 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / February 2005Logical Fallacies Used Against HIV/AIDS Dissidents
================================================================ Logical Fallacies Used Against HIV/AIDS Rethinkers or Dissidents ================================================================ Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum) Definition: A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some sector of the population. Example: Everyone knows HIV causes AIDS, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims? Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) Example: Since you cannot prove that HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV causes AIDS. Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) Definition: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false. Example: If you don't believe HIV causes AIDS, you're going to die of AIDS. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if: (i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue. (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious Example: Thousands of scientists agree there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Fallacy of Exclusion Definition: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence". Example: Healthy HIV positive people who have never taken HIV/AIDS medications are not included in many of the studies HIV/AIDS proponents cite as evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) Definition: The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other. Example: Jack came down with pneumonia after an HIV positive test result. Therefore, Jack's pneumonia is AIDS caused by HIV because he tested HIV+. Begging the Question ( petitio principii ) Definition: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion. Example: HIV causes AIDS because the evidence is overwhelming that HIV causes AIDS. Therefore, HIV causes AIDS. ============================================= Fundamental Failings, Flaws in the 'HIV/AIDS' Construct ============================================= Flaw No.1: Co-Causal Factors Ignored In order to assemble the HIV/AIDS construct, virologists had to make a point of ignoring the prevalent, tangible causal factors for AIDS and the absense of sexual contact between the cases they were starting to see. They then had to abuse genetic technology, exploiting the prestige of its techniques in order to present a fa?de of credibility. The origin of HIV/AIDS is not Africa, it is the abuse of genetic technology. We only got HIV/AIDS when the technology arose to construct it. Science was subsumed by technology. We know that anti-HIV drugs destroy T- cells ( see this index of CD4 T-cells: What Do They Count For? http://healtoronto.com/cd4counts.html ) and even the establishment were forced to admit that HIV does NOT kill T-cells, at least not directly, and the variety of other co-causes for T-cell depletion. Although there is a shortage of studies examining the effects of antiretroviral drugs upon CD4 cells, what we do have provides grounds for saying that they definitely do destroy CD4 cells, that the effect is predominantly a long term usage outcome and is most likely due to cumulative mitochondrial damage. There are many references relating to recreational drugs cytoxic effect. And we also know that antiretroviral drugs destroy mitochondria (Lewis et al. Mitochondrial toxicity of Antiretroviral Drugs, Nature Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp 417-422, 1995). CD4 cells contain mitochondria. We would expect the effects of mitochondrial toxicity to be accentuated in CD4 T-cells because their rapid turnover renders them more prone to cumulative mitochondrial DNA damage. AZT has been found in several studies to be toxic to CD4 cells (Balzarini et al. Journal of Biological Chemistry Vol. 264, pp 6127- 6133, 1989; Mansuri et al. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol. 34, pp637-641, 1990; Hitchcock et al. Antiviral Chemistry and Chemotherapy, Vol 2, pp 125-132, 1991.) An independent study showed that AZT is about 1000-times (!) more toxic for human T-cells in culture (at about 1 µM concentration) than the study conducted by its manufacturer and the NIH concluded (Avramis et al, AIDS, Vol. 3, pp 417-422). Lymphocyte counts decreased significantly in humans treated with AZT but not in untreated controls (Richman et al, NEJM, Vol. 317 pp 192-197, 1987) Another study found that AZT users experienced more rapid CD4 cell depletion than those not on antiretrovirals (Alcabes et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 137, pp 898-1000, 1993). Didanosine (ddI or Videx), is listed in the Physician's Desk Reference (1999) as causing serious levels of "leukopenia" which involves reductions of all white blood cells including lymphocytes in 13% to 16% of users. In the June 2, 2002 issue of the Journal of Virology, researchers report that the protease inhibitor drugs Crixivan (indinavir) and Invarase (saquinavir) caused T cell death in healthy HIV negative donor blood in three separate experiments: http://healtoronto.com/tcelldeath.html Immunology Today 1998 Vol.19 p 10-17 entitled "HIV-induced decline in blood CD4/CD8 ratios: viral killing or altered lymphocyte traffiking?" To quote from the article: "During HIV infection CD4 cell numbers and CD4/CD8 ratios decline in the blood. This is usually attributed to direct viral killing or to other indirect mechanisms. However, current models generally assume that such changes in the blood are representative of changes in total CD4 T-cell numbers throughout the body. This article discusses the importance of alterations in CD4 and CD8 cell migration in regulating blood lymphocyte levels and questions the extent of virus mediated CD4 T-cell destruction" To also quote from Roederer, Nature Med. Vol 4 p145: "In this issue of Nature Medicine, reports by Pakker et al and Gorochov et al provide the final nails in the coffin for models of T- cell dynamics in which a major reason for changes in T-cell numbers is the death of HIV infected cells." Flaw No.2: No Isolation or Validation Any scientist who declares that a genetic sequence, moreover a genetic sequence arrived at by human concensus, represents a naturally occuring virus, has compromised their scientific integrity. To further suggest that this genetic sequence represents a competent, exogenous, sexually transmitted and indeed pathogenic retrovirus is to enter the realms of pseudo-science. Without HIV isolation all is mere speculation. Even if HIV were isolated and the proteins tested for by the ELISA antibody test were actually proteins specific to HIV, an antibody test would still not be accurate enough for determining actual viral infection. Everyone tests HIV positive on ELISA if their serum is not diluted by a factor of 400 because of non-specific antibodies which bind to any proteins. VIRAL ISOLATION INDEX http://healtoronto.com/hiviso.html Flaw No.3: Mutation Any biological entity that mutates to the degree that HIV is said to do cannot be biologically viable. For example "HIV protease" has to make a large number of cleavages in the "HIV" gag-pol polyprotein in order to produce biologically viable HIV. Kinetic analysis (J. of Biological Chemistry, 1997, Vol. 272, p 6348-6353) shows that a mutated HIV protease could not do this. The idea with evolution by natural selection is that organisms improve themselves by random mutations preserved by natural selection. So, if a mutation confers an advantage it is preserved and the organism is optimised for survival. When mutations confer a disadvantage they are selected against because the organism carrying this unfortuate mutation cannot persist in the population. If we are talking about HIV as a viable biological entity then always the fittest virions will comprise the greatest proportion of any particular HIV population. Natural selection dictates that beneficial mutations are PRESERVED. The basic message is that viral populations can tolerate "high" levels of mutation as long as they are not so high that beneficial mutations cannot be preserved in the majority of the viral population. We are being asked to believe that HIV is so prone to mutation as to become simultaneously resistant to a combination of 3 anti-retroviral agents and that despite this level of mutation HIV can still sustain itself as a pathogenic virus. If we assume that HIV does not mutate to an extent that renders it naturally harmless (it is harmless anyway) then it will have optimised its activity through natural selection. When exposed to an unnatural inhibitor designed to block its HIV protease, the protease will mutate to become resistant but because of the high precision required of the protease in its function, infectious HIV cannot be produced. To quote Dissident Scientist Dave Rasnick, PhD and former designer of PIs or Protease Inhibitors from an article: "Since the wild-type HIV protease has evolved to the optimal level of activity, virtually all alterations to the enzyme's structure that affect catalytic efficiency are lethal to the virus. Mutations of the protease that reduce inhibitor binding result in an even more profound reduction in catalytic activity. This is because the overall catalytic efficiency of a mutant HIV protease is given by the product of the relative efficiencies of the mutant enzyme with respect to the wild-type for all eight obligatory cleavages (28) . These eight cleavages can be thought of as an eight-number combination lock. Not only does HIV protease have to make all eight cleavages, but the enzyme must do it in the right order. Therefore, even in the absence of inhibitors, the inhibitor-resistant mutant HIV proteases do not lead to viable, infectious virus." The latest questionable trend in AIDS research, drug resistance testing deserve close scrutiny. Recent reports of growing numbers of socalled "drug resistant" HIV positives have inspired sensational media stories, calls for new drug development, and warnings that unsafe sex is on the rise, effectively rallying public support for more funding and more focus on AIDS. I wonder how these tests can work if no actual HIV isolates are used in the process. I also wonder why the AIDS Apologists assume that HIV positives who have never taken AIDS meds and show drug resistance must be having unsafe sex with HIV positives who are on the treatments. Why not consider that resistance tests are flawed if they show drug resistance in people who've never taken the drugs? Flaw No.4: Viral Load Polymerase Chain Reaction - PCR - or the 'viral load' test, purports to detect, and quantify, blood-borne HIV in patients. However, the genetic fragments it amplifies have never been proved to originate in HIV, or in any virus. The accuracy of PCR viral load is estimated by leading doctors at plus or minus 300% - i.e. a reading of 90,000 could be 30,000 or 270,000! The PCR was not invented for HIV. Its Nobel Prizewinning inventor, Dr Kary Mullis, calls the use of PCR in AIDS medicine, "a tragedy in the practice of Western medicine." He says it is a misapplication of his technology and measures genetic fragments or debris. The uncertain unvalidated nature of the PCR for HIV is reflected in the product literature supplied by manufacturers. A typical example reads: "The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." - Roche, Amplicor VIRAL LOAD OF WHAT? http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm It hardly matters if PCR can accurately detect an arbitrary set of RNA bases when no one has shown that that set causes any problems like immune deficiency. The fact that bacteria are replicated by RNA and DNA sequences means nothing about their virulence. They replicate anything you stick in there, that's what they do. So, even if it came from outside the body[exogenous or non-naturally occuring when most retroviruses are known to be endogenous or naturally occuring as a part of all of our genetic make-up], that still doesn't mean it is still there when the tests can't find it anymore. Perhaps it is a parasite that was killed. It is no longer there. Maybe your body produces antibodies to parasites and they remain even after the parasites have been killed. Dr. 'Hit Em Hard, Hit Em Early' Ho's viral load theory is merely a mathematical model. It has no scientific foundation whatsoever. Even establishment HIV scientists admit this now, see Nature Medicine, 1998, Vol 4, No.2, p 145-146. Viral load was just more technological subterfuge to disguise the fact that "HIV" could never be found in HIV positive people in numbers sufficient to cause disease. Flaw No.5: Absence of Controls The claims made by the AIDS establishment are simply not supported by properly controlled, statistically significant studies. Here are some examples of critically important controls for which the required substantive studies do not exist despite the enormous amounts of money given to AIDS research: Prevalence of positive "viral load" in HIV negatives. Comparison of CD4 T-cell counts over a long period between a group of HIV negatives and a group of healthy, heterosexual HIV positives who lead a healthy lifestyle (do not take recreational drugs, AIDS drug cocktails, etc.). Perfectly healthy people have been pushed onto the combos either as a result of the "hit hard, hit early" doctrine or as a result of indirect markers like viral load and CD4 count. There is no comparison of survival times in developed countries of healthy HIV+ heterosexuals who lead a healthy lifestyle and were not given combos for either of these reasons, with those in the same group who were given them for these reasons. Apart from the early fraudulent AZT trials and the damning Concorde study (172 participants died, 169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo) all studies of drug efficacy compare drugs with drugs, there are no unmedicated controls. Flaw No.6: Mechanism HIV theory contradicts basic viological knowledge. Retroviruses require cell proliferation for their propagation not cell death. They do not kill cells. In the early days of the HIV era a small group of virologists to which everyone deferred stated as fact that HIV causes AIDS by directly destroying CD4 cells, although there was no evidence for this at the time. When there was still no evidence, rather than follow the scientific method and consider the importance of other factors, it was confidently stated as fact that HIV instead causes AIDS by INDIRECTLY destroying, or indirectly reducing, the number of CD4 cells. True to form, there is still no evidence to clarify this position. Even after receiving mind bogglingly huge research funding for over 21+ years HIV 'scientists' or 'specialists' still do not have the evidence to show how the putative 'HIV' can cause the catch-all condition called 'AIDS.' >In the June 2, 2002 issue of the Journal of Virology, researchers >report that the protease inhibitor drugs Crixivan (indinavir) and >Invarase (saquinavir) caused T cell death in healthy HIV negative >donor blood in three separate experiments: > >http://healtoronto.com/tcelldeath.html In fact, the experimenters tested SQV (saquinavir) and IDV (indinavir) in uninfected blood at concentrations of 10 µM, 1 µM, and 0.2 µM. T-cells died at 10 µM, but not at 1 µM or 0.2 µM. They also stimulated T-cell proliferation in blood samples with 0 µM, 1 µM and 10 µM concentrations of these drugs. Proliferation was decreased greatly at 10 µM but there was little or no effect at 1 µM. Journal of Virology, June 2002, p. 5966-5973, Vol. 76, No. 12 Below is the part of the article that HEAL quoted. We treated PBMC from HIV-seronegative healthy donors with increasing concentrations of IDV, SQV, or ddI for 3 days and monitored T-cell proliferation and cell death. Both IDV and SQV decreased T-cell proliferation mediated by CD3 MAb in three independent experiments performed with healthy donor cells with a mean decrease for SQV of 53% ± 15% and a mean decrease for IDV of 48% ± 12% (Fig. 4A). Figure 4A is a bar graph showing roughly 50% decreased T-cell proliferation with Saquinavir or Indinavir at 10 µM, and little or no effect at 1 µM. The article continues (HEAL didn't quote this): Moreover, in the absence of T-cell activation, we observed that 10 µM IDV and SQV induced a loss in membrane mitochondrial potential ({Delta}{Psi}m) as assessed by flow cytometry using DiOC6 (Fig. 4B and C). There was no effect detected at 1 or 0.2 µM (Fig. 4C). HEAL hyped up the deadly effects that happened at the highest concentration tested, omitted to mention that these effects were absent at the lower concentrations tested, and made no attempt to find out the actual concentrations of these drugs in the blood of patients in spite of that information's obvious relevance.  SignatureDavid Canzi Less is better and none is the best. Same as most poisons. > Less is better and none is the best. > > Same as most poisons. Oxygen is toxic. Avoid this poison! All you need is a cylinder of nitrogen. >Less is better and none is the best. >Same as most poisons. At a high enough concentration in the blood, sugar is poisonous. HEAL chose not to mention that the toxic effects they publicized were absent at lower concentrations of saquinavir and indinavir, and chose not to find out what concentrations of these drugs actually occur in the blood of live patients. And at the lowest tested concentration, well below the levels where cytotoxic effects were observed, saquinavir reduced the rate of cell deaths in blood exposed to HIV. If you want us to believe something based on the authority of a journal article, everything the article says counts, not just the parts that you can coerce into seeming to support your viewpoint. SignatureDavid Canzi Hello, What is the difference between hiv and aids? "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt My new Sig. has some neat images, wanna see it? Yes? OK! Here it is: + + + See My New Sig. It Has Images In It For You + + + Click on the blue: "- Show quoted text -" >Know Thine Enemy: >"The Christians are always singing about the [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >Cross http://snipurl.com/bqvr >In God We Trust http://snipurl.com/bqui + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + >Hello, >What is the difference between hiv and aids? HIV--the human immundeficiency virus--is a retrovirus. Infection with HIV causes depletion of immune cells known as CD4+ lymphocytes (or "T cells"). When T cell counts drop below 200, generally, certain infections are more likely to occur. This is AIDS or "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (though I prefer "Acquired Immune Dysregulation Syndrome" ). that's a start for you. George M. Carter Hello, GM, Thank you for the definition of hiv/aids, however i asked you: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between hiv and aids. > Hello, GM, > Thank you for the definition of hiv/aids, however i asked you: > WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between hiv and aids. HIV is the virus. AIDS is the syndrome it eventually causes. B/ HIV is a hypothesis of a virus that has never been isolated AIDS is a syndrome based on a hypothesis of a virus that has never been isolated. AIDS IS A GOOD OLD MYTH. >HIV is a hypothesis of a virus that has never been isolated Duesberg says it has. >AIDS is a syndrome based on a hypothesis of a virus that has never been >isolated. Even Root-Bernstein notes HIV causes AIDS. He just believes co-factors are necessary. I don't. Fools like you will believe any vapid, unsupported and even contradicted theory in order to justify f.cking without a condom. George M. Carter > >HIV is a hypothesis of a virus that has never been isolated > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > George M. Carter That's an incorrect account of Root-Bernstein's views. In Rethinking AIDS, he leaves the question open - maybe HIV causes AIDS all by itself, maybe it causes it with co-factors, maybe it doesn't cause it at all. >> Even Root-Bernstein notes HIV causes AIDS. He just believes co-factors >> are necessary. I don't. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >AIDS, he leaves the question open - maybe HIV causes AIDS all by itself, >maybe it causes it with co-factors, maybe it doesn't cause it at all. Rethinking AIDS was written over 10 years ago. I've been having a nice email exchange with him to get his current views. And currently, he recognizes HIV as existing and as the proximate cause of AIDS. Necessary but, in his view, not sufficient. George M. Carter > >> Even Root-Bernstein notes HIV causes AIDS. He just believes co-factors > >> are necessary. I don't. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > George M. Carter Is that the position which he is definitely taking, or merely something he is leaning toward? I'd be surprised if he actually did make a declaration to the effect that HIV is necessary but not sufficient; the approach in Rethinking AIDS makes him seem too cautious for that. Actually it would be surprising if Root-Bernstein said much of anything about AIDS at this point, having stayed out of the discussion or about a decade, and I don't think the other dissidents give a damn at this stage. snip >> Rethinking AIDS was written over 10 years ago. I've been having a nice >> email exchange with him to get his current views. And currently, he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >declaration to the effect that HIV is necessary but not sufficient; the >approach in Rethinking AIDS makes him seem too cautious for that. Why don't you ask him yourself? That is the view he most unequivocally stated in an email to me. >Actually it would be surprising if Root-Bernstein said much of anything >about AIDS at this point, having stayed out of the discussion or about a >decade, and I don't think the other dissidents give a damn at this stage. LOL. I see. Definition of a troll.... George M. Carter > snip > >> Rethinking AIDS was written over 10 years ago. I've been having a nice [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why don't you ask him yourself? That is the view he most unequivocally > stated in an email to me. Guess why not. I would imagine that Robert Root-Bernstein is a very busy man, much too busy to talk to me. I have no intention of pestering him. The word "currently" doesn't inspire any confidence, btw. "Currently" suggests a position which one is taking this week, but not necessarily next week. There is the implication that further changes of mind are possible at any point. If you had said, the position he is NOW taking, instead of merely "currently" taking, that would have been different. > >Actually it would be surprising if Root-Bernstein said much of anything > >about AIDS at this point, having stayed out of the discussion or about a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > George M. Carter You're laughing? Why? I honestly don't see anything funny in that part of my post. I truly mean every word. If Root-Bernstein now decides to re-rethink AIDS and conclude that HIV does cause AIDS, but only with co-factors, that can't be taken seriously. Nothing has changed so drastically over the last decade that would make this change justified. The only thing it would show is that Root-Bernstein didn't rethink AIDS carefully enough in the first place. I suspect Root-Bernstein realizes that this would make him look like a bit of a fool, so I don't think any public announcement of a change of view is going to happen. But imagine the headlines: "Root-Bernstein announces HIV Causes AIDS but Only With Co-factors - World Yawns." snip >> Why don't you ask him yourself? That is the view he most unequivocally >> stated in an email to me. > >Guess why not. I would imagine that Robert Root-Bernstein is a very busy >man, much too busy to talk to me. I have no intention of pestering him. LOL. Well, then go f.ck yourself. I wrote him an email and he was kind enough to respond and send some of his more recent papers. But probably bully for him that you don't pester him. >The word "currently" doesn't inspire any confidence, btw. "Currently" >suggests a position which one is taking this week, but not necessarily >next week. There is the implication that further changes of mind are >possible at any point. If you had said, the position he is NOW taking, >instead of merely "currently" taking, that would have been different. Right. Like he may decide that HIV is necessary and sufficient. Ah--in most humans, changes of mind are always possible. The best way to make such changes are based on evidence and information. The relevance of Root-Bernstein's change in views is not for the "world" or for any "announcement" but rather that the denialists have maintained a list of scientists (a few anyway) who have disputed the notion that HIV exists or that it does yet doesn't cause AIDS. What my inquiries are pointing out is that those lists, compiled mostly in the early 90s, do not always reflect the views of researchers after time has elapsed and evidence accumulated. George M. Carter > snip > >> Why don't you ask him yourself? That is the view he most unequivocally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > enough to respond and send some of his more recent papers. But > probably bully for him that you don't pester him. As you may recall, you are an AIDS activist, and as such have professional responsibilities. I am not an activist and have no such responsibilities. Since I am cautious in how I behave, it's not a matter of life and death what I believe. No one else's health is affected by it, whereas people's health may be affected by what you believe. So I'm not surprised that Root-Bernstein has time to talk to you, but I doubt he would welcome inquiries from those motivated by mere curiosity. Can I note that it is very strange for you to tell me to "f.ck myself" for refraining from doing something which you agree would be "pestering"? It is encouraging what you seem to realize is bad behavior. > >The word "currently" doesn't inspire any confidence, btw. "Currently" > >suggests a position which one is taking this week, but not necessarily [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ah--in most humans, changes of mind are always possible. The best way > to make such changes are based on evidence and information. Yeah, sure. Only AIDS and AIDS science haven't changed in any way fundamental enough to justify such a change. If AIDS and AIDS science were muddled and impossible to make sense of in 1993, they are still that way in 2005. Root-Bernstein wrote that "we" need to investigate all these different possibilities, but "we" (people in general, scientists in particular, and especially AIDS scientists) have done no such thing. > The relevance of Root-Bernstein's change in views is not for the > "world" or for any "announcement" but rather that the denialists have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > George M. Carter What inquiries? So far as I know, you conducted only one inquiry, which was into the current views of a borderline sometime AIDS dissident. Or did you also email Duesberg and the Perth Group to get their current views? What about Montagnier, is he still chasing that mycoplasma? What about Shyh-Ching Lo? Did you attempt to get in touch with Stefan Lanka, or John Lauritsen? Why not, since you have no problem pestering people? Perhaps you didn't try to contact any of those people because you realize that there is no likelihood of their having changed their views. Or perhaps because they wouldn't tell you what you want to hear. I suppose you contacted Root-Bernstein just because he was a waverer, and therefore were hoping to find he was giving up on AIDS dissidence. Is Root-Bernstein actually the only person of any note in that category? To evaluate the importance of his change of mind, remember the basic problem with AIDS. There are facts which are extremely difficult to reconcile with HIV being the cause of AIDS and also a fact that is extremely difficult to reconcile with HIV not being the cause of AIDS, the presence of antibodies to HIV in most but not all people with AIDS. The former facts are almost everything else about AIDS. Depending upon which fact or set of facts one emphasizes and which one ignores it is possible to make a strong case for or against HIV as the cause of AIDS. The only fully convincing way of resolving these contradictory facts is to show that "AIDS" causes "HIV" rather than the other way around; this has been the contribution of the Perth Group. Reading between the lines of Rethinking AIDS, I see that Root-Bernstein touched on the issue of HIV existing or not, but was either too cowardly to raise it openly or else did not realize what he was really saying. This is the burden of the section titled "Anomaly 3: Where Is the HIV Anyway?", pages 30-38. In particular, note the following sentence, on page 36: "Nonetheless, no case of infant AIDS associated with artificial insemination exists, and the number of cases of HIV transmission to insemination recipients is so small that one must either conclude that HIV is virtually impossible to transmit to a healthy individual, or that it simply is not present to be transmitted in the first place." Yet later, on page 38, Root-Bernstein effectively contradicts himself: "In short, although HIV certainly can be transmitted through semen from one person to another, it is in fact transmitted so rarely to healthy sexual partners and is present at such low amounts in so few sperm samples from HIV-infected men that it is probable that those who become infected must be exposed repeatedly to many HIV carriers or have some unusual susceptibility to the virus." Yet if this is "certain", why was the more shocking of the two possibilities on page 36 even mentioned? Perhaps Root-Bernstein thought he was being quite clever to bring this issue to his readers attention in this indirect way, without ever asking, "does HIV exist?", in so many words. Then again, Root-Bernstein may not even have had the courage to admit to himself or the clarity of thought to realize what he was saying about the virus maybe being "not present to be transmitted in the first place". Perhaps he can't say why he titled that section, "Where Is the HIV Anyway?" I think it's clear what has really happened here. It's not that AIDS science has changed in any fundamental way that would help Root-Bernstein make up his mind about HIV and AIDS. It's that he has sorted through his own muddled thinking sufficiently to realize that the line of inquiry he was taking has consequences that he cannot accept. The language of his response to the Perth Group's paper on the unreliability of the HIV test (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cftests.htm) shows his clear unwillingness to consider the issue of HIV not existing ("'To be real convincing', he continues, 'Eleopulos and colleagues would have to come up with a more accurate marker for AIDS") despite his having already realized the importance of the issue, in a confused and compromised way. Since Root-Bernstein has decided that HIV does indeed exist, he must now ignore the problem that it makes little sense for a virus only to be able to be even transmitted under circumstances of poor health in order to make his current compromise believable. Robert Gallo (Virus Hunting, p. 287) quite rightly points out that "No virus would survive if it infected only an immune-suppressed person." The Perth Group provides an answer that avoids the trap of either denying or worming one's way out of noticing awkward facts (like Gallo) or recognizing them but stopping short of taking them to their logical conclusion (like Root-Bernstein). >As you may recall, you are an AIDS activist, and as such have >professional responsibilities. You don't even know what an activist is. As to your list, Montaignier, Shy-Ching Lo already believe HIV causes AIDS. Lauritsen is a journalist, not a scientist. Perth Group still believe HIV doesn't exist, as far as I know. Duesberg still believes it DOES exist. Don't know his view on its relation to AIDS. The point, of course, was that the list denialists fling about is old and wrong. Also, I'd always had more interest and respect for Root-Bernstein, even though I didn't always agree with him, than some of the other people on the list, most of whom aren't scientists anyway. LOL. And nope, he didn't appear to be "pestered" but rather interested in engaging in a conversation. George M. Carter > >As you may recall, you are an AIDS activist, and as such have > >professional responsibilities. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George M. Carter How wrong is that list, Carter? You found one whole person who changed his mind, a bit, maybe not surprisingly, given the muddle he started with. snip >How wrong is that list, Carter? You found one whole person who changed >his mind, a bit, maybe not surprisingly, given the muddle he started >with. LOL. A sea change in one of the most brilliant scientists on that list. Clarify. What muddle? > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Clarify. What muddle? I clarified already. You didn't want to hear it. I think your inquiry is dishonest and your description of Root-Bernstein as brilliant is disingenuous. snip >I clarified already. You didn't want to hear it. I think your inquiry is >dishonest and your description of Root-Bernstein as brilliant is >disingenuous. LOL. of course you do. He doesn't agree with you. Nor do I. You're still a coward. > snip > >I clarified already. You didn't want to hear it. I think your inquiry is > >dishonest and your description of Root-Bernstein as brilliant is > >disingenuous. > > LOL. of course you do. He doesn't agree with you. About what? About pages 30-38 of his book being confused, or at least easily subject to an interpretation he wouldn't approve of? No, I suppose he wouldn't agree. But did you actually ask him about that? >> snip >> >I clarified already. You didn't want to hear it. I think your inquiry is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >easily subject to an interpretation he wouldn't approve of? No, I >suppose he wouldn't agree. But did you actually ask him about that? Why yes of course! I plucked from your mind using my magic ray machine that you had a quibble with a book he wrote 10 years ago. Indeed, I've honed it down to particular syllables that left you confused and perplexed in precise paragraphs. > >> snip > >> >I clarified already. You didn't want to hear it. I think your inquiry is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > honed it down to particular syllables that left you confused and > perplexed in precise paragraphs. They didn't leave me confused. It's obvious Root-Bernstein was in a muddle or being dishonest. If you can't see that, it's your problem. Scientists don't necessarily say what they mean in so many words. See here (http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html) for instance, where Papadopulos-Eleopulos mentions how 'subtle' her group had to be. If you're going to ask Root-Bernstein about this (and you might just as well, since someone is eventually going to point out that his current firmness that HIV does exist doesn't precisely jibe with what he wrote in Rethinking AIDS), contact Peter Duesberg as well, and ask him exactly what he meant when he wrote that HIV isolation is "perhaps best described as maieutic" (http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdpnas89.html). A hint - it's the etymology of the word that matters, not its use in the sense of Socratic dialectic. snip >They didn't leave me confused. It's obvious Root-Bernstein was in a >muddle or being dishonest. If you can't see that, it's your problem. >Scientists don't necessarily say what they mean in so many words. See >here (http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html) for instance, >where Papadopulos-Eleopulos mentions how 'subtle' her group had to be. LOL. You HAVE to be kidding. That lot of morons? Please. >If you're going to ask Root-Bernstein about this (and you might just as >well, since someone is eventually going to point out that his current >firmness that HIV does exist doesn't precisely jibe with what he wrote >in Rethinking AIDS), contact Peter Duesberg as well, and ask him exactly >what he meant when he wrote that HIV isolation is "perhaps best >described as maieutic" (http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdpnas89.html). Aw. Peter's pregnant. Cute >A hint - it's the etymology of the word that matters, not its use in the >sense of Socratic dialectic. Uh-huh. Bullshit. Root-Bernstein has always been pretty direct in his views. If you have a confusion, why don't you ask him? George M. Carter Seems everyone who does not agree with your insane 'AIDS' fanatic views is a moron. You, Sir are the moron. Hardly worth bothering with now you have made such a fool of yourself so many times on this board. Poor little fool. >Seems everyone who does not agree with your insane 'AIDS' fanatic views is >a moron. Most of them are. But there aren't that many left. [snip] > Uh-huh. Bullshit. Root-Bernstein has always been pretty direct in his > views. If you have a confusion, why don't you ask him? > > George M. Carter How would you know if Root-Bernstein was being direct or not? You can't even notice blatant contradictions when they are pointed out to you. Tell him, someone. > >As you may recall, you are an AIDS activist, and as such have > >professional responsibilities. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George M. Carter As for my knowing what an activist is, and as for your being an activist, it says at the bottom of this page: http://www.thebody.com/bp/sept99/cam.html: George M. Carter has been an AIDS activist for ten years and was a member of ACT UP/NY for much of that time. He is currently the Director of Treatment Information Development for DAAIR and a member of the Hepatitis C Action and Advocacy Coalition (HAAC)/NY. snip >As for my knowing what an activist is, and as for your being an >activist, it says at the bottom of this page: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of Treatment Information Development for DAAIR and a member of the >Hepatitis C Action and Advocacy Coalition (HAAC)/NY. Yep. That's who one activist is. That is not WHAT an activist is. > >As you may recall, you are an AIDS activist, and as such have > >professional responsibilities. > > You don't even know what an activist is. And here is another example. It says, "This is an edited email discussion that took place between participants in the AIDS Treatment Activists Coalition (ATAC). George Carter is an activist interested in patent reform and researching complementary therapies": http://www.thebody.com/gmhc/issues/apr02/reforms.html >> LOL. Well, then go f.ck yourself. I wrote him an email and he was kind >> enough to respond and send some of his more recent papers. But [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of life and death what I believe. No one else's health is affected by >it, whereas people's health may be affected by what you believe. George's beliefs can only affect other people's health if they hear him, believe him, and come to some benefit or harm as a result of acting on those beliefs. You can absolve yourself of responsibility for your expressed beliefs only by claiming those who hear you will not be influenced to adopt the same beliefs as you... but then why would you bother speaking? I do not believe for an instant that you don't expect and intend for your opinions expressed here to convince others. What you say here is meant to change other people's opinions about the cause of a deadly disease, and the effects that has on their behaviour will lead to effects on their health. You are not one jot less responsible for your opinions than George is for his. >So I'm >not surprised that Root-Bernstein has time to talk to you, but I doubt >he would welcome inquiries from those motivated by mere curiosity. You can contact Robert Root-Bernstein and verify what he believes. Or you can refuse to contact Root-Bernstein and post uninformed speculations about the accuracy of reports from somebody who did. SignatureDavid Canzi In article <cuggub$fj0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable address) wrote: > In article > <SearchResult8FromUioppuislad-E00975.13223010022005@lust.ihug.co.nz>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > effects on their health. You are not one jot less responsible for > your opinions than George is for his. You can believe all you want that I am trying to convince everyone to believe that HIV does not exist or cause AIDS, but you are quite wrong. There is already a vast amount of AIDS dissident information on this newsgroup. If it does not help to convince the undecided that the AIDS dissidents have a serious case, nothing I say will make any difference. The only reason I post here is to help myself make up my mind. Having read several of the dissident books (those by Jad Adams, Neville Hodgkinson, Robert Root-Bernstein, and several of John Lauritsen's and Peter Duesberg's) I think that they make a strong case that AIDS has never behaved in the way a genuinely infectious disease would and as such almost certainly isn't infectious. However, it still seems just conceivably possible that there might be an explanation for this that fits in with the conventional view of AIDS, and if so I want to hear it. So far I haven't. > >So I'm > >not surprised that Root-Bernstein has time to talk to you, but I doubt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or you can refuse to contact Root-Bernstein and post uninformed > speculations about the accuracy of reports from somebody who did. I never questioned Carter's claim to have contacted Root-Bernstein. I can't see any reason why he would lie about it. I also don't question Cater's claim that Root-Bernstein has backed away from the more extreme versions of AIDS dissidence and now thinks HIV is necessary for AIDS, even if not sufficient - although his "currently" qualifier makes it a little unclear exactly how committed Root-Bernstein is to this view. Not that this is very interesting to me. I won't repeat that angry and long-winded tirade, which you snipped, but I certainly think that his "Anomaly 3: Where is the HIV Anyway?" section has implications which Root-Bernstein either fails to see or does not state honestly and openly. It simply does not make sense for Root-Bernstein to suggest on page 36 that perhaps HIV "is not present to be transmitted in the first place" (which is tantamount to questioning whether HIV exists) and then say on page 38 that HIV "certainly can be transmitted through semen" (a firm statement it does exist). If Root-Bernstein didn't mean to suggest that HIV might not exist, he could have avoided giving the impression he was. snip] >You can believe all you want that I am trying to convince everyone to >believe that HIV does not exist or cause AIDS, but you are quite wrong. LOL. You are not an activist. You are a coward. > snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are a coward. I'm 95% sure the dissidents are right. I post here for the sake of the 5% of doubt, in case upholders of the conventional view can defend it convincingly. Someone with some basic decency would accept that. > I'm 95% sure the dissidents are right. I post here for the sake of the > 5% of doubt, in case upholders of the conventional view can defend it > convincingly. But that's an impossible task, since there's nothing anyone can say that you'll accept. B/ > > I'm 95% sure the dissidents are right. I post here for the sake of the > > 5% of doubt, in case upholders of the conventional view can defend it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > B/ If anyone showed some signs of taking the basic problems seriously - for instance, how an extremely difficult to transmit virus could have appeared almost simultaneously in North America and Africa - I'd listen. >>> I'm 95% sure the dissidents are right. I post here for the sake >>> of the 5% of doubt, in case upholders of the conventional view >>> can defend it convincingly. >> >> But that's an impossible task, since there's nothing anyone can say >> that you'll accept. > If anyone showed some signs of taking the basic problems seriously... > I'd listen. I wish I could believe that, but the example I just snipped showed you won't. There's a large thread of you and others discussing this beginning June 8, 2004. Sorry if you don't believe that was "serious" but it only proves my point: even when shown the 5% you're demanding, you won't listen. It would be less intellectually dishonest to just say "I'm convinced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rather than "I'm just mostly convinced." B/ > >>> I'm 95% sure the dissidents are right. I post here for the sake > >>> of the 5% of doubt, in case upholders of the conventional view [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > won't. There's a large thread of you and others discussing this > beginning June 8, 2004. As I recall, that consisted of me saying there was a serious problem there that needed to be explained, that the current wisdom about HIV didn't seem able to explain it, and all the HIV believers said, so what? >HIV is a hypothesis of a virus that has never been isolated >AIDS is a syndrome based on a hypothesis of a virus that has never been >isolated. >AIDS IS A GOOD OLD MYTH. AWWWK! Paulie wanna cracker! SignatureDavid Canzi >Hello, GM, >Thank you for the definition of hiv/aids, however i asked you: >WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between hiv and aids. The difference lies in the definitions. I don't understand your question. > >Hello, > >What is the difference between hiv and aids? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > George M. Carter And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more likely to occur? > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more > likely to occur? No, it's his claim HIV does that. If you wish to show that something else depletes immune cells below that level on a permenant basis it's up to you to prove it. B/ >> And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete >> immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If you wish to show that something else depletes immune cells below that >level on a permenant basis it's up to you to prove it. Nicely put. More accurately, the evidence is that infection with HIV results in depletion of specific immune cells, CD4+ T lymphocytes. Such infection also results in a great deal of other immune dysregulation. Other agents (certain drugs) may temporarily lower CD4 counts during the time they are administered, with restoration upon discontinuation. However, no recreational drug has ever been shown to do that to CD4 counts, including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, xanax, LSD, heroin, cocaine, etc. Indeed, I post an interesting study with regard to that below. That's not to say that the list of agents above do not have toxic effects. Obviously, they do, mostly related to dosage and chronic use. George M. Carter ** Thorpe LE, Frederick M, Pitt J, Cheng I, Watts DH, Buschur S, Green K, Zorrilla C, Landesman SH, Hershow RC. Effect of Hard-Drug Use on CD4 Cell Percentage, HIV RNA Level, and Progression to AIDS-Defining Class C Events Among HIV-Infected Women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004 Nov 1;37(3):1423-1430. From the *New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY; daggerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adult Community Health, Atlanta, GA; double daggerClinical Trials and Surveys Corporation, Baltimore, MD; section signColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD; paragraph signBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; #University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA; **University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR; daggerdaggerState University of New York at Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY; and double daggerdouble daggerUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. In vitro and animal studies suggest that cocaine and heroin increase HIV replication and suppress immune function, whereas epidemiologic studies are inconclusive regarding their effect on HIV infection progression. The authors prospectively examined the association between illicit-drug use and 4 outcome measures (CD4 cell percentage, HIV RNA level, survival to class C diagnosis of HIV infection, and death) in a national cohort of HIV-infected women. Women enrolled between 1989 and 1995 were followed for 5 years and repeatedly interviewed about illicit ("hard")-drug use. Up to 3 periodic urine screens validated self-reported use. Outcomes were compared between hard-drug users (women using cocaine, heroin, methadone, or injecting drugs) and nonusers, adjusting for age, antiretroviral therapy, number of pregnancies, smoking, and baseline CD4 cell percentage. Of 1148 women, 40% reported baseline hard-drug use during pregnancy. In multivariate analyses, hard-drug use was not associated with change in CD4 cell percentage (P = 0.84), HIV RNA level (P = 0.48), or all-cause mortality (relative hazard = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.98). Hard-drug users did, however, exhibit a higher risk of developing class C diagnoses (relative hazard = 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.72), especially herpes, pulmonary tuberculosis, and recurrent pneumonia. Hard-drug-using women may have a higher risk for nonfatal opportunistic infections. >>> And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete >>> immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nicely put. Well... I'm getting used to the Repugnican way of watching the "opposition" define the terms of the discussion, instead of focusing on the discussion. Most of us seem to fall for it and actually try to answer them instead of "gee, .... well, y'know... stay focused here." B/ snip >Well... I'm getting used to the Repugnican way of watching the >"opposition" define the terms of the discussion, instead of focusing on >the discussion. Most of us seem to fall for it and actually try to >answer them instead of "gee, .... well, y'know... stay focused here." The repugnicans have lots of little rhetorical tricks like that. The media seems to have become increasingly adept at following their spatterings of bullshit like humpy lil puppies, adoring, forgeting what journalism and questioning are about...or maybe they're just afraid to really look at what's going on. The incredible theft of our economies, lives, the destruction and death, etc. There's no there there. George M. Carter > snip >>Well... I'm getting used to the Repugnican way of watching the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The repugnicans have lots of little rhetorical tricks like that. I'm saying it's the same here. Someone comes in on a tangent of what you're saying to prove you wrong, and wants you do their homework. Just keep repeating "You want to show it, then show it." B/ snip >I'm saying it's the same here. Someone comes in on a tangent of what >you're saying to prove you wrong, and wants you do their homework. > >Just keep repeating "You want to show it, then show it." Oh, yes, absolutely! Actually, I have long since realized this. When it pleases or intrigues me to "do the homework" I am happy to. It's fun and a great way to learn. I enjoy it. George M. Carter > > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete > > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > B/ It seems inherently highly likely that the immune system, complex thing that it is, can be damaged by more than one thing. Why should only one thing, one particular virus, be able to destroy the immune system? >> > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete >> > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that it is, can be damaged by more than one thing. Why should only one > thing, one particular virus, be able to destroy the immune system? Nothing says it should other then the simple fact that up to this time the history of modern medicine shows only one causative agent for AIDS. That being the HIV virus. That does not prove that some other virus or some other environmental agent might at some future date have the same effects however again no such agent has been shown to exist after more then 20 years of research. If the HIV=AID's theory is so flawed it should be very simple for you to show us many other causative agents for AID's yet not a single one has ever stood up to even the minor amateur scrutiny provided by this newsgroup further more the rigorous scientific research that has gone into HIV and AID's over the last 20 plus years. Gary Stein >> > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete >> > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> If you wish to show that something else depletes immune cells below that >> level on a permenant basis it's up to you to prove it. > It seems inherently highly likely that the immune system, complex thing > that it is, can be damaged by more than one thing. Why should only one > thing, one particular virus, be able to destroy the immune system? Well, then... you should be able to find that/those causative agents. When you do, trot 'em by us. B/ > >> > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete > >> > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > B/ The word "permanent" does not occur in Carter's definitions of HIV and AIDS, which were: "HIV--the human immundeficiency virus--is a retrovirus. Infection with HIV causes depletion of immune cells known as CD4+ lymphocytes (or "T cells"). When T cell counts drop below 200, generally, certain infections are more likely to occur. This is AIDS or "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (though I prefer "Acquired Immune Dysregulation Syndrome" )." So, according to his definition, AIDS is a T cell count below 200, plus certain infections. Nothing there about how such T cell depletion has to be permanent. It'd be odd to include that in a definition of a disease. snip >The word "permanent" does not occur in Carter's definitions of HIV and >AIDS, which were: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >certain infections. Nothing there about how such T cell depletion has to >be permanent. It'd be odd to include that in a definition of a disease. LOL. Run around like worm oroborus. What agents cause CD4 counts to persistently and chronically decline toward zero? Nothing, of course, is permanent. Not even you or your silly spewings. Most infections are able to bypass or moderate immune responses, which are myriad. That's how disease arises. But few cause CD4 counts to decline. HIV-2 also does. Can you name others? George M. Carter > snip > >The word "permanent" does not occur in Carter's definitions of HIV and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What agents cause CD4 counts to persistently and chronically decline > toward zero? Obviously anything that causes CD4 counts to decline significantly will cause CD4 counts to decline toward zero if you go on doing it. >> snip >> >The word "permanent" does not occur in Carter's definitions of HIV and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Obviously anything that causes CD4 counts to decline significantly will > cause CD4 counts to decline toward zero if you go on doing it.\ Again name one such environmental or medical condition/agent that in fact causes the type of CD4 depletion seen in AIDS? You can't and that is the root of the denialists problem with this topic. You blindly believe that HIV does not exist. Claim that many things could be causing AIDS yet can never identify any single or combination of causes that result in the specific CD4 T-Cell depletion to either 0 or death which ever comes first that happens in virtually all untreated HIV infected people. Wave your hands in the air forever and your still faced with the above problem. The fact that patients disease progression can be accurately predicated based on viral load figurers, that patients disease progression can be accurately predicated based on CD4 T-Cell counts and that these two predictors of disease progression are remarkably consistent comparing one to the other and comparing both across huge numbers of patients. While the denialists have not a single thing they can point to that predicts disease progression in AIDS patients should at least make you question your beliefs. Gary Stein [snip] > > Obviously anything that causes CD4 counts to decline significantly will > > cause CD4 counts to decline toward zero if you go on doing it.\ [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Gary Stein The point here is a quite basic one. Leaving aside the fact that AIDS is defined partly by reference to HIV, which of course is illegitimate, one is told is that AIDS = a certain level of immune deficiency + diseases. The question is, why shouldn't anything that causes CD4 T-Cells to be depleted deplete them toward zero, provided that the person doing it does enough of it often enough so that cells are depleted more quickly than they recover? I don't see any answer to that in your post. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > does enough of it often enough so that cells are depleted more quickly > than they recover? I don't see any answer to that in your post. It is simply that no such agent has shown that action, that is the answer. Even Radiation Therapy or Cancer Chemo therapy do not deplete just CD4 T-Cells but rather attack the body in multiple modalities destroying white cells in some cases and red cells in others. These treatments do have huge impacts on the bodies immune system but again in a broad spectrum not the highly focused way that HIV attacks the body. Gary Stein [snip] > > The point here is a quite basic one. Leaving aside the fact that AIDS is > > defined partly by reference to HIV, which of course is illegitimate, one [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Gary Stein HIV isn't, or isn't supposed to be, something that attacks the body in as 'highly focused' a way as you claim. It is supposed to do all kinds of other things aside from depleting CD4 T-Cells, as you may recall. ... These treatments do have huge >> impacts on the bodies immune system but again in a broad spectrum not the >> highly focused way that HIV attacks the body. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >as 'highly focused' a way as you claim. It is supposed to do all kinds >of other things aside from depleting CD4 T-Cells, as you may recall. The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic depletion of CD4 cells to zero. That is the primary clinical marker. Like many infections, it has many other effects and employs a range of strategies to induce replication and evade detection by the immune system. George M. Carter > ... These treatments do have huge > >> impacts on the bodies immune system but again in a broad spectrum not the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > George M. Carter AIDS cases vary too much for what you are saying to make any sense. snip >AIDS cases vary too much for what you are saying to make any sense. Not from what I've seen. But perhaps you'll clarify. > snip > > >AIDS cases vary too much for what you are saying to make any sense. > > Not from what I've seen. But perhaps you'll clarify. "The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic depletion of CD4 cells to zero. That is the primary clinical marker." When did that become part of the definition of AIDS? As opposed to having HIV plus either a variety of diseases and/or CD4 cells below a certain number? >... >"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >having HIV plus either a variety of diseases and/or CD4 cells below a >certain number? I am describing the clinical features, not the definition of AIDS. But it is the essence of the definition as you point out. CD4 going below a "certain number" should clue you in. George M. Carter >>... >>"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it is the essence of the definition as you point out. CD4 going below > a "certain number" should clue you in. considering who you're answering's proclivity to parse emphasis others' emphasis language precisely, you may wish to amend that to 'a certain number on a permenent or continuing basis' or something like that to distinguish it from a dip caused by a transient infection such as flu or a big night out on the town. b/, without a shift key > >... > >"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I am describing the clinical features, not the definition of AIDS. But > it is the essence of the definition as you point out. Either it's the definition or it isn't. Something can't be "not the definition" but still be "the essence of the definition." >> >... >> >"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Either it's the definition or it isn't. Something can't be "not the > definition" but still be "the essence of the definition." How do you suppose that the condition that is in the definition you quote above "or CD4 cells below a certain number" comes about. Would it be logical that the decline to the >200 count in CD4 T-Cells which is AIDS defining occurs as a step in the process of "The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic depletion of CD4 cells to zero" ? There seems to be complete consistency in the above construct what about it do you not understand? Gary Stein > >> >... > >> >"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Gary Stein How is this relevant to my response to Carter? Why can't he be clear about whether "the consistent, chronic depletion of CD4 cells to zero" is part of the definition of AIDS or not? How can "the essence of the definition" be distinguished from "the definition"? How is that logical? snip> >How is this relevant to my response to Carter? Why can't he be clear >about whether "the consistent, chronic depletion of CD4 cells to zero" >is part of the definition of AIDS or not? How can "the essence of the >definition" be distinguished from "the definition"? How is that logical? Precision like this is a sign of deep idiocy, not intelligence. The definition of AIDS includes a CD4 count below 200. That situation arises because of a consistent, chronic depletion of T cells over time. It is irrelevant whether those exact words are in the definition and has no bearing on the fact that HIV exists and is the proximate cause of that decline over time. George M. Carter > snip> >>How is this relevant to my response to Carter? Why can't he be clear [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > George M. Carter Uiopp's consistent use of linguistic and semantic sophistry to argue his position is a sign of someone who's education was focused on the humanities rather then the sciences. Those with education steeped in the tools of philosophy often make the mistake of assuming that words alone are sufficient and key to the description of reality. Forgetting or never realizing that mathematics comes closer to that goal then any other form of symbolism devised by mankind. Philosophers often retreat into semantics when they try to engage in discussions about ideas that are better described by actual hard evidence represented by statistical analysis of actual real world outcomes and events. His insistence on asking "How is this relevant to my response to Carter?" to my reply is evidence of just such blindness. He does not argue that my statement was not logically consistent and answered the real question represented in the depth of his earlier posts, but rather insists that it does not answer the semantic question on the surface. Gary Stein Gary Stein > snip> > >How is this relevant to my response to Carter? Why can't he be clear [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > George M. Carter That response raises a couple of obvious questions, which I will refrain from asking, however. Thank you for discussing AIDS with me, but we can leave it here for now. snip' >That response raises a couple of obvious questions, which I will refrain >from asking, however. Thank you for discussing AIDS with me, but we can >leave it here for now. You can leave it anywhere ya like it! Meantime, play safe, use a condom and get tested. Bye. George M. Carter snip> >Either it's the definition or it isn't. Something can't be "not the >definition" but still be "the essence of the definition." LOL. You're such a f.cking dweeb. >> >... >> >"The focused effect of HIV infection is the consistent, chronic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Either it's the definition or it isn't. Something can't be "not the >definition" but still be "the essence of the definition." Is the essence of a definition the essence of the sequence of words comprising the definition, or is it the essence of that which is denoted by the term being defined? SignatureDavid Canzi >> >> > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever deplete >> >> > immune cells below that level, such that certain infections are more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Well, then... you should be able to find that/those causative agents. >> When you do, trot 'em by us. (snip) Well, then... you should be able to find that/those causative agents. When you do, trot 'em by us. B/ > >> >> > And your claim would be that nothing other than HIV could ever > >> >> > deplete [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > B/ Anything that depresses the immune system to a significant extent will depress it below a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message