums.


_________________
.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

29 Nov 2011, 7:15 am

Robdemanc wrote:
I didnt realize it would cause lots of problems. I really just wanted to know if people had seen "The House of Numbers" and what they thought of it. It is strange that people would go to such lengths as to make a professional documentary that implies HIV could be wrong.

I don't know what a "troll" is.

A troll is someone who just posts to get attention and rile people up - to make an extreme example, a troll is the type of person who goes on a vegetarian forum and posts about killing and gutting a deer, or who goes onto a forum for hunters and calls them all murders.

Like the anti-vax movement, the 9/11 truth movement, and probably a dozen others I don't know about, the anti-HIV movement has become religious in its devotion to the cause. One of its main spokespeople deliberately went through pregnancy and childbirth without taking ARVs and lost at least one child to AIDS because of that (not that she admits such was the cause), and next to that some money and effort on a slick film isn't surprising.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,922

29 Nov 2011, 11:28 am

LKL wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I didnt realize it would cause lots of problems. I really just wanted to know if people had seen "The House of Numbers" and what they thought of it. It is strange that people would go to such lengths as to make a professional documentary that implies HIV could be wrong.

I don't know what a "troll" is.

A troll is someone who just posts to get attention and rile people up - to make an extreme example, a troll is the type of person who goes on a vegetarian forum and posts about killing and gutting a deer, or who goes onto a forum for hunters and calls them all murders.

Like the anti-vax movement, the 9/11 truth movement, and probably a dozen others I don't know about, the anti-HIV movement has become religious in its devotion to the cause. One of its main spokespeople deliberately went through pregnancy and childbirth without taking ARVs and lost at least one child to AIDS because of that (not that she admits such was the cause), and next to that some money and effort on a slick film isn't surprising.


Thanks. Well I am not part of the anti HIV troll movement. I was completely unaware that there were dissident voices about HIV. I came across the film recently and was surprised that people were saying there was doubt about it. Then I saw a report on Russia Today outside an AIDS conference where a scientist was speaking about the need for a review because there is doubt. In the 20 or so years I have known about HIV and AIDS I haven't come across any doubters. So I thought this was new information coming out recently.

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



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,922

29 Nov 2011, 11:30 am

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 wrote:
When I went to medical school, the viral science of HIV and AIDS was very new, but its scientific validity was already rock solid.

We had every reason to believe that AIDS was viral before Luc Montiagnier discovered the virus. The epidaemeology was starkly clear that a pathogen of some kind was responsible. Bacteria, fungi and parasites were ruled out early and at the time, that left viruses. (Prions were known, but were also limited to neurodegenerative conditions).

The first indentified cases appeared in 1981, and a retroviral hypothesis of causation was a matter of scientific study within the year. The virus was discovered shortly thereafter (in 1983), and it was confirmed as the causitive agent the year following. In the almost 30 years since, there has been no evidence to contradict the causitive hypothesis. The mechanism of action is well understood, and the therapies that have been introduced to address it have demonstrated themselves to be effective.

Now certainly AIDS is not the only cause of immune deficiency. But causation for most immune deficiencies is clear--whether it be malnutrition, aging, immunosuppressive therapies, lymphomae, chemotherapy or asplenia the causes are generally known. So, let's ignore HIV for the moment, and put all AIDS cases into the ideopathic category.

HIV goes hand in hand with these ideopathic, systemic immune deficiencies. The vast preponderence of otherwise ideopathic, systemic immune deficiencies copresent with HIV. While that does not prove causation, it provides a starkly compelling case for a hypothesis of causation. By studying the mechanism of action of HIV, and its consequences for the immune system (particularly CD4 cells) we can seen the clear progression. Once the CD4 count drops below 200, the opportunistic infections begin.

Perhaps the most compelling case for HIV as the causitive agent is that antiretroviral therapies work. We can track a patient's viral load, and we can see the impact of antiretrovirals on that load, and the correlation with healthy CD4 counts. Now, if there was not a connection between HIV and AIDS, then we would expect patients with a negligible viral load to continue to present opportunistic infections at roughly the same rate as the population in general.

But this is not the case. When we eliminate presentations with a known pathology, a patient whose viral load is negligible presents opportunistic infections at a rate far below the population in general. When retroviral therapies are stopped, or cease to be effective and the patient's viral load rises again, we see a corresponding spike in the number and severity of opportunistic infections.

Based on my medical knowledge and experience, I have absolutely no reservations about stating clearly and definitively that HIV is the causitive pathogen of AIDS.



Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

29 Nov 2011, 2:23 pm

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/



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Nov 2011, 2:31 pm

MasterJedi wrote:
hey, at least the OP is thinking.
That's what I thought, and I wouldn't call him "gullible." I would advise him to learn how to properly investigate the background behind people who make unusual or outlandish claims, but I wouldn't call him an idiot. There is often reason to doubt conventional wisdom. The claims of a lunatic conspiracy dork are not usually in that category.