Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Funny how you never see them together...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.