 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005The CDC and AIDS
ATLANTA - The number of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, climbed for the third consecutive year in the United States in 2002, fueling fears that the disease might be poised for a major comeback in this high-risk group. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported the finding on Monday at the 2003 National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta, also revealed that AIDS diagnoses overall had risen 2.2 percent to 42,136 last year. "The AIDS epidemic in the United States is far from over," said Dr. Harold Jaffe, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention. An estimated 850,000 to 950,000 Americans have the AIDS virus. AIDS killed 16,371 people across the nation last year, about 6 percent fewer than in 2001, according to the CDC. Although U.S. health officials have been preaching HIV prevention to all Americans, they have become particularly concerned in recent years by an apparent resurgence of infections among gay and bisexual males. HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men surged 7.1 percent last year, according to data collected by the CDC from 25 states that have long-standing HIV reporting. New diagnoses in this high-risk group have increased 17.7 percent since 1999, while remaining stable in other vulnerable communities. Jaffe cautioned, however, that the jump in HIV diagnoses could have been caused by increases in the number of gay and bisexual males being tested for the virus and was not proof that this group was being infected at a faster rate. Standard tests Standard HIV tests cannot tell when a person was infected with the virus, leaving open the possibility that HIV was contracted many years before being detected. That could change in the coming months as the CDC implements a new HIV tracking system, which is based on a blood test that it says can determine whether a person had been infected with HIV in the previous six months. CDC officials said the new surveillance strategy, was prompted by a need for more precise data on HIV infections and trends. About 40,000 new HIV infections are reported in the nation each year. Since the AIDS virus first surfaced in 1981, estimates of new HIV cases have been based on the predictable length of time - usually 10 years - that elapsed between an initial infection and the onset of AIDS symptoms. But the development of antiretroviral drugs has slowed the progression of AIDS and made it more difficult to predict when a person contracted HIV. "It will provide us timely information on HIV transmission that is occurring now," said Dr. Robert Janssen, who directs HIV prevention programs at the Atlanta-based agency. "What it will do is allow us to target our prevention programs to those areas and populations among whom HIV is being currently transmitted," Janssen added. The CDC plans to have the system in place in 35 areas that account for 93 percent of annual HIV infections by 2004. The agency has allocated $13 million in supplemental funding to state health departments for the program in fiscal 2004. Just some questions I wonder about what you said. Unfortunatly, my knowledge about health is not good enough to understand everything so I would like you to explain me with a basis language and not complicated words. > ATLANTA - The number of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with HIV, the virus > that causes AIDS I search a reference to the medical document who says that HIV causes AIDS. I searched everywhere on the Net and found nothing. > Standard tests > Standard HIV tests cannot tell when a person was infected with the virus, > leaving open the possibility that HIV was contracted many years before being > detected. As any tests are done on anti-bodies and not on the virus it self. I would like to know how we can be sure that a personn is infected by a virus if we found only anti-bodies. Maybe this personn has been infected but is not anymore. I just read that the anti-bodies who have a reaction with the HIV test are not specific to the HIV it self (as far as I understand, anti-bodies are not completly specific to one virus). How can we be sure that if we find theses anti-bodies, they are anti-bodies for HIV and not for an other Virus. > That could change in the coming months as the CDC implements a new HIV > tracking system, which is based on a blood test that it says can determine > whether a person had been infected with HIV in the previous six months. I just read that it exists medecine to prevent infection by HIV just before 48H after infection. I read that this medecine is efficient at 80% but we are not able to detect if you are HIV+ before 6 months after infection. How can say that this medecine is efficient at 80% ? Final, I have one question, something I really don't understand. South Africa refuses medecines against HIV, so they have the most important HIV infection rate in the world. But, as far as I understand, no medecine is efficient against HIV, you can slow it, but not cure it. Why a country with no medecine will have more infection than an other with medecine if you can not cure the virus ? Please, this is not a troll and don't be upset because I want to understand something that a lot of people accept without any question. I'm HIV-, I have no personnal reason to believe that HIV exists or not, it causes AIDS or not. I just want to understand what's happening.  Signaturehttp://www.unices.org > I'm HIV-, I have no personnal reason to believe that HIV exists or not, > it causes AIDS or not. If you wish to stay HIV- you do. B/ > Just some questions I wonder about what you said. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I search a reference to the medical document who says that HIV causes > AIDS. I searched everywhere on the Net and found nothing. Take a look at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/hivaids.htm >> Standard tests >> Standard HIV tests cannot tell when a person was infected with the virus, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > find theses anti-bodies, they are anti-bodies for HIV and not for an > other Virus. MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable. FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity (the ability of the screening test to give a positive finding when the person tested truly has the disease ) and specificity (the ability of the test to give a negative finding when the subjects tested are free of the disease under study). Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable ( Sloand et al. JAMA 1991;266:2861). Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55. >> That could change in the coming months as the CDC implements a new HIV >> tracking system, which is based on a blood test that it says can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 80% but we are not able to detect if you are HIV+ before 6 months after > infection. How can say that this medecine is efficient at 80% ? It is not correct to say that HIV can not be detected prior to six months after the actual infection date. Current technologies can detect HIV via PCR tests in a matter of days. As to how you know if the drug is effective you are correct that if the drug is started immediately after an accidental exposure to HIV such as a needle stick accident there is no sure way of knowing if the person would have become infected if they had not taken the drugs. However you do know how many of the people who were treated with the medications immediately after exposure went on to become infected. With out knowing what drugs you are talking about and what type of use they were put to I can't agree or disagree with the 80% figure. > Final, I have one question, something I really don't understand. South > Africa refuses medecines against HIV, so they have the most important HIV > infection rate in the world. But, as far as I understand, no medecine is > efficient against HIV, you can slow it, but not cure it. Why a country > with no medecine will have more infection than an other with medecine if > you can not cure the virus ? One of the reasons for South Africa's high rate of HIV infections is that people who are taking medications for HIV are not as infectious as someone who is not taking the medications. Though this is by no means the main cause of the high HIV rates seen in South Africa. The reasons for South Africa's high rate of HIV infection is strongly debated by the worlds public health experts and the reasons are broad and varied. Some say that it is a lack of HIV education and cultural aversion to using condoms that is to blame, others site the lack of health care and the subservient role of women in South Africa as a reason. What ever the cause there is begining to be hope for the South African people in that medications are starting to be made available and the country is learning about the dangers of HIV infection and hopefully starting to be more cautious in there sexual activities. > Please, this is not a troll and don't be upset because I want to > understand something that a lot of people accept without any question. > > I'm HIV-, I have no personnal reason to believe that HIV exists or not, > it causes AIDS or not. I just want to understand what's happening. Hi Gary and thank you very much for your answers. >> I search a reference to the medical document who says that HIV causes >> AIDS. I searched everywhere on the Net and found nothing. > Take a look at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/hivaids.htm I just have a fast reading of this article, not yet complete but I will. Please, just answer this question : Has the HIV has been isolated ? if no, why ? > FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the > best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable ( Sloand et al. JAMA > 1991;266:2861). As I'm not sure to understand the articles you give in references (and, in fact, I don't know where to find them), I will consider what you say is thrue because you have the right interpretation of the information. I asked you if the antibodies are specific or not specific. The answer that the test is specific is wrong or right regarding if the antibodies are specific. If antibodies of HIV are not specific (it means that a antibody for an other virus can be detected as a HIV antibody), how do you explain that the test is reliable if what you test is not ? If antibodies of HIV are specific, how do you explain that we will have one to two wrong positives for one hundred tests ? Final question, how to know if a test is reliable at 98% or 99% if we have no test reliable at 100% to confirm ? > Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic > material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong > et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55. Please, I'm not sure to understand what you mean, can you be clearer, English is not my native language and I have no specific knowledge about medecine. >> I just read that it exists medecine to prevent infection by HIV just >> before 48H after infection. I read that this medecine is efficient at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > after the actual infection date. Current technologies can detect HIV via PCR > tests in a matter of days. I read that the inventor of PCR says that this method is not good to test HIV (I absolutly don't know why). Can you describe how it works and why this guy is wrong ? > As to how you know if the drug is effective you are correct that if the drug > is started immediately after an accidental exposure to HIV such as a needle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > knowing what drugs you are talking about and what type of use they were put > to I can't agree or disagree with the 80% figure. I absolutly don't know, just read "if you think you have been infected in the last 48H, come to hospital, we can cure the HIV at 80% of cases". The fact is : this is not really important. My question is more logic. Is it possible to test that a personn has been infected 48H after this infection ? if no, how to say that we can cure a virus if we can't detect it, not about 80% or 10% but only once ? > One of the reasons for South Africa's high rate of HIV infections is that > people who are taking medications for HIV are not as infectious as someone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > about the dangers of HIV infection and hopefully starting to be more > cautious in there sexual activities. I completly agree with what your write. It's logic. But, I read that a HIV infection in Africa is confirmed by a test in only 3% of the cases (not enough money), all other cases are diagnosed following a definition who says "if you are sick more than one month, you have AIDS from HIV". But if theses people have not enough money to really test HIV, I suppose they don't have enough money to eat each day, to sleep in a safe place, to take medecine for other diseases. In this case, it's really normal to be sick for more than one month and it's maybe not because of HIV. Do you think that statistics about Africa are right ? if yes, why ? Signaturehttp://www.unices.org > I read that the inventor of PCR says that this method is not good to > test HIV (I absolutly don't know why). Can you describe how it works and > why this guy is wrong ? Will you explain why all your "questions" are about why the theory doesn't work and not any about why it does? Will you explain why you're making statements in the forms of a question? Can you explain why this not a troll technique? In order to trap the respondents? B/ >> I read that the inventor of PCR says that this method is not good to >> test HIV (I absolutly don't know why). Can you describe how it works and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >making statements in the forms of a question? Can you explain why this >not a troll technique? In order to trap the respondents? LOL. Or why he feels he has to be so coy about it. Oh, gosh. I'm just a regular joe who happened to stumble onto these remarkable ideas and, well, gee, I'm still open minded but don't you think IT'S A GREAT BIG CONSPIRACY! And can't I go back to f.cking without a condom?? >>Will you explain why all your "questions" are about why the theory >>doesn't work and not any about why it does? Will you explain why you're >>making statements in the forms of a question? Can you explain why this >>not a troll technique? In order to trap the respondents? Very simple, because I read a lot of documentation about people who don't believe in HIV theory. IMHO, their argumentation was good enough to make me doubt. Today I have enough information to believe more that HIV is a fake virus than a true virus. But what I believe is not really important, fact is important and I try to know the fact asking to people how they can explain some points I can not understand. I don't understand how we can talk about reliability of tests when we know that what we test is maybe not what we search. I don't understand how we can say that 20% of south Africa has AIDS because HIV when only 3% of theses people is confirmed with a test. I don't understand how we can say that we can cure a virus 48H after an infection if we don't know to test if the personn is really infected in a so short time. If you have a good explaination for this, with simple words, something logic, I'm sure I can understand. I do not accept to believe something only because you believe it's true. As I don't want to believe that HIV does not exist because man says it does not. But not because you say or they say, just because I don't want to believe, I want to know. Signaturehttp://www.unices.org > Very simple, because I read a lot of documentation about people who > don't believe in HIV theory. IMHO, their argumentation was good > enough to make me doubt. Then you aren't open-minded. > Today I have enough information to believe more that HIV is a fake > virus than a true virus. Then you aren't open-minded. > But what I believe is not really important, Truly. Google on the name Dave Pasquarelli and see where beliefs will get you. Or some combination of "Dick Cheney, Iraq, and flowers." > fact is important and I try to know the fact asking to people how > they can explain some points I can not understand. No, you're not asking about points "[you] do not understand," you're making statements about what you've read and believe--if you think the regulars of this group just fell off the tunip truck (you may understand this idiom despite your alleged lack of English) and can't recognize the technique... think again. > But not because you say or they say, just because I don't want to > believe, I want to know. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of wisdom. B/ Stephanie, The reason AIDS Dissidents challenge the 'HIV' theory or model from more than one of it's weak points should be obvious. It is better to attack an enemy from more than one approach, and also, AIDS Dissidents do not all agree as to the nature of 'HIV' or 'AIDS.' Some AIDS Dissidents say 'HIV' exists but is a harmless passenger virus, like most retroviruses are known to be. They have never been shown to be pathogenic or disease-causing. This would mean the alleged 'HIV' could be tested for yet is not necessary to test for, treat or prevent since it is an innocuous or harmless passenger virus. Other AIDS Dissidents, perhaps most of us, do not accept that the alleged 'HIV' has ever been properly isolated and cannot ever be accurately tested for. However, one position of weakness of the AIDS Industry Apologists that can be challenged is the supposed high accuracy and specificity of the 'HIV' tests. Assuming that the alleged 'HIV' did exist, for arguments sake, the idea that the tests are 99% accurate is, in and of itself, false. As for the definition and diagnosis of what is called 'AIDS,' some AIDS Dissidents will continue to refer to that catch-all syndrome sinkhole or mother-of-all-diseases as 'AIDS' when they really mean AID or Aquired Immune Deficiency without any S as in Syndrome correlating 29 previously known and unrelated conditions to a viral pathogenesis and progression. I know this can be confusing, when you may be thinking, how can there be 'AIDS' without 'HIV' and why do some AIDS Dissidents still believe in 'AIDS' which, by definition in the WEST, can hardly exist either. Yes, there are exceptions, but mostly those previously known illnesses are simply not called 'AIDS' in persons who do not test 'HIV' positive-- whatever that non-descript marker means. This is why some AIDS Dissidents will refer to 'AIDS' in quotes or refer to "illnesses attributed to, or associated with, AIDS." YOU WROTE: << As I don't want to believe that HIV does not exist because man says it does not. >> Now, as far as your line of questioning and your request for logic, reason and fact as evidence, let me set you straight. The affirmative statement, in science as in the law, bares the burden of proof. So, AIDS Apologists are required to prove their affirmative statement or theory, namely that the alleged 'HIV' DOES EXIST or DOES CAUSE ILLNESSES ATTRIBUTED TO AIDS beyond a reasonable doubt and AIDS Dissidents are not required to prove a negative, that the alleged 'HIV' DOES NOT EXIST or DOES NOT CAUSE ILLNESSES ATTRIBUTED TO AIDS. So, you really should be asking the AIDS Apologists to prove their case. AIDS Dissidents are not providing a new theory. It is not a theory to negate some allegation or to dispute a point of another's argument. I recently posted to this board, a list of logical fallacies used against AIDS Dissidents. I suggest you click on my name to bring up recent posts to find it. If you cannot, then I will send you a link. By the way, your link was "under construction" so nothing came up when I clicked on www.unices.org Warmly, Kelly Kelly Jon Landis VIRUSMYTH http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous >Stephanie, > >The reason AIDS Dissidents challenge the 'HIV' theory or model from more >than one of it's weak points should be obvious. But the so-called "weak points" have been addressed and you are making a mountain out of a molehill with most of the claims. One of the dissidents I have long respected, Robert Root-Bernstein, has been sharing some fascinating papers with me. He is embraced by the denialists as "one of their's." He isn't. He now states that HIV is necessary but not sufficient to cause AIDS. In other words, he accepts that HIV exists and is a proximate cause of the development of AIDS. But that alone, it can't do this. Co-factors, in his view, are needed. I don't agree with this notion. And I think arguments can be made that HIV is necessary and sufficient. But he is a thoughtful man. One of the implications of his idea is one I agree with wholeheartedly. In places of high HIV prevalence, we need to address poverty, malnutrition, malaria prevention and so forth. This is just good global policy and I support it. But if Stephane is GENUINELY interested, he will continue to look at BOTH sides of the issue. The sad horrible reality is, it doesn't matter a fig WHAT you or he or anyone thinks. If you have HIV and try to pretend it isn't there or is harmless, it will most likely kill you. Just like it did David Pasquarelli. Something kills us all, no doubt. And it is your right to die as much as live. It is your life. George M. Carter snip >Has the HIV has been isolated ? if no, why ? Yes. Even friend of denialists, former retrovirologist, Peter Duesberg recognizes THAT. Dumb as a post as the guy is. George M. Carter "Stephane TOUGARD" <stephane@unices.org> wrote in message > I search a reference to the medical document who says that HIV causes > AIDS. I searched everywhere on the Net and found nothing. http://www.mamma.com/Mamma?qtype=0&query=does+hiv+cause+aids This search took .56 seconds > "Stephane TOUGARD" <stephane@unices.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This search took .56 seconds Medical document. Preferably, the original document that states that HIV causes AIDS. But any later document that details the isolation (purification) of HIV would do as well. "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Medical document. Preferably, the original document that states > that HIV causes AIDS. But any later document that details the > isolation (purification) of HIV would do as well. If Moses hand delivered a carved stone tablet...never mind. HIV Causes AIDS And Knowing It Could Save Your Life While the global HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to rage, a small number of fringe groups have been aggressively promoting misinformation about AIDS. Some claim that "AIDS is over" or that "AIDS is a myth," and that HIV is a harmless virus. Peter Duesberg, a retrovirologist at UC Berkeley, has challenged the "AIDS establishment" for 13 years, asserting that factors such as promiscuous homosexual activity, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), recreational drugs, and AZT (Retrovir) are responsible for the AIDS pandemic. More recently, malnutrition, poverty, and illicit drug use have been cited as causes of AIDS. The individuals and groups who hold these views are often referred to as "AIDS dissidents" or "AIDS denialists." Above: The Human Immunodeficiency Virus The AIDS denialists deliberately ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence gathered over the past 19 years concerning the relationship between HIV and AIDS. Unprotected sex, malnutrition, and a host of factors contribute to the spread of HIV and the development of AIDS. They do not cause AIDS, however. And while scientists do not completely understand the precise mechanism by which HIV causes AIDS, one thing cannot be disputed: HIV is found in all people with AIDS -- and AIDS is not found in people who do not have HIV. The HIV antibody test became widely available in 1985. Even in the earliest studies, 79% to 100% of people with symptoms of AIDS tested positive for HIV antibody. A 1995 study of 230,000 people with AIDS found only 168 HIV-seronegative people. Scientists now know that advanced AIDS -- and immune system depletion -- can result in the immune system's inability to continue to manufacture antibody, which likely explains why HIV antibody could not be found in everyone tested. However, newer, more sophisticated tests like the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and branched DNA (bDNA) viral load tests have detected HIV (i.e., the virus itself) in everyone with AIDS who has undergone one of these assays. HIV, AIDS, and CD4 T-Cell Counts The higher the amount of HIV in the body, the lower the CD4 cell count will be. When the CD4 cell level drops below 200 cells/mm3, an AIDS diagnosis is given. People with low CD4 cell counts, and therefore weakened immune systems, are susceptible to certain diseases because their immune systems are compromised. For instance, many people carry the virus that causes cytomegalovirus (CMV) -- an AIDS-defining illness -- but they do not develop CMV because their immune systems function normally. Other common opportunistic illnesses include Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), toxoplasmosis, and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). Scientific Proof In the 19th century, the German scientist Robert Koch established four requirements (postulates) that must be demonstrated to establish that a specific microorganism, or "bug," causes a particular disease. Recent developments in HIV/AIDS research have shown that HIV fulfills all four criteria as the cause of AIDS. This proof has been ignored by AIDS deniers for reasons that are unclear. Reports over the past four years show that the numbers of new cases of AIDS, AIDS deaths, and new opportunistic diseases have been dramatically reduced in the U.S. The only factor that has changed during this period of time is the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) which, despite its many problems, greatly inhibits HIV reproduction. HIV and AIDS have been repeatedly linked in time, place, and population groups. Among people without HIV, AIDS-like symptoms are extraordinarily rare except among people receiving organ transplants or cancer chemotherapy whose immune systems are being intentionally suppressed. Only one common denominator exists for gay men, elderly transfusion recipients, heterosexual women, heterosexual men who inject drugs, and infants who have developed AIDS: infection with HIV. What Are the Public Health Consequences? The public health consequences of this misinformation remain largely speculative, at least in North America and Europe. In Africa, AIDS deniers have gained the ear of a few politicians, with potentially horrific consequences. There is evidence that AIDS deniers have already caused some damage, even in North America. For example, about a year ago, an article in a respected Cleveland weekly paper touted the bravery of a few local men who, citing "AIDS is a myth" groups, decided to deal with the difficulties of HIV treatment by throwing out their medication, without consulting their doctors, because they concluded that the adverse effects were not worth the benefits. At the time, and until fairly recently, many people in the treatment arena -- especially researchers and clinicians -- felt that a public response to what they hoped were isolated cases of media-reported misinformation would backfire by dignifying the deniers' point of view. Since then, similar reports have appeared. Many of these stories have concerned the refusal of parents to give their HIV positive children medication, based on the parents' ill-informed beliefs that HIV does not cause AIDS and that anti-HIV medicines would kill their children. It appears that several such cases are still being litigated. Over the past few months, reports about the latest deceptions involving AIDS denialists have surfaced daily on the Internet or in the press. Nicholas Regush, the science editor for ABC News, has been particularly caustic toward those who have been working to control the spread and effects of HIV. Because ABC is a mainstream news source, the potential for unsuspecting people to trust Regush seems high. Without a doubt, this is a confusing time in terms of HIV treatment. Since the XI International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver four years ago, when optimism about HAART was at its peak, new and serious side effects of anti-HIV drugs have emerged, including body fat abnormalities (lipodystrophy). While there is plenty of press on how HAART has decreased the death rate and emptied hospital wards, there is also news about how toxic these treatments can be, and activists continue to lobby for new and improved drugs. People with HIV are told that it is crucial to adhere faithfully to their medications -- to take every dose -- and yet reports about the new concept of treatment interruption have been increasing. What is a person to think when it comes to making treatment decisions? Confusion about treatment could work in the denialists' favor, as they try to manipulate vulnerable HIV positive people and claim that everyone has been misled -- and that HIV does not cause AIDS. While not everyone is susceptible to half-truths and outright lies, others might quit taking their medication, stop consulting their health-care providers, and refuse treatment for themselves or for their HIV positive children. And if people start believing that HIV is harmless, it won't be long before they start throwing away their condoms and foregoing the use of clean needles. This is an extreme scenario, but clearly the public health consequences of willful disregard of scientific and epidemiological evidence could be devastating. For an in-depth look at the HIV-AIDS connection, and the denialists' faulty science, visit: www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm. > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > HIV Causes AIDS > And Knowing It Could Save Your Life Hi Death (such a strange name) Your speech is very interesting but does not answer some questions I have and I would like to understand and not believe only. Please, write shorter and smarter. I want to understand with logic some point, I'm not doctor, but I understand logic of denialists and I don't understand yours. So, in my head, what you say can be wrong because there are too many fact I must accept without understanding. I don't want this. - Antibodies detected by HIV test are not specific to HIV, it means they can be in blood for an other reason. Can we affirm this is a fact or not ? HIV tests does not detect virus itself, I don't know why, it seems that we can not detect the virus itself. In this case, how to considere that HIV test is reliable if what is tested is not reliable by it self ? - I heard an read at many places that if you have just been infected, it's possible to cure the virus only 48H after the infection with 80% success. But, as far as I understand, we can not know if you are infected just 48H after an infection, how to affirm that it's possible to cure if we can not know if you're infected ? - In Africa, especially South Africa, 20% of people is infected by HIV, but this fact is confirmed by test in only 3% of the cases, in any other cases we consider a personn has AIDS if it's sick more than one month. Because they have not enough money to pay tests. They also don't have enough money to eat each day, to sleep in safe place, to keep clean and in good health. Be sick more than one month can be normal in such conditions. How can we affirm that really 20% of population has AIDS without test to validate ? Once more, I'm not HIV+, I make love without comdom but always with the same girl and she's not HIV+ also. I have no reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS or not but people have logic argue against this believing. I want to understand why. Stephane snip... >- Antibodies detected by HIV test are not specific to HIV, it means they >can be in blood for an other reason. Can we affirm this is a fact or >not ? HIV tests does not detect virus itself, I don't know why, it seems >that we can not detect the virus itself. In this case, how to considere >that HIV test is reliable if what is tested is not reliable by it self ? Antibodies to ANY infection may have a certain cross-reactivity. That doesn't mean that they don't reflect an infection. It means that some small fraction of tests of HIV that show positive will be false. We CAN test for the virus itself using a variety of techniques (PCR, NASBA, etc.) >- I heard an read at many places that if you have just been infected, >it's possible to cure the virus only 48H after the infection with 80% >success. But, as far as I understand, we can not know if you are >infected just 48H after an infection, how to affirm that it's possible >to cure if we can not know if you're infected ? I don't know if that is true or not. >- In Africa, especially South Africa, 20% of people is infected by HIV, >but this fact is confirmed by test in only 3% of the cases, in any other >cases we consider a personn has AIDS if it's sick more than one month. I realize English is not your first language but this makes no sense to me. I think you refer to the epidemiology. Some claim that the UN's estimates are too high. I HOPE that is the case. But regardless, it is QUITE clear that the amount of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is horrific. And whether it is 5 people or 30 million does not change the fact that HIV exists and causes AIDS. >Because they have not enough money to pay tests. They also don't have >enough money to eat each day, to sleep in safe place, to keep clean and >in good health. Be sick more than one month can be normal in such >conditions. How can we affirm that really 20% of population has AIDS >without test to validate ? Depends where you look. Many places have Western blot follow up. Others use 3 ELISAs. Other communities have fewer resources. Painting Africa as one big starving mass is inaccurate in the extreme. >Once more, I'm not HIV+, I make love without comdom but always with the >same girl and she's not HIV+ also. I have no reason to believe that HIV >causes AIDS or not but people have logic argue against this believing. I >want to understand why. I hope you stay HIV negative. If you are both negative and just f.cking each other, you're fine. Sometimes, though, that can be a big If. George M. Carter > Antibodies to ANY infection may have a certain cross-reactivity. That > doesn't mean that they don't reflect an infection. It means that some > small fraction of tests of HIV that show positive will be false. Ok. Do we know in which cases there is an interaction and detect wrong HIV+ test. I mean, imagine you have virus but HIV- and because of the antibodies against this virus, your test will result HIV+. So you will take medecine against HIV and not for the true reason. Do you think it already arrived ? > We CAN test for the virus itself using a variety of techniques (PCR, > NASBA, etc.) Why PCR is said not reliable to make this test by the inventor of PCR himself ? (I really don't know why, I just read he said). > Depends where you look. Many places have Western blot follow up. > Others use 3 ELISAs. Other communities have fewer resources. Painting > Africa as one big starving mass is inaccurate in the extreme. I think about South Africa where people are poor and government does not recognize HIV == AIDS. I want to understand how we can say that 20% of South Africa has HIV if only 3% of population is tested and 97% is not. > I hope you stay HIV negative. If you are both negative and just > f.cking each other, you're fine. Sometimes, though, that can be a big > If. To be honnest with you, I begin to believe you have more chance to have AIDS without any HIV if you don't take care of your body (drugs, bad sleep, don't eat each day ...) because it's really more logic. Opposite, think that a virus appears just now, after several million of years, we don't know why is not very logic by it self. Once more, what I believe is not important. To know is important and to know, you must never accept something as true if nobody can demonstrate absolutly it's true. Signaturehttp://www.unices.org >> Antibodies to ANY infection may have a certain cross-reactivity. That >> doesn't mean that they don't reflect an infection. It means that some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >antibodies against this virus, your test will result HIV+. So you will >take medecine against HIV and not for the true reason. People have been misdiagnosed and put on treatment unnecessarily. It's pretty rare but it has happened. With probably EVERY disease you can name. Generally, ELISA plus Western Blot eliminates doubt. Followed by viral load and CD4 count tests. >Do you think it already arrived ? Most definitely. >> We CAN test for the virus itself using a variety of techniques (PCR, >> NASBA, etc.) > >Why PCR is said not reliable to make this test by the inventor of PCR >himself ? (I really don't know why, I just read he said). He said that over 10 years ago. His name is Kary Mullis. Curiously, most of the denialist crap about him was written in 1994. >> Depends where you look. Many places have Western blot follow up. >> Others use 3 ELISAs. Other communities have fewer resources. Painting >> Africa as one big starving mass is inaccurate in the extreme. > >I think about South Africa where people are poor and government does not >recognize HIV == AIDS. I think about Mars where there may have been water and it is very dry now. >I want to understand how we can say that 20% of South Africa has HIV if >only 3% of population is tested and 97% is not. Good question for the epi folks. Again--I am hopeful that estimates made of incidence and prevalence are inflated. But I have friends in Africa, been to other places. There is TOO MUCH HIV if there is one case....and this argument bears no relevance to whether HIV exists or causes AIDS. >> I hope you stay HIV negative. If you are both negative and just >> f.cking each other, you're fine. Sometimes, though, that can be a big [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >think that a virus appears just now, after several million of years, >we don't know why is not very logic by it self. Show me the evidence that any of these "drugs, bad sleep" etc. cause CD4 counts to drop to zero. There is NO QUESTION in my mind that those issues are relevant to health. To morbidity and mortality. And indeed, to the pathogenesis of HIV and progression to AIDS. >Once more, what I believe is not important. To know is important and to >know, you must never accept something as true if nobody can demonstrate >absolutly it's true. Can you demonstrate ABSOLUTELY it is true that the earth is flat? AND the sun revolves around the earth??? PROVE IT. Show me the ONE paper. George M. Carter "Stephane TOUGARD" <stephane@unices.org> wrote in message > Hi Death (such a strange name) Not for an undertaker. > Your speech is very interesting but does not answer some questions I > have and I would like to understand and not believe only. > > Please, write shorter and smarter. LOL, ok I'll try crayola this time. > I want to understand with logic some point, I'm not doctor, but I > understand logic of denialists and I don't understand yours. So, in my > head, what you say can be wrong because there are too many fact I must > accept without understanding. I don't want this. I must assume from that sentence, you don't believe you can catch a cold. > - Antibodies detected by HIV test are not specific to HIV, it means they > can be in blood for an other reason. Can we affirm this is a fact or > not ? If you know of another reason your T-cell count would be low share it with me. Some people are advanced beyond the point of antibody detection. Some people have not been infected long enough to develope a sufficient antibody count. > - In Africa, especially South Africa, 20% of people is infected by HIV, > but this fact is confirmed by test in only 3% of the cases, Perhaps statistics, is the word you seek. >> I want to understand with logic some point, I'm not doctor, but I >> understand logic of denialists and I don't understand yours. So, in my >> head, what you say can be wrong because there are too many fact I must >> accept without understanding. I don't want this. > I must assume from that sentence, you don't believe > you can catch a cold. I can believe because it's a fact so I know if I catch a cold or not. What I don't know is how. In fact, I don't know because I don't care, catch a cold is not a big deal and I think that try to understand why some people don't believe that HIV == AIDS is more important. >> - Antibodies detected by HIV test are not specific to HIV, it means they >> can be in blood for an other reason. Can we affirm this is a fact or >> not ? > > If you know of another reason your T-cell count would be low > share it with me. Fact is I know at least one guy with T4 level at 0 and he has absolutly no problem since several years. One explanation I read is that T4 cells don't stay in blood in case of high stress. To be honnest with you, I don't know if this is true or false and, in fact, that does not answer to my question. There can be any reason we don't know who can make that no T-cell are detected in blood and this is absolutly not a solution to affirm that it's due to a virus until we have the proof that it can not be for any other reason (hope I'm clear enough). So please, don't answer to my question by an other mistery who only means that you don't have the answer. If you don't know, you don't know and maybe you should do as me : try to know before affirm anything. > Some people are advanced beyond the point of antibody detection. > Some people have not been infected long enough to develope [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Perhaps statistics, is the word you seek. Logic is the word I search. And logic tells me that testing 3% of the population and affirm that 20% is infected is a fake. Especially because I think that we test in priority people we believe infected. The definition of AIDS in Africa is not the same than everywhere in the world and are the same than a lot of other diseases, especially if you don't eat as you should each day, if you don't sleep as you should and if you don't care about your ealth because you are not rich enough. I start to think that statistiques count AIDS in Africa as Music editor count money they lost with piracy : 1 song copied == 1 sale missed and 1 personn is sick == 1 AIDS infected. Signaturehttp://www.unices.org "Stephane TOUGARD" <stephane@unices.org> wrote in message > > I must assume from that sentence, you don't believe > > you can catch a cold. > > I can believe because it's a fact so I know if I catch a cold or not. There is little difference in HIV and the cold in many ways. Each is a virus. There is no test that will predict weather you will catch a cold or not. Medications treat the symptoms, not the cause. Both are passed to other people. A cold will attack people who are undernourished, and last longer. You can not have the flu without having a cold, like you can not have AIDS without having HIV. Colds change as does HIV, so neither has a cure. >> > I must assume from that sentence, you don't believe >> > you can catch a cold. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Colds change as does HIV, so neither has a cure. Your post is very funny, it looks like religion dogma. Affirmation, but no explaination. Believe because I say. I'm sorry to not subscribe this point of view. In fact, I'm really more worried now, because I did not read any serious answer to my question. Is it possible that HIV == AIDS is a fake. Signaturehttp://www.unices.org "Stephane TOUGARD" <stephane@unices.org> wrote in message > Your post is very funny, it looks like religion dogma. Religious dogma ? Yeah, I can see where a cold can be confused with Christ on a cross, LOL. > In fact, I'm really more worried now, because I did not read any serious > answer to my question. Is it possible that HIV == AIDS is a fake. No, it isn't, but yes, it's a fake. Now that's settled you can go away. B/ > - In Africa, especially South Africa, 20% of people is > infected by HIV, but this fact is confirmed by test in > only 3% of the cases, > > Perhaps statistics, is the word you seek. AIDS in AFRICA DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC INDEX OF PAPERS, ARTICLES http://healtoronto.com/africa.html Epidemiology or Epidemio-illogic: An HIV Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 HIV Epidemiology or Epidemio-illogic: An AIDS Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 >> - In Africa, especially South Africa, 20% of people is >> infected by HIV, but this fact is confirmed by test in >> only 3% of the cases, > >> > Perhaps statistics, is the word you seek. First, I wouldn't buy a single syllable that comes from the denialist websites when people like Paul King go around changing the content of "cut and paste" stories to suit their twisted views. But second, this statistics game? Makes no sense at all. More HIV or less HIV than estimated. Yes. Indeed. But utterly irrelevant to HIV's existence or effects upon infection. George M. Carter [George Carter] "But second, this statistics game? Makes no sense at all. More HIV or less HIV than estimated. Yes. Indeed. But utterly irrelevant to HIV's existence or effects upon infection." Ah, but they do, Blanche. 'Statistics' or epidemiological data either confirm or fail to confirm the infectious model for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV=AIDS.' If there is no real epidemic proportions outside of the original risk groups, then it has not spread exponentially, according to FARR's LAW of EPIDEMICS, and into the general population. After 20 years, it would have if it was going to. Another reason, insufficient in and of itself, to question the 'HIV' theory of 'AIDS.' Again, you have to do the math and go figure to understand 'AIDS' and 'HIV' simply do not add up... or multiply or divide. HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 Kelly Jon Landis WHAT IS 'AIDS' IN AFRICA? DISSIDENT SCIENTIFIC INDEX OF PAPERS, ARTICLES http://healtoronto.com/africa.html WHAT IS 'AIDS' IN THE GAY COMMUNITY? BUGGERY, BUG CHASING and BAREBACKING http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=619.1 > If there is no real epidemic proportions outside of the original risk > groups, then it has not spread exponentially, according to FARR's LAW of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game > http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 Hi Kelly, Has anyone calculated an AIDS:HIV ratio, or how many AIDS cases there would have to be if HIV infection was at a certain rate, or how many HIV infections there would have to be if there were a specific number of AIDS cases? For instance, the famous 8 year incubation period. Would that mean that the number of AIDS cases would be 1/8th of the number of HIV infections? Maybe 1/8th of the number of new infections? Alex > Has anyone calculated an AIDS:HIV ratio, or how many AIDS > cases there would have to be if HIV infection was at a certain [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would be 1/8th of the number of HIV infections? > Maybe 1/8th of the number of new infections? It would depend on the curve of the epidemic. At the very start you would expect very few AIDS cases for a certain number of HIV cases. As the rate of spread of HIV slowed you would expect a far greater proporion of AIDS cases - probably one exceeding that of new HIV cases (since they would be based on, on average, the HIV infection rate 8-10 years previously). We saw the same thing with the BSE/nvCJD rates in the UK. nvCJD was seen in humans about 5 years after it appeared in cattle. The cattle cases peaked about 5 years after measures were taken to prevent transmission. I guesstimated that the human cases would also peak, about 5 years after the cattle cases did. It wasn't a bad guess :o) Since there was no test for the prions, you have to assume that the BSE rates corresponded to exposure rates, and therefore infection rates. nvCJD was the clinical part (a bit like AIDS). Once the 5-year timelag was spotted it's relatively easy to assume that humans cases will also lag the prevention of transmission by 5 years. But what this means is that at the peak of the infections the clinical cases were only just starting to appear...whereas at the peak of the clinical cases the infections were already over. Disease modelling is a complicated business since it depends on all these time factors (infection efficiency, prevalence, incubation time, survival etc). A calculation at time X won't necessarily mean anything for time Y. Cheers Bennett > > Has anyone calculated an AIDS:HIV ratio, or how many AIDS > > cases there would have to be if HIV infection was at a certain [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (since they would be based on, on average, the HIV infection rate 8-10 > years previously). So there would be an 8 year delay. One could get a ration from that, I would guess. Or, if HIV always (100% of the time) leads to AIDS, then that would give the exact number of people infected 8 years ago. In other words, the persons who get AIDS in one particular year are the same number of people who became HIV positive 8 years before. The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrsupp10.1/table4.htm ) lists the following total AIDS cases in the US: 2000: 41,239 2001: 41,227 2002: 42,136 A remarkably similar number. Let's assume that the number of new AIDS cases in the US has been 41,000 every year for the last 8 years. That would mean that there are today 8 x 41,000 people HIV positive in the US, which is 328,000. (At a population of 290 million, that is 0.11% of the population.) So a formula would be: HIV infections today = 8 x (average number of new AIDS cases per year) Has anyone put forward anything similar? Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrsupp10.1/table4.htm ) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Has anyone put forward anything similar? The problem I see here is, you can't (account) for behavior. You can't just look back 8 years due to the distribution of AIDS progression (some progress fast, some early). It would be a reasonable place to _start_ but you'd need to model it properly. It assumes the rate of infection remained constant for starters. You're also screwed by the fact that the risk of progression was skewed by the addition of antivirals. The average rate of progression isn't 8-10 years for the _treated_ population. I'm not a statistician, so I'm just poking holes rather than coming up with a solution. Sorry. Bennett > You can't just look back 8 years due to the distribution of AIDS > progression (some progress fast, some early). It would be a reasonable > place to _start_ but you'd need to model it properly. It assumes the > rate of infection remained constant for starters. > You're also screwed by the fact that the risk of progression was skewed > by the addition of antivirals. The average rate of progression isn't > 8-10 years for the _treated_ population. I'm not talking about a "precise" model (a contradiction in terms), just a rule of thumb to estimate general HIV infection by the number of AIDS cases. If you take the average number of new AIDS cases per year for the last 8 years, that should take care of any changes in whatever (treatment, campaigns, etc., ) even the increase in infections is exponential or otherwise nonlinear). Alex Hmm...as soon as you start averaging you get into problems. Like I said, you would be able to get some idea of the situation - and I suppose the last 8 years _does_ cover the HAART era without much pre-HAART stuff. Well, not as much as pre-1995 anyway ;-) Try it and see what happens? What you should also do is look at the AIDS cases in each year and say that: "Some of this year's HIV infections are from AIDS cases in 8 years time, but some are from AIDS cases in 7 years time, and, er...etc" Hmm. Bennett snip >So there would be an 8 year delay. One could get a ration from that, >I would guess. Ah--that's an average and dependent on a host of variables. More rapid progression is seen in the context of malnutrition, TB, etc. Malnutrition is not AIDS. It can certainly kill if it leads to starvation. But HIV adds to that. >Or, if HIV always (100% of the time) leads to AIDS, then that >would give the exact number of people infected 8 years ago. More like 90% of the time. If you're going to develop some kind of mathematical model, you should have some of the variables better defined. But at least you're getting it, it would seem. HIV exists and in the majority of infected individuals, AIDS will develop if left untreated. George M. Carter > snip > >So there would be an 8 year delay. One could get a ration from that, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > More like 90% of the time. That's not really that relevant. Note the qualifyer "if". > If you're going to develop some kind of mathematical model, you should > have some of the variables better defined. > > But at least you're getting it, it would seem. HIV exists and in the > majority of infected individuals, AIDS will develop if left untreated. Don't get your hopes up. I'm merely going along with the hypothetical idea that (1) HIV causes AIDS, that (2) there is an average incubation period of 8 years and (3) that 100% of individuals infected with HIV go on to develop AIDS. From that, one should be able to develop some ratio that would indicate the number HIV infected individuals in society from the number of new AIDS cases over a period of time. I'm surprised that this hasn't been done before, or is readily available, but then everything about "HIV science" is a bit sloppy, as I'm sure you would agree. Alex snip> >I'm merely going along with the hypothetical idea that (1) HIV >causes AIDS, that (2) there is an average incubation period of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >society from the number of new AIDS cases over a period >of time. You basic presumptions are flawed, modestly. But there are other variables to consider. The ratio you would develop must take into account incidence rates. Plus, as Bennett points out, many people may not GET to AIDS as a diagnosis if they start ARV at CD4>200 and do not have an OI. So this weakens further the "100%" premise. One would have to ask what the point of this model you are proposing is. What useful information is gleaned from it that are not obtained through incidence data? >I'm surprised that this hasn't been done before, or is >readily available, but then everything about "HIV science" >is a bit sloppy, as I'm sure you would agree. All science can be sloppy or rife with more variables than one can put into a model. Frankly, I don't follow epi issues closely enough to know the answer as to whether what you propose has been done. But, through means sometimes not so sensible (names reporting) to unique identifier approaches, HIV incidence data are collected. This happens globally, with greater or lesser success. George M. Carter > snip> > >I'm merely going along with the hypothetical idea that (1) HIV [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You basic presumptions are flawed, modestly. But there are other > variables to consider. I didn't expect them not to be flawed. Somehow, you expected them to be perfect. > The ratio you would develop must take into account incidence rates. > Plus, as Bennett points out, many people may not GET to AIDS as a > diagnosis if they start ARV at CD4>200 and do not have an OI. So this > weakens further the "100%" premise. You're getting lost in detail. There should be some kind of relation between the number of new AIDS cases, and the number of HIV infections. I say that there (with an 8 year time to infection), the sum of new AIDS cases in the last 8 years should come pretty close to the total number of HIV infections in society today. Especially when both numbers (new AIDS cases and new HIV infections) are pretty stable. HAART doesn't mean anything to me either way. Maybe it slows down AIDS, maybe it causes "AIDS" (it certainly killed a lot of people, at least in the beginning, and can still push people further if their health is already compromised by drugtaking, alcoholism, etc.). But that's beside the point. Alex >> snip> >> >I'm merely going along with the hypothetical idea that (1) HIV [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I didn't expect them not to be flawed. Somehow, you expected >them to be perfect. To the contrary. I do not expect models to be perfect, especially in worlds that encompass biology and epidemiology. However, one needs to distinguish the basic premises upon which the model is based (in your case, somewhat flawed) as well as the variables that the model includes in making its predictions. The fact that your premises are somewhat flawed AND you are missing important variables renders your model weak if not outright worthless. >> The ratio you would develop must take into account incidence rates. >> Plus, as Bennett points out, many people may not GET to AIDS as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There should be some kind of relation between the number of >new AIDS cases, and the number of HIV infections. LOL. No, I'm not getting lost in detail. There is indeed a relation between the number of HIV cases and the number of AIDS cases. People with HIV develop AIDS. However, if they start ARV therapy at say around 250 CD4 cells, they may not have an AIDS diagnosis and may not get one. >I say that there (with an 8 year time to infection), >the sum of new AIDS cases in the last 8 years >should come pretty close to the total number of >HIV infections in society today. Especially when >both numbers (new AIDS cases and new HIV >infections) are pretty stable. What society? Sounds like, with the 8 year average, the US or Europe. Where ARV is available. And you are presuming the numbers of new AIDS and HIV cases are stable. Based on what? >HAART doesn't mean anything to me either way. LOL. Plonk. There goes your model. >Maybe it slows down AIDS, maybe it causes "AIDS" >(it certainly killed a lot of people, at least in the beginning, >and can still push people further if their health is >already compromised by drugtaking, alcoholism, etc.). > >But that's beside the point. Nope. It is a central part of the point. Indeed, it's one of the weaker points in the whole denialist argument. Yes, AZT at 1200 mg per day was sometimes lethal. It also was NOT very effective as monotherapy. 2005, people are taking multiple toxic drugs which by theories like those of Duesberg should be killing people within months. Most people on these regimens stay alive for years. Certainly FAR longer than people stayed alive before ARV was available, especially when they start with lower CD4 counts that were back in the day associated with death generally within a couple of years. Not always, of course, but too damn often. Alcoholism and drug-taking don't cause AIDS. They can f.ck you up. They can kill you. But they don't cause AIDS. They may exacerbate HIV disease as well for any of a host of reasons. But they are not AIDS. George M. Carter Re: The CDC and AIDS by "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> Jan 15, 2005 at 07:57 PM "KellyJonLandis" <kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> > If there is no real epidemic proportions outside of the > original risk groups, then it has not spread > exponentially, according to FARR's LAW of EPIDEMICS, and > into the general population. After 20 years, it would > have if it was going to. Another reason, insufficient in > and of itself, to question the 'HIV' theory of 'AIDS.' > Again, you have to do the math and go figure to understand > 'AIDS' and 'HIV' simply do not add up... or multiply or > divide. HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 "Hi Kelly, Has anyone calculated an AIDS:HIV ratio, or how many AIDS cases there would have to be if HIV infection was at a certain rate..." I'm sure a number of persons have offered suggestions as to what ratio would be required in order for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV=AIDS' to be feasible as an infectious model. And this is an interesting question that we should persue. Perhaps our AIDS Apologist friends can offer their input;) "...or how many HIV infections there would have to be if there were a specific number of AIDS cases? For instance, the famous 8 year incubation period. Would that mean that the number of AIDS cases would be 1/8th of the number of HIV infections? Maybe 1/8th of the number of new infections? Alex" Well, the AIDS Apologists keep expanding the latency period, now I believe it's up to 15 years, though nothing is set in stone. And that would mean 1/15th the number of alleged 'HIV' infections which has remained relatively constant in the US at around 850,000- 1,000,000 while the number of new infections also steadily increases at around 40,000 per year while the total number remains the same or goes down. And while 'AIDS' cases increased at the time of the big shift in the definition and diagnosis of what is called 'AIDS' --some years back adding the socalled surrogate marker of under 200 T-Cells-- and then seemed to peak. 'AIDS' deaths, on the other hand, have been decreasing due to many healthy individuals given the 'AIDS' diagnosis earlier in their socalled progression, and, if you believe the AIDS Apologists, it's because of the drugs they are on, although no completed study compares those on the drugs vs those not, so all we have is anacdotal evidence. And the decrease was several years before the introduction of socalled 'HAART' so go figure. However, it is difficult to distinguish 'AIDS' case and 'AIDS' death 'estimates' from actual numbers of 'AIDS' cases and 'AIDS' deaths. And the CDC go back and refigure their previous estimates on occasion without notice and don't report actual numbers in some cases or do so years later and without their being a single standard by which the figures could be compared. The point I was trying to make was about the lack of evidence of any real explosion outside the original socalled 'risk groups' into the general population. That could hardly be called epidemic, no matter how you figure it. So, the infectious model of 'HIV=AIDS' just doesn't add up... or multiply or divide. Unless you devise some New Math or fuzzy formula. Kelly HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 >[George Carter] "But second, this statistics game? Makes no sense at all. >More HIV or less HIV than estimated. Yes. Indeed. But utterly irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pathogenesis and progression of >'HIV=AIDS.' So you claim. >If there is no real epidemic proportions outside of the original risk >groups, then it has not spread exponentially, according to FARR's LAW of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >figure to understand 'AIDS' and 'HIV' simply do not add up... or multiply >or divide. So you claim yet again. If you're going to model the epidemic on Farr's curve, you have to know whether you're applying it globally or to localities or risk groups. And of course, a pandemic like HIV, transmissible via blood or semen for the most part, will take variable courses and can be impacted by shifts in behavior, from condom use, reduced partner numbers, not re-using syringes, cleaner blood and Factor VIII supplies. It's a far more messier situation than just applying a bell-shaped curve, I should think. >HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game >http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 That link leads to some bullshit advertising. Anyway, clinging to a simplistic modeling of epidemics based on a generalized theory developed in 1840 seems a bit deranged. George M. Carter > And of course, a pandemic like HIV, transmissible via blood or semen > for the most part, will take variable courses and can be impacted by > shifts in behavior, from condom use, reduced partner numbers, not > re-using syringes, cleaner blood and Factor VIII supplies. It's a far > more messier situation than just applying a bell-shaped curve, I > should think. What it can't do, is change it's nature and all of a sudden become just as transmissible from women to men, as it is from men women. (Which is what would be necessary for a heterosexual epidemic.) Except in Africa, of course. Alex snip... >What it can't do, is change it's nature and all of a sudden become >just as transmissible from women to men, as it is from men women. >(Which is what would be necessary for a heterosexual epidemic.) > >Except in Africa, of course. HIV doesn't have to be equally readily transmitted from women to men to be a heterosexually transmitted disease. Nor does that obviate a heterosexual epidemic--as Africa shows. Women to men transmission does occur and is dependent on a number of variables of host immunity and condition. George M. Carter HIV Epidemiology is Epidem-illogical: An AIDS Numbers Game http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=606.1 >> [George Carter] That link leads to some bullshit advertising. There is an ad for first-time visitors, but then you click on "NO THANKS" and it takes you to the largest AIDS forum on Delphi and one of the largest AIDS Dissident forums with nearly 2000 members and over 5,000 messages in a searchable archive. It's an interesting discussion thread with materials linked and further analysis on the fuzzy math 'HIV' Epidemiology. Kelly Jon Landis [aka "Alexander" on Delphi] V I R U S M Y T H http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH "Evidence for HIV" DOCUMENT http://www.healtoronto.com/nih The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [BMJ] MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495 [Especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here http://www.theperthgroup.com and here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/] Roberto Giraldo, MD President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/papers.html TREATING AND PREVENTING ILLNESSES ATTRIBUTED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH 'AIDS' http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH "Evidence for HIV" DOCUMENT http://www.healtoronto.com/nih INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy] http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm REBUTTAL TO DURBAN DECLARATION http://thedurbandeclaration.org/ HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason] http://www.healtoronto.com ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS'] http://www.anotherlook.org MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine] http://www.informedmomm.com AIDS MYTH EXPOSED [Largest AIDS forum on MSN] http://www.aidsmythexposed.com HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS [Largest AIDS forum on Delphi] http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous SIGN and READ SIGNATORIES OF THE ONLINE PETITION TO SUPPORT SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT THABO MBEKI's SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEFINITION, DIAGNOSIS, CAUSATION AND PREVENTION OF 'HIV/AIDS:'http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/mbeki.htm Every single year they talk about ' a come back' and every single year it does not happen. Could it be something to do with funding? Surely not. > Every single year they talk about ' a come back' and every single year it > does not happen. > > Could it be something to do with funding? > > Surely not. Must be like that "hopeful vaccine" they come up with every six months. Alex |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.