Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2005
Funny how you never see them together...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 13 Sep 2005 00:37 GMT In one article, Wilhelm Godschalk said:
| >"Why do the genes coding for hemagglutinin and neuroaminidase in | influenza virus have high evolution rates?" | | But now we're talking again about influenza virus. And | that's the trouble with 'HIV science' Everything is borrowed from what's | known about other viruses. He objects when we apply knowledge about other viruses to HIV.
| >"Polioviruses are among the most rapidly evolving viruses known." | | This is hard to believe, because it makes no sense. ... | Polio virus is a Picorna virus that does not differ markedly from | plant viruses such as Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus, Tomato Bushy Stunt | Virus, or Cucumber Mosaic Virus. All these viruses are genetically | stable, and there is no imagiable reason why Polio Virus, which has a very | similar structure, would be much more susceptible to mutation. He applies knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus.
"Funny how you never see them together."
 Signature David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
Iconoclaster - 14 Sep 2005 00:18 GMT >"He objects when we apply knowledge about other viruses to HIV." >"He applies knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus." Did you think I wouldn't see these comments by hiding thm in a new thread, Mr. Canzi? I'll spell it out for you: When I apply knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus, then I pick similar viruses, belonging to the same class of Picorna viruses. When the apologists apply knowledge of other viruses to HIV, they compare totally unrelated viruses such as influenza, polio, and herpes, to their own pet virus (which probably doesn't even exist).
GMCarter - 14 Sep 2005 00:24 GMT >>"He objects when we apply knowledge about other viruses to HIV." >>"He applies knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >totally unrelated viruses such as influenza, polio, and herpes, to their >own pet virus (which probably doesn't even exist). Then try SIV, EIAV, BIV, CAEV, FIV, Visna-Maedi....
George M. Carter
** van Hemert FJ, Berkhout B. The tendency of lentiviral open reading frames to become A-rich: constraints imposed by viral genome organization and cellular tRNA availability. J Mol Evol. 1995 Aug;41(2):132-40.
Department of Anatomy and Embryology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and other lentiviridae demonstrate a strong preference for the A-nucleotide, which can account for up to 40% of the viral RNA genome. The biological mechanism responsible for this nucleotide bias is currently unknown. The increased A-content of these viral genomes corresponds to the typical use of synonymous codons by all members of the lentiviral family (HIV, SIV, BIV, FIV, CAEV, EIAV, visna) and the human spuma retrovirus, but not by other retroviruses like the human T-cell leukemia viruses HTLV-1 and HTLV-II. In this article, we analyzed A-bias for all codon groups in all open reading frames of several lentiviruses. The extent of lentiviral codon bias could be related to host cellular translation. By calculating codon bias indices (CBIs), we were able to demonstrate an inverse correlation between the extent of codon bias and the rate of translation of individual reading frames in these viruses. Specifically, the shift toward A-rich codons is more pronounced in pol than in gag lentiviral genes. Since it is known that Gag synthesis exceeds Pol synthesis by a factor of 20 due to infrequent ribosomal frame-shifting during translation of the gap-pol mRNA molecule, we propose that the aminoacyl-tRNA availability in the host cell restricts the lentiviral preference for A-rich codons. In addition, less A-nucleotides were found in regions of the viral genome encoding multiple functions; e.g., overlapping reading frames (tat-rev-env) or in genes that overlap regulatory sequences (nef-LTR region).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Iconoclaster - 15 Sep 2005 00:27 GMT >"Then try SIV, EIAV, BIV, CAEV, FIV, isna-Maedi..." That would indeed be far more appropriate. But other virus types are usually invoked because they have properties the HIV-researchers are eager to attribute to HIV. That's how I got into an off-topic discussion with Mr. Noble about polio virus and influenza virus.
By he way: When was it decided that HIV is a lentivirus now? Was that in a secret conclave? When HIV was invented... oops! I mean discovered, Gallo and accessories reported "typical C-type retroviral particles" How come they have changed silently to lentiviral particles now?
GMCarter - 15 Sep 2005 01:08 GMT >>"Then try SIV, EIAV, BIV, CAEV, FIV, isna-Maedi..." > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Gallo and accessories reported "typical C-type retroviral particles" How >come they have changed silently to lentiviral particles now? Aw, please. You can't really be serious with this kind of a question. Have you really read none of the literature at all?
Here's the abstract from one of the first review papers from 1986. Another couple from 1993 and 1994 underscores the similarity in neurological sequelae from lentiviral infections. However, a more recent paper indicates differences in genomic organization that distinguish HIV from some of these other lentiviruses.
George M. Carter
** Haase AT. Pathogenesis of lentivirus infections. Nature. 1986 Jul 10-16;322(6075):130-6.
Following infection of animals or humans, lentiviruses play a prolonged game of hide and seek with the host's immune system which results in a slowly developing multi-system disease. Emerging knowledge of the disease processes is of some relevance to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which is caused by a virus possessing many of the characteristics of a lentivirus.
** Bangham CR. Retrovirus infections of the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg. 1993 Apr;6(2):176-81.
Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Mammalian retroviruses of all three subfamilies infect the nervous system. The leukemia viruses (oncovirinae) and lentiviruses (lentivirinae, eg, human immunodeficiency virus) cause serious disease, while the foamy viruses (spumavirinae) have not yet been shown to cause any disease. This review illustrates these diseases by referring particularly to three viruses: the human and murine leukemia viruses (human T-cell leukemia-lymphoma virus type I and murine leukemia virus), and the human immunodeficiency viruses, HIV-1 and 2. Other lentiviruses cause important encephalitides in other animals, notably cats (feline immunodeficiency virus), sheep (maedi/visna virus), and goats (caprine arthritis/encephalitis virus).
** Georgsson G. Neuropathologic aspects of lentiviral infections. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Jun 6;724:50-67.
Institute for Experimental Pathology, University of Iceland, Keldur v/Vesturlandsveg, Reykjavik.
Studies of lentiviral infections of various animals and man have shown that all may invade the CNS and induce pathological lesions. This is well established in infections with VV, CAEV, SIV, HIV-1, and FIV. Although VV and CAEV do not cause an overt immunodeficiency, they share several features pertinent for the establishment of neuropathologic lesions with those that induce immunodeficiency. This holds especially true for the initial steps and early CNS lesions. 1) Infection of the CNS is from the blood stream. Although a definite proof of how the different viruses cross the blood-brain barrier remains to be brought forward there are indications that it may occur through migration of infected monocytes and/or lymphocytes into the brain. Furthermore free virus may enter the CNS, either directly or through infection of endothelial cells. 2) The lesion pattern at least in initial stages is similar; that is, it consists of meningitis, perivascular infiltrations especially of the deep white matter, and inflammation of the choroid plexus. In visna a local amplification of the inflammatory response is frequently observed in choroid plexus often with formation of active lymphoid follicles. Multinucleated giant cells are prominent in HIV-1 and SIV infections, but rare in VV, and practically nonexistent in infections with FIV and CAEV, possibly a reflection of differences in virus replication. Myelin breakdown is a feature of various lentiviral infections but its mechanisms and morphological expression may vary. Sharply demarcated plaques of primary demyelination seem to be unique for VV infection and vacuolar myelopathy for infection with HIV-1. 3) The main target cells in the brain are cells of the monocyte/macrophage/microglial lineage. In visna infected monocytes are found but evidence for infection of the enigmatic resident microglial cells is still lacking. Infection, especially productive, of neuroectodermal cells is rare, but may, however be important for viral persistence. Infection of endothelial cells occurs in the various lentiviral infections and may play a part in viral entry into the CNS and contribute to tissue damage. 4) The discrepancy between the frequency of productively infected cells and cell types infected and extent and character of pathological lesions, indicates that a mechanism other than the direct effect of the virus contributes to the evolution of CNS lesions. In HIV-1 infection evidence, mainly obtained by in vitro studies, indicates that lesions are mediated by cytokines and other toxic factors secreted by inflammatory or glial cells.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
** Olsen JC. EIAV, CAEV and other lentivirus vector systems. Somat Cell Mol Genet. 2001 Nov;26(1-6):131-45. Cystic Fibrosis/Pulmonary Research and Treatment Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Lentiviruses that infect non-primates make up a diverse collection of viruses. Although these viruses have some features in common with HIV and other primate viruses, differences in genome organization and viral gene function have made the successful derivation of vectors from non-primate lentiviruses unpredictable. This Chapter discusses the construction and application of gene transfer systems derived from four non-primate lentiviruses including equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV), caprine arthritis encephalitis virus (CAEV), visna virus, and Jembrana disease virus (JDV)
Iconoclaster - 16 Sep 2005 00:10 GMT >"Aw, please. You can't really be serious with this kind of a question. Have you really read none of the literature at all?"
I've got bad news for you. I AM serious. Gallo reported seeing "typical C-type particles". Now the literature only talks about lentiviruses. Does that mean the connection to: "Ladies and Gentlemen, the probable cause of AIDS has been found!" has been completely ruptured? Have the Latter Day HIV-scientists set up shop for themselves. Maybe because C-type retroviruses were too ridiculous, and lentiviruses might sound more plausible? Well now, then there is another hiatus in the chain of evidence: There is no paper showing that the original idea was wrong, and that HIV is really a lentivirus. As with everything else, they just assume that.
>"Following infection of animals or humans, lentiviruses play a prolonged game of hide and seek with the host's immune system which results in a slowly developing multi-system disease. Emerging knowledge of the disease processes is of some relevance to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which is caused by a virus possessing many of the characteristics of a lentivirus."
Ah yes... Lentiviruses playing hide and seek. How comic-book-like illustrating! It seems more to me like playing hide and seek with people who think for themselves. - People like me. I must say: Although I do read the literature, it is with great reluctance. Same side effects as the ARVs: Extreme nausea and diarrhea.
GMCarter - 16 Sep 2005 00:16 GMT >>"Aw, please. You can't really be serious with this kind of a question. >Have you really read none of the literature at all?" > >I've got bad news for you. I AM serious. Gallo reported seeing "typical >C-type particles". Now the literature only talks about lentiviruses. You seem to have an odd sense of what "now" means. 1986?
Dear, it's now 2005. Just thought I'd let ya know--lots has happened since 1986!
George M. Carter
lorenzo_valla@alltel.net - 16 Sep 2005 14:39 GMT >>>"Aw, please. You can't really be serious with this kind of a question. >>Have you really read none of the literature at all?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Dear, it's now 2005. Just thought I'd let ya know--lots has happened >since 1986! Yup - and today we know that Tregs are responsible for AIDS even in the absence of HIV - an experiment that is reproducible in the labs of 2005.
Where have YOU been, Mr. Carter?
GMCarter - 16 Sep 2005 14:55 GMT snip
>Yup - and today we know that Tregs are responsible for AIDS even >in the absence of HIV - an experiment that is reproducible in the labs >of 2005. Really? How remarkable! AIDS without HIV "caused" by Tregs!
I think you're making all that up! Who is this "we" that "knows" this?
lorenzo_valla@alltel.net - 16 Sep 2005 15:24 GMT >snip >>Yup - and today we know that Tregs are responsible for AIDS even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I think you're making all that up! Who is this "we" that "knows" this? Gee, George, you DO need to get your science up to date. Maybe you should read AZT Murder's science posts...
Lor
Iconoclaster - 18 Sep 2005 22:04 GMT >"Dear, it's now 2005. Just thought I'd let ya know--lots has happened since 1986!"
Yeah, like building an ever-expanding castle on a rotten foundation.
GMCarter - 18 Sep 2005 22:32 GMT >>"Dear, it's now 2005. Just thought I'd let ya know--lots has happened >since 1986!" > >Yeah, like building an ever-expanding castle on a rotten foundation. So you claim. Based on nothing but your fantasy.
Iconoclaster - 20 Sep 2005 23:06 GMT >"So you claim. Based on nothing but your fantasy." MY fantasy? While all we're seeing is a new name for a collection of 29 diseases that have nothing to do with each other, and of which several are not even infectious? With the creation of a new virus that has never been seen, never been demonstrated to exist, never been isolated? With novel cell-destroying properties of a virus class that is entirely harmless? With mutation phenomena that have never occurred in the whole history of evolution? With drugs that kill, yet are supposed to represnt 'good therapy'?
You've got to be kidding, Mr. Carter. Someone else's fantasies must have been working overtime.
Gary Stein - 20 Sep 2005 23:53 GMT > >"So you claim. Based on nothing but your fantasy." > > MY fantasy? While all we're seeing is a new name for a collection of 29 > diseases that have nothing to do with each other, and of which several are > not even infectious? Again with the Red Herring's don't you guys ever get tired of using the same old tricks? AIDS is not a new name for any disease state nor are the AIDS defining illness's some how changed or different in a person with HIV then they are in someone who is not HIV positive. The simple fact is that these illness's do not appear in young people with normal immune systems, they are thus the result HIV's destruction of a persons immune response ability. Yes some of them are not infectious and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that HIV is infectious as you well know.
> With the creation of a new virus that has never been seen, never been > demonstrated to exist, never been isolated? Even that hero of the denialist world Doctor Peter Duesburg understands that HIV has indeed been demonstrated to exist, and has in fact been isolated as does virtually all of the virology community. If HIV does not exist how do you explain the fact that it has been studied and found to be highly promising as a means of introducing gene therapies into patients. This has been tested in animal models already and shows great promise for the future.
> With novel cell-destroying properties of a virus class that is entirely > harmless? You are claiming that there is no retrovirus that can cause harm yet you are completely unable to support that claim with anything other then your personal claim of authority. Which sadly for you no one takes seriously due to your repeatedly inane and patently false claims made in your posts to MHA.
> With mutation phenomena that have never occurred in the whole history of > evolution? Again I will ask and you will again avoid answering because you can't; What is your understanding of natural selection and what effect does drug therapy have on it in a retrovirus, virus, or microbe? Further to give you an example of what I am looking for how do you explain the existence of drug resistant staph or viral pneumonias or TB. Are these also performing as you have said "magical mutations in order to resist drug therapy" or is their existence explained simply by natural selection?
> With drugs that kill, yet are supposed to represnt 'good therapy'? Again I will ask that you provide some data that shows ARV to be even 1% as deadly as you seem to claim it is. If as you claimed in an answer to George ARV can kill in days or at the most weeks how do you explain the survival of the thousands of patients who were critically ill with advanced AIDS in 1995-96 and who after having started a PI including ARV treatment are still alive today? Or the tens of thousands who have been on ARV therapy for ten years or more or as in my case from 1995 to the present (and taking AZT for the majority of that time)? Gee shouldn't all these people have died years ago, inquiring minds need to know, what is your response?
Oh and don't be clever and make the claim that no such people exist. Anyone with even half an hour to spare can contact any doctor who treats AIDS patient and ask them if they have patients who are long term ARV users and get the answer "well yes of course I do" there's no mystery here, study after study shows that the life expectancy of AIDS patients has increase exponentially since the advent of HAART therapy. Though you denialist just can't force your self to face that simple fact because it would mean that your faith in the harmlessness of HIV would have to be revaluated and that is something you simply will not tolerate.
> You've got to be kidding, Mr. Carter. Someone else's fantasies must have > been working overtime. Well when it comes to dealing in fantasies you and Paul are tied in the race to see who relies on them the most for there view on HIV and AIDS.
Gary Stein
Iconoclaster - 22 Sep 2005 01:07 GMT It's not easy to answer this post, Mr. Stein. First I have to make heads or tails out of it, which isn't easy. But here goes:
>"Again with the Red Herring's don't you guys ever get tired of using the same old tricks? AIDS is not a new name for any disease state nor are the AIDS defining illness's some how changed or different in a person with HIV then they are in someone who is not HIV positive."
It isn't? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you are old enough to remember the days when it was. The CDC has changed the definition of AIDS several times since then. Gradually, more diseses were added to the package. The last time I counted, there were 29. And yes, these indicator diseases are the same as they were before AIDS was known. And a typical disease such as PCP is the same whether the patient has tested HIV+ or HIV negative. You're absolutely right on that. But why on earth is he treated differently when he's HIV+ ? Please don't deny that. An HIV+ patient with PCP is given ARVs. until death follows. The HIV-neg. patient is treated for PCP.
>"The simple fact is that these illness's do not appear in young people with normal immune systems, they are thus the result HIV's destruction of a persons immune response ability. Yes some of them are not infectious and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that HIV is infectious as you well know."
Do you realize how much pain it caused me just to copy this? Two non-sequiturs in one paragraph! True, young people with normal immune systems don't usually get these diseases. But <groann!!> does it automatically follow that it is HIV that destroys a persons immune response ability? I don't think so... The next sentence is even more curious: "Yes, some of them are not infectious..." OK, if they are not, then what has an impeded immune system to do with them? And what to think of: "...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that HIV is infectious as you well know." Well, apart from not fathoming the logic of this, I actually DON'T know that HIV is infectious. Nobody has ever shown me. Sure, there is something in cell cultures, activated with PHA, that can infect other cell cultures, but what is it? HIV? If you say so...
>"If HIV does not exist how do you explain the fact that it has been studied and found to be highly promising as a means of introducing gene therapies into patients. This has been tested in animal models already and shows great promise for the future."
I'd say it hasn't been studied, because nobody has it in pure form. Indeed some genetic material (from what??) has been used in recombinant DNA. But molecular geneticists have a history of overstating their claims, and pretending the future of humanity is in their hands. Their results are still a little murky, so far.
>"Again I will ask that you provide some data that shows ARV to be even 1% as deadly as you seem to claim it is. If as you claimed in an answer to George ARV can kill in days or at the most weeks how do you explain the survival of the thousands of patients who were critically ill with advanced AIDS in 1995-96 and who after having started a PI including ARV treatment are still alive today? Or the tens of thousands who have been on ARV therapy for ten years or more or as in my case from 1995 to the present (and taking AZT for the majority of that time)? Gee shouldn't all these people have died years ago, inquiring minds need to know, what is your response?"
ARVs can kill in days or weeks (not at most), or the victim may manage to live with them for years. It all depends on how sick they were when they started on them. In the case of Pasquarelli, of whom your good friend Carter can so gleefully remind everybody, it was a very short time. On one of the dissident sites I read about a 13-year survivor. They were 13 miserable years, of course, but shucks... When the CDC changed the definition of AIDS (again) in 1993, it was no longer necessary to be sick, to be "admitted" to the ARV program. So a lot more healthy people with nothing to show but a low CD4 T-cell count, went on the drugs. Naturally, they were sturdier than the poor wretches of the early eighties, so they were more durable. And everybody was impressed with the success of the ARVs. Almost as impressed as their grandparents were with the use of mercury and arsenic compounds that were once used against Syphillis.
>"Again I will ask and you will again avoid answering because you can't; What is your understanding of natural selection and what effect does drug therapy have on it in a retrovirus, virus, or microbe? Further to give you an example of what I am looking for how do you explain the existence of drug resistant staph or viral pneumonias or TB. Are these also performing as you have said "magical mutations in order to resist drug therapy" or is their existence explained simply by natural selection?"
I see. Asking questions is also an art not everyone masters. Natural selection is a long-term process. It may take millions of years in many cases. So the idea of seeing the effects of drug therapy on natural selection is ridiculous. But what you're really after is the emergence of drug-resistant mutants, as you explain further. Of course there are drug-resistant instances of Staph or TB. NOT of viruses, retro- or otherwise. Bacteria are organisms. That means they are... well, organized. They have internal organelles, have their own metabolism, and produce their own energy. Viruses are or do nothing of the kind. They are dull, dead nucleoproteins while they are sitting in the fridge. Only when they have penetreted a living cell, they can set up shop, using the mechanisms of the cell that are already in place. The smaller viruses (such as Picorna- or retroviruses have a genome that is just big enough to produce whatever is necessary for their own reproduction. Antiviral drugs do not attack viruses directly, until you administer drastic stuff such as silver nitrate, mercuric nitrate, or BrCN (Don't try this at home!) The drugs that are in use nowadays, work on the metabolism of the host cell. For that reason, these drugs are not specific for a certain virus. So THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DRUG-RESISTANCE OF A VIRUS! As I have written before, the best way to remember this is to recite this sentence, while hitting yourself over the head at every syllable. After a number of repeats, depending on how dense you are, you will start to realize that these 'AIDS doctors' (of the ilk of a David Ho') are feeding you bullshit.
Gary Stein - 22 Sep 2005 04:37 GMT > It's not easy to answer this post, Mr. Stein. First I have to make heads > or tails out of it, which isn't easy. But here goes: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deny that. An HIV+ patient with PCP is given ARVs. until death follows. > The HIV-neg. patient is treated for PCP. No an HIV+ patient with PCP first recieves treatment for the PCP and any other OI like thursh they may have at the time. Then once the PCP has been under control for a period of about 30 days (this can be shorter if the patient has less then 200 CD4 cells) the patient undergoes a new set of CD4 and Viral Load tests to see if they are within the guidelines for starting ARV and if so they are offered it. Yes the guidlines do say that patients who have expereinced an OI qualify for ARV however every HIV/AIDS specialist I've spoken to knows that starting ARV during a period of time when the patient is actively fighting a OI is not an optimum scenario for the patient to recieve the best possiable outcome from ARV. Thus they wait until the OI's are under control.
>>"The simple fact is that these illness's do not appear in young people > with normal immune systems, they are thus the result HIV's destruction of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > automatically follow that it is HIV that destroys a persons immune > response ability? I don't think so... I don't really care what you think I am concerned with what the data shows and that is clear as a bell about HIV's effects on CD4 cell counts and the bodies immune system.
> The next sentence is even more curious: "Yes, some of them are not > infectious..." OK, if they are not, then what has an impeded immune > system to do with them? By the use of the word infectious I took you to be speaking to a layman (in the way Paul likes to call simple language) I should have made it clear and corrected you by saying that some of the OI's are not 'contagious, and then asked what does that have to do with the question does HIV exist and cause AIDS. For example PCP is not contagious or for that matte infectous it is an environmental issue. The fungus that causes PCP is fairly common but people with healthy immune systems don't have any problem prevent the fungus from taking hold in the lungs. It is only someone like an AIDS patient, a transplanet or cancer patient who's immune system in not functioning who has problems with PCP. PCP during the early days of the epidemic was the most common last OI prior to death in AIDS patients. But ever since some bright doc thought to try Bactrim (a sulfa drug one of the oldest drug treatments known to modern medicince) as a treatment for PCP it has become less deadly. Though in patients with a CD4 count near 0 even Bactrim is often not able to clear the PCP and other much more dangerous anti-fungals have to tried. There is a set of 4 different drug interventions for the treatment of PCP starting with Bactrim and ending with the combination of IV Trimetrexate, and oral Leucovorin.
> And what to think of: "...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the > fact that HIV is infectious as you well know." Well, apart from not > fathoming the logic of this, I actually DON'T know that HIV is infectious. > Nobody has ever shown me. Sure, there is something in cell cultures, > activated with PHA, that can infect other cell cultures, but what is it? > HIV? If you say so... Again I don't really care what you think in that you have up to this point not shown even a basic understanding of the science you purport to be an expert in. I do however care about what the data says and again we have 20+ years worth of it that shows to any one who honestly looks at it that HIV is a sexually transmitted retrovirus that has profound impact on the human body. It is one of the deadliest known diseases and it kills by destroying the bodies CD4 cells and immune system thus the patient becomes unable to fight off the AIDS defining illnesses. HIV also can cause dementia, nerve damage, profoundly alter the cells of the gut, profound wasting, and other equally profound effects.
>>"If HIV does not exist how do you explain the fact that it has been > studied and found to be highly promising as a means of introducing gene [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > claims, and pretending the future of humanity is in their hands. Their > results are still a little murky, so far. Well they have taken cultured HIV modified it to contain a particular genetic sequence that they want to introduce into a host then injected that modified HIV into the test host. They then see that the genetic sequence they introduced did in fact make the move from the modified HIV retrovirus into the cells of the host and been incorporated into those host cells genetic make up.
I notice that you don't answer any of the other paragraphs of this post why is that?
Gary Stein
>>"Again I will ask that you provide some data that shows ARV to be even 1% > as deadly as you seem to claim it is. If as you claimed in an answer to [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > realize that these 'AIDS doctors' (of the ilk of a David Ho') are feeding > you bullshit. GMCarter - 21 Sep 2005 00:20 GMT >>"So you claim. Based on nothing but your fantasy." > >MY fantasy? While all we're seeing is a new name for a collection of 29 >diseases that have nothing to do with each other, and of which several are >not even infectious? They do: an impairment of the cell-mediated arm of the immune system.
>With the creation of a new virus that has never been seen, never been >demonstrated to exist, never been isolated? But you're simply wrong about that. Too.
>With novel cell-destroying properties of a virus class that is entirely >harmless? It is not entirely harmless...and here you admit it exists? Cognitive dissonacne.
>With mutation phenomena that have never occurred in the whole history of >evolution? Now you're just babbling.
>With drugs that kill, yet are supposed to represnt 'good therapy'? They can be lethal--but there is no evidence that they are more lethal than AIDS. MOST people in the world don't have access to them and are killed as a result.
>You've got to be kidding, Mr. Carter. Someone else's fantasies must have >been working overtime. Darling: you're the one that must be kidding. About ever having taught anyone anything. At least I hope so, for the sake of any hapless students that may have stumbled into your wacko world.
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 22 Sep 2005 01:31 GMT >"They do: an impairment of the cell-mediated arm of the immune system." Oh... But then we can widen the group of indicator diseases beyond the present 29, right? We can include all infectious diseases. But didn't we know that already for a long time? If your immune system is impaired, you're more likely to 'catch' some infecious disease. My grandmother knew that (and she was older than your grandmother).
>>"With novel cell-destroying properties of a virus class that is entirely harmless?"
>"It is not entirely harmless...and here you admit it exists? Cognitive dissonacne."
I said a "virus CLASS", namely the retroviruses. HIV doesn't even count, because it doesn't exist. Reading, Mr. Carter, reading. So important.
>"They can be lethal--but there is no evidence that they are more lethal than AIDS. MOST people in the world don't have access to them and are killed as a result."
There is no evidence the other way either. 'AIDS' can be a lot of things. Some of the indicator diseases are lethal if remaining untreated. But they should be treated for what they are. Not as something requiring ARVs. What the HIV-goons want to impress upon the simple population is the idea that nothing is so terrible as dying from AIDS. Some of us beg to differ. Dying from antiretroviral drugs is a lot worse.
>"Darling: you're the one that must be kidding. About ever having taught anyone anything. At least I hope so, for the sake of any hapless students that may have stumbled into your wacko world."
Oh, I've taught various courses, at various academic institutions. Some of my former students are Ph.D.s now, most are M.D.s. But you, Mr. Carter, must be kidding about even having BEEN taught anything. Brainwashed maybe, or trained like a circus animal...
Gary Stein - 22 Sep 2005 04:51 GMT > >"They do: an impairment of the cell-mediated arm of the immune system." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're more likely to 'catch' some infecious disease. My grandmother knew > that (and she was older than your grandmother). You really are dense aren't you, the reason that certain diseases are chosen as AIDS defining is that they do not appear with any frequency in people who are not immune suppressed. It would make no sense to list the flu or any other common illness that affects the general public as an AIDS defining illness because simply it would not be one. Check the medical literature and find me a case of PCP in a person who was not immune suppressed. Check the literature and find an American middle aged male with Kaposis Sarcoma who does not have AIDS. Gee guess what you did not find any prior to the 1980's or for that matter after the 1980's.
>>>"With novel cell-destroying properties of a virus class that is entirely > harmless?" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they should be treated for what they are. Not as something requiring > ARVs. And they are, I would love for you to find me a single AIDS patient who did not receive treatment specific to there OI's if they are under a doctors care. ARV treats HIV infection, AIDS is treated by dealing with the OI's by providing specific treatments for active OI's or preventing OI's with prophylactic treatments and treating the underlying HIV disease with ARV.
> What the HIV-goons want to impress upon the simple population is the idea > that nothing is so terrible as dying from AIDS. Some of us beg to differ. > Dying from antiretroviral drugs is a lot worse. Yet you can provide no evidence what so ever that supports your claims about ARV being deadly to everyone who takes it. You make no effort to explain the fact that there are tens of thousands of patients that have been using ARV since 1995 and who are still very much alive and doing just fine. In fact many of them have recovered to the point that they are able to go back to work and lead a full and productive life even though they were disabled due to AIDS and thus unable to work when they started ARV in 1996.
>>"Darling: you're the one that must be kidding. About ever having taught > anyone anything. At least I hope so, for the sake of any hapless students [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But you, Mr. Carter, must be kidding about even having BEEN taught > anything. Brainwashed maybe, or trained like a circus animal... I find that simply impossible to believe, you haven't shown the knowledge required to teach grade school biology in the posts you've made here.
Gary Stein
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 15 Sep 2005 05:09 GMT >>"He objects when we apply knowledge about other viruses to HIV." >>"He applies knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >totally unrelated viruses such as influenza, polio, and herpes, to their >own pet virus (which probably doesn't even exist). Viruses can be closely related or distantly related, but not unrelated.
 Signature David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
AZT Murder - 15 Sep 2005 13:07 GMT >>>"He objects when we apply knowledge about other viruses to HIV." >>>"He applies knowledge about other viruses to the polio virus." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Viruses can be closely related or distantly related, but not unrelated. A sort of "viral incest", eh Canzi Pants?
lol !!
Iconoclaster - 16 Sep 2005 00:15 GMT >"Viruses can be closely related or distantly related, but not unrelated." I think that quote will be immortal, Mr. Canzi. It will make you notorious for centuries. By the way: Try to relate Polyoma Virus and Tobacco Mosaic Virus.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 20 Sep 2005 02:43 GMT >>"Viruses can be closely related or distantly related, but not unrelated." > >I think that quote will be immortal, Mr. Canzi. It will make you >notorious for centuries. >By the way: Try to relate Polyoma Virus and Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Viruses use the same genetic code as whales, snakes, slime molds, and humans. All of these come from a common origin.
Are you sure you're not a creationist?
 Signature David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
Susie - 20 Sep 2005 16:12 GMT > Viruses use the same genetic code as whales, snakes, slime molds, > and humans. All of these come from a common origin. And you know that with scientific certainty?
How is that possible when you obviously don't know your a.s from your elbow?
> Are you sure you're not a creationist? Obviously, Canzi Pants IS a creationist - a TRUE Believer.
Canzi Pants, Gary Swinestein and Conman Carter have clearly demonstrated here that AIDS is a faith-based initiative. Otherwise they would have clearly proven their case, rather than make themselves a laughing stock.
Susie
Iconoclaster - 20 Sep 2005 23:11 GMT >"Viruses use the same genetic code as whales, snakes, slime molds, and humans. All of these come from a common origin."
It's the order of the codons that matters, Mr. Canzi. Besides, snakes and humans have a slightly bigger genome than the run-of-the-mill virus. And among viruses, there is also a class difference. Some are big and complex (pox, influenza), and others are small and humble (polio, retroviruses).
Gary Stein - 21 Sep 2005 00:03 GMT > >"Viruses use the same genetic code as whales, snakes, slime molds, and > humans. All of these come from a common origin." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Some are big and complex (pox, influenza), and others are small and humble > (polio, retroviruses). Yes and has been explained to you on numerous occasions in this discussion the simpler the genetic make up of a virus or retrovirus the more common are mutations due to coding/transcription errors. Even though as is often the case these mutated strains are not as replication able as the original strain they still become predominant in the patient because they are 'more' replication able while in the 'presence' of the medication in question.
From those errors arrive the mutations that due to the process of natural selection become the predominant strain in a human host 'if' the error provides protection from a class of ARV drugs that the patient is taking. We can even see the reemergence of the more replication able strains of HIV once the drug that the error provided protection from is removed from the patients ARV regimen as would be logical because in the absence of that drug they again are now the most replication able strain present in the host.
Gary Stein
Iconoclaster - 22 Sep 2005 01:47 GMT >"the simpler the genetic make up of a virus or retrovirus the more common are mutations due to coding/transcription errors."
???? Why would that be? I'm not asking for references, but could you please give a logical reason for that?
>"Even though as is often the case these mutated strains are not as replication able as the original strain they still become predominant in the patient because they are 'more' replication able while in the 'presence' of the medication in question."
Very confusing. What you're saying is: The mutants are less replication-able than the wild type... but the medication makes them more so? If that's so, then withdrawing the medication is a godsend. No idea what the mechanism for such behavior might be, but as long as the medication is stopped, it works for me.
>"From those errors arrive the mutations that due to the process of natural selection become the predominant strain in a human host 'if' the error provides protection from a class of ARV drugs that the patient is taking."
All in the time frame of the treatment of a hospitalized patient? This must be a fantasy world. How can an error in the virus genome provide protection from an ARV drug that works on the mechanisms of the host cell? Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Gary Stein - 22 Sep 2005 05:04 GMT > >"the simpler the genetic make up of a virus or retrovirus the more common > are mutations due to coding/transcription errors." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > replication-able than the wild type... but the medication makes them more > so? No dimwit the fact that the mutation made them able to replicate in the presence of a type of ARV medication is what makes them become dominant in the hosts blood stream.
> If that's so, then withdrawing the medication is a godsend. No idea what > the mechanism for such behavior might be, but as long as the medication is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cell? > Things are getting curiouser and curiouser. God damn your an idiot or more likely pretending to be one. No not during a hospital stay the average time that a patient stays on there first set of ARV medications is 5 years some patients of course see a shorter time others longer. At some point between a year and ten years the patients HIV has mutated in such a way that the strain of the virus that is dominant in the patients blood stream is able to replicate in the presence of the ARV drugs that the patient has been taking.
This is indicated by a steady increase in the patients viral load. When this is seen the patients doctor has two tests that are used to identify the genetic mutation that is present in the patients dominant HIV strain either the Genotype test or the Phenotype test some doctors use both. At that point if the patients CD4 count is above 400 the doctor will take them off ARV for a period of time up to a month in length (this allows the wild strain of HIV to again become the dominant strain). Then they will start there second set of ARV drugs which will contain at least two drugs that the patients HIV has never seen before and according to the Genotype and Phenotype tests is not resistant to. Though with the wide assortment of ARV meds now available most doctors will replace every drug rather then just two.
Gary Stein
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 21 Sep 2005 08:25 GMT >>"Viruses use the same genetic code as whales, snakes, slime molds, and >humans. All of these come from a common origin." > >It's the order of the codons that matters, Mr. Canzi. The same codon selects the same amino acid universally, or nearly so, in all living things. They don't *just* *happen* to use the same coding. They have a common origin.
Viruses obviously use the same coding as their hosts, so they too share a common origin with us and each other.
 Signature David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
Iconoclaster - 22 Sep 2005 01:50 GMT "I am not denying anything.", Mr. Canzi. Not even the Big Bang.
|
|
|