 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005AIDS Question #1: Babies and HIV
How can it be, that fetuses are not infected from conception? HIV is supposed to be a bloodbourn disease. The mother and the child are one organism. So how can the child, that is exposed to the HIV coursing through the mother's bloodstream for 9 months, not be immediately infected? Even better, how come the majority of babies born to HIV positive mothers are born HIV negative? Does this sound like an infectious virus? What are the parallels with other sexually transmitted diseases? If the world is round why doesn't all the water in the oceans fall off the edge? Huhh. Huhh. Why can nobody answer my question? Common sense says the earth is flat! Chris Noble Because of a thing called gravity Mr. Noble. Now, would you please answer the question? > Because of a thing called gravity Mr. Noble. Gravity smavity. That's just an unproven hypothesis. Nobody has ever proven that it exists. Things fall down. Down is Down. If the world was really spherical why don't people in England fall off the bottom of the earth? Huhh? Huhh? If the earth is really travelling around the sun at 30 km/s why don't we all fall off due to centrifugal force? Huhh? Huhh? Don't come back with some nonsense about gravity I want real answers. > Now, would you please answer the question? The answer is that contrary to dissdient science the mother's blood is not coursing through the foetus. The mother and the child are NOT one organism. There is a placental barrier that stops the foetus from being exposed to many harmful substances. Viruses can and do pass through the placental barrier but it is by no means 100% probable that the foetus will be infected. It depends quite markedly on how well the virus is under control. Studies have shown a neat relationship between viral load and vertical transmission rate. ARV which lowers viral load dramatically reduces vertical transmission. A large percentage of transmission occurs at or after birth. Caesarian sections can reduce transmission as well. Chris Noble Well Mr. Noble, you raise some interesting questions about gravity. When hypotheses are incomplete or questioned they should have funding to find other plausible hypotheses, shouldn't they? I dare say that there are some amazing similarities in HIV/AIDS and Gravity. Newton-for all intent and purposes-first hypothesized about gravity and this was later dramatically challenged and improved upon by Einstein. Reminds me of Gallo and Duesberg. The original theory getting torched by subsequent research. Your description of a mother and fetus not being a single organism is noted however-as in many cases the blood type is different between the two. However, I do have some questions for you in relation to this matter. You wrote- "A large percentage of transmission occurs at or after birth". I suppose that transmission is from mother to child. Question number 1- How does this transmission occur after birth? You wrote- "Studies have shown a neat relationship between viral load and vertical transmission rates". I assume (a dangerous thing to do of course) that you are referring to using PCR to measure viral load and HIV antibody testing for transmission rates. Question number 2- What do you make of this study- Poor sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of detection of HIV-1 DNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction. The Transfusion Safety Study Group. Busch MP, Henrard DR, Hewlett IK, Mehaffey WF, Epstein JS, Allain JP, Lee TH, Mosley JW. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers, University of California, San Francisco. A series of recent studies have reported detection by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of cell-free human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) DNA (as opposed to virion RNA) in serum from both seropositive and seronegative persons. To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of PCR detection of cell-free HIV-1 DNA, we distributed coded panels containing 98 serum specimens obtained from well-characterized, infected individuals and control blood donors to the two laboratories with reported experience with this technique. Positive results were reported with HIV-1 gag primers (SK38/39) for 48 of 188 separate PCR determinations on DNA extracts from 44 serum samples from seropositive patients (25.5% sensitivity). HIV-1 gag signal was also reported for 28 of 151 PCR determinations on 34 samples from noninfected blood donors (18.5% false-positive rate). PCR for HIV-1 env DNA performed in one laboratory was negative on all specimens from seropositive and seronegative patients. Results for cell-free HIV-1 gag and human genomic (beta-globin or HLA DQ-alpha) DNA were inconsistent on replicate and serial specimens evaluated within each laboratory and between laboratories. These results indicate that current techniques for detecting cell-free HIV-1 DNA in serum lack adequate sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility for widespread clinical applications. Question number 3- Which antibody test kit do you recommend? I am curious because of the different protocols and criteria varying from country to country in regards to a mother or child being told they are HIV positive. Question number 4- Surely you agree that the criteria for being deemed HIV positive should be consistent throughout the world, and that sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility shoulf be very close to perfect? >Question number 1- How does this transmission occur after birth? Breast milk >Question number 2-What do you make of this study-Poor sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of detection of HIV-1 DNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction. The Transfusion Safety Study Group. That PCR using those particular primers to detect cell-free DNA is not as good as other techniques, or as good as RNA detection, which correlates very well with progression and infcetivity. No one says all tests are perfect, but you seem to expect this. >Question number 3 & 4- No personal recomendations - others can probably help here- but a single test should never be used, the diagnosis is up to the clinician interpreting the tests, and as with many tests there are slight differences in which ones are employed in different countries. 99.9% of the time there will be concordance- the only real practical difficulties arise in interpretation of results early on in infection, and matters become clear soon enough. > >Question number 1- How does this transmission occur after birth? > Breast milk To return to the original question - how come an HIV positive mother can carry a child for 9 months, not infect it, but when she starts breast feeding, all of a sudden the practically immune seeming child will be infected? What is preventing infection for the 9 months that mother and child share the same bloodstream? Alex > What is preventing infection for the 9 months that mother > and child share the same bloodstream? You might want to read an elementary biology textbook. Or google on "mammal" and "placenta." B/ > > What is preventing infection for the 9 months that mother > > and child share the same bloodstream? > > You might want to read an elementary biology textbook. Or google on > "mammal" and "placenta." So do you. The first cells don't have a placenta or a placental barrier. So, what is preventing infection? Alex >> > What is preventing infection for the 9 months that mother >> > and child share the same bloodstream? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >So, what is preventing infection? When do cells that HIV can infect first appear and, when they appear, how much non-infectable tissue does the HIV have to pass through to reach them?  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber > >> > What is preventing infection for the 9 months that mother > >> > and child share the same bloodstream? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber Please you guys if you must endlessly regurgitate your obsession with STD's can you please restrain yourselves a little & stay out other groups? Thank you kindly Hello David, and thank you for the reply. Your answers have actually inspired me to think of another question or 2. In regards to a mothers breat milk....wouldn't the newborn have enough GI development to destroy HIV? Everywhere I read how sensitive and fragile HIV is supposed to be....so it seems to me that stomach acids and maybe even enzymes would destroy HIV. Gallo even mentioned how fragile HIV's evelope was/is if I remember correctly. And I am under the impression theHIV positive mothers can not breast feed their children, so that avenue is likely a moot point. At least in the US that is. In regards to the concordance, I have read a sizeable amount of datas that indicate there really isn't much concordance between HIV antibody testing with ELISA and WB, and PCR-either by DNA or RNA genetic material. Take a look at this- In 1992, the Lancet reported ("HIV Screening in Russia") that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." This was the discordance in ELISA and WB in Russia. To have 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations.......that is just disgusting. And when one thinks that in Africa for example, there is no confirmatory test (usually) so those 8,000 false positives would likely be deemed HIV positive and perhaps given some very dangerous and toxic chemotherapuetic drugs. I realize having a 100% accurate test in anything is nearly impossible. But in my opinion, and hopefully yours, in an issue as serious as being told one is infected with the crud of the century, a perfect test would be expected. This isn't herpes we are talking about. These new mothers are being told they will be dead most likely in 10 years, that they are contagious in the worst ways, to go home and get your things in order for your soon arriving funeral, and to drug your newborn with the most toxic drugs ever approved by the FDA. 8000 false positives for 6 true infections. That is a worthless test IMO. > Hello David, and thank you for the reply. Your answers have actually > inspired me to think of another question or 2. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > even enzymes would destroy HIV. Gallo even mentioned how fragile HIV's > evelope was/is if I remember correctly. Who said that the site of infection was the GI? > And I am under the impression theHIV positive mothers can not breast feed > their children, so that avenue is likely a moot point. At least in the US [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indicate there really isn't much concordance between HIV antibody testing > with ELISA and WB, and PCR-either by DNA or RNA genetic material. In other words you read exclusively Dissident websites. > Take a look at this- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This was the discordance in ELISA and WB in Russia. ... in a low prevalence population. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/browse_frm/thread/792015eaa29c86 c2/2901216e03401593?lnk=st&q=specificity+HIV+voevodin&rnum=1#2901216e03401593 The combined specificity of ELISA and WB is around (29400000-66)*100/29400000 = 99.99977 > To have 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations.......that is just > disgusting. And when one thinks that in Africa for example, there is no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 8000 false positives for 6 true infections. That is a worthless test IMO. This shows that you do not understand the relationship between prevalence and positive predictive value. Please read and understand. http://www.musc.edu/dc/icrebm/sensitivity.html Chris Noble Mr. Noble- Thank you for the responses, and I did read the link you provided. I must say it revealed what a nightmare the testing really is. First, to comment on your response about *who said the site of infection was the GI?* No one did Mr. Noble. I figured HIV infection in the mouth was highly improbable as it has been shown that saliva inhibits *HIV*. In the Antiviral Agents bulletin, May 1995, p136, some NIH researchers teamed with Synergyn scientists and found that secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor found in human saliva inhibits *HIV*. They even wrote that "Various studies have shown that saliva prevents in vitro HIV infection of lymphocytes and monocytes...." I am sure you are aware that saliva is usually found in the mouths of all humans? The link you provided appears to suggest that people that are in non risk groups should not get tested. I would also like to point out that WB was used as a Gold Standard. Why not actual virus? Is it common practice in infectious viral disease to use antibody tests as a gold standard or actual virus? If the WB is such an effective Gold Standard, why is it not routinely used in the UK and Africa? I wonder how many of those ELISA HIV positives in those countries would be found to be HIV negative? Imagine the amount of HIV positives we would have here in the US if only the ELISA were used. And since when do 10,000 nuns represent an accurate barometer of our society? Expose these nuns to some STD's, some rec drugs and pharmas for the STD's, an unhealthy diet and lifestyle and so on and see how many more will test positive. Wouldn't one's antibody levels likely increase as they are exposed to more antigens? Acid in the stomach will kill HIV, sure enough. But the site of infection is the mucosa in the mouth. 2% of the cells here are dendritic cells (langerhans cells) which express HIV receptors. And infants often have mouth ulcers, teething problems and inflammed gums. HIV is spread through oral sex, admittedly rarely. So an ejaculate of 2ml with virus can cause infection. Now imagine 200ml breast milk with HIV in it, ingested 6 times a day for 6 months. Adds up to quite a considerable exposure risk, no? Hello David- Yes, that would amount to alot of *HIV* for an infant. So......if all infants-which according to you have many mouth ulcers, teething problems and inflammed gums- that are breastfed with HIV laden milk, why don't 100% of these babies test positive for *HIV*? Because HIV is not a very efficiently transmitted virus, as I am sure you know. You have sex with someone with active gonnorhoea, and chances are you will get it yourself. Even Hep B infection is not 100% following exposure, and it is 100-fold more infectious than HIV. Even HIV exposure through contaminated blood transfusion is not absolute. Also, titres of virus in breast milk may be lower than in other bodily fluids, such as blood, and one calculation of the estimated risk of infection if infected blood gets onto a mucous membrane surface is 0.09% (95%confidence interval 0.006%-0.5%)ref Ippolito G, Arch Int Med 1993; 153:1451-1458. Nevertheless, enough exposure occurs to infect a minor proportion of infants who did not get infected during labour/delivery. The prime example that springs to mind is that of the Glaser's child. Elizabeth recieved an -hiv-infected transfusion after birth, and became infected with HIV. She then transmitted it to her child via breast feeding. >Well Mr. Noble, you raise some interesting questions about gravity. When >hypotheses are incomplete or questioned they should have funding to find >other plausible hypotheses, shouldn't they? If somebody, or even a thousand somebodies, were asking if the earth might really be flat, I doubt even you would recommend funding research on the question. People questioning a theory is not enough reason by itself to justify the cost of research. The quality of the evidence and arguments given as reasons for questioning matters. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber Hello David- If it were just a thousand *somebody's* questioning a hypothesis I likely would not support funding their cause. But when it is several thousand experts in the field of medicine and science, including no less that 2 Nobel Winners and at least one scientist that should have a Nobel (Duesberg), many MD's, and tens of thousands (or more) people with the disease that are disproving the hypothesis in real time, yes , I would support funding a different view. Surely you are aware that *experts* have been wrong before where the majority accepted their views? Supertsport said: >But when it is several thousand experts in the field of medicine and science, including no less that 2 Nobel Winners and at least one scientist that should have a Nobel (Duesberg), many MD's, and tens of thousands (or more) people with the disease that are disproving the hypothesis in real time, yes , I would support funding a different view. Nowhere is there evidence of several thousand "experts" disputing the existence of HIV. A trawl through the list given on dissident sites amounts to a few hundred. When their "credentials" are examined, the vast majority of even these are not workers in an appropriate biomedical field. >Surely you are aware that *experts* have been wrong before where the majority accepted their views? Yes, experts have been wrong before. That does not mean each and every single crackpot theory that emerges is correct, which is the logical fallacy trap you denialists fall into every time. >If it were just a thousand *somebody's* questioning a hypothesis I likely >would not support funding their cause. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >more) people with the disease that are disproving the hypothesis in real >time, yes , I would support funding a different view. I was making the point with my "thousands of somebodies" comment that the number of people questioning doesn't matter. I did say what does matter, but you ignored it: "The quality of the evidence and arguments given as reasons for questioning matters." If the evidence and arguments don't measure up, the questions don't deserve research funding. When you talk about your Nobel Prize winners and MDs and Phds, you miss another point: there are Nobel Prize winners and MDs and PhDs on *both* sides. What makes you think yours are better than ours? When there are authorities (or people who sound like authorities) on both sides of a question, how do you choose? If you don't know how to judge the evidence and arguments for yourself, you don't know how to choose the right authorities to believe. If you *do* know how to judge the evidence and arguments for yourself, you don't need authorities. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "When there are authorities (or people who sound like authorities) on both sides of a question, how do you choose? If you don't know how to judge the evidence and arguments for yourself, you don't know how to choose the right authorities to believe. If you *do* know how to judge the evidence and arguments for yourself, you don't need authorities." Thanks, David! You took the words right out of my mouth! I couldn't have said it better! Bravo! You heard him, folks, start reading! Read, read, read as much as you freakin' can! Compare the dissident views to the orthodox views to each other! Do a study! Then, decide for *yourself* which one makes the most sense to you... ..it's your life. Take it back. -Paul Whiting > In article > <ba6fc489170ece3e2038557375c56990@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > evidence and arguments don't measure up, the questions don't deserve > research funding. That is correct and that is exactly what has happened. The denialists have been unable to craft a cogent argument for funding and thus they have received none. It's really very simple isn't it? Gary Stein "That is correct and that is exactly what has happened. The denialists have been unable to craft a cogent argument for funding and thus they have received none. It's really very simple isn't it?" My GOD, Gary, you're RIGHT! And I am sure that those who hold the purse strings of funding are *completely free of bias* in their decisions about who receives the billions of research dollars for AIDS and who doesn't... I now officially renounce my dissident standpoint, based solely on this incredibly sound and irrefutable argument by Mr. Gary Stein. Now, what to do with my decoder ring... >"That is correct and that is exactly what has happened. The denialists have >been unable to craft a cogent argument for funding and thus they have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >*completely free of bias* in their decisions about who receives the >billions of research dollars for AIDS and who doesn't... The only thing holding back phlogiston theory is the biased allocation of research funds by the orthdox chemistry establishment. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "The only thing holding back phlogiston theory is the biased allocation of research funds by the orthdox chemistry establishment." A theory of combustion introduced by Johann Becher (1635-82) and refined by Georg Stahl in about 1700. It assumes that all combustible substances contain phlogiston, which is liberated when the substance is heated, leaving calx or ash. The theory was finally overthrown in the late 18th century by Antoine Lavoisier, who correctly explained combustion in terms of oxidation. Oh, David, you just *slayed* me with that comparison. Ouch. How will I ever recover? If it is so simple Mr. Stein, then why are you over here beating a dead horse so much? > Well Mr. Noble, you raise some interesting questions about gravity. When > hypotheses are incomplete or questioned they should have funding to find > other plausible hypotheses, shouldn't they? I submitted grant applications for my flat earth theory but they were all knocked back. There is obviously a conspiracy against me. <snip> > I assume (a dangerous thing to do of course) that you are referring to > using PCR to measure viral load and HIV antibody testing for transmission [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you make of this study- What I make is that you are a socalled rethinker that gets their rethinks straight from sites like this. http://www.rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_353.html What I make is that you do not bother to read even the abstract or that if you do understand it you are willing to deceive others. This particluar study looks at cell free HIV DNA. Viral load tests look at either cell free HIV RNA or cell associated HIV DNA. If you do not understand the difference then you cannot make any conclusions based on the study. > Poor sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of detection of HIV-1 > DNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction. The Transfusion Safety Study [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > cell-free HIV-1 DNA in serum lack adequate sensitivity, specificity, and > reproducibility for widespread clinical applications. De Harven has been citing this article as evidence that viral load measurements are unreliable despite never bothering to read it properly or understand it. This has been pointed out several times to Dissidents in the past but there is no such thing as progress in Dissident science. When the difference between cell free HIV DNA and cell free HIV RNA is pointed out they change the subject and move onto "paradox" 2037241. A few months later another Dissident comes along and cites the same article again. In healthy science a scientist would write a retraction for the journal. In this case it is unlikely a) because Dissidents like De Harven never admit mistakes b) the esteemed journal Continuum did not live up to its name c) the majority of the editorial staff of Continuum died from AIDS <snip> Chris Noble > > Now, would you please answer the question? > > The answer is that contrary to dissdient science the mother's blood is > not coursing through the foetus. The mother and the child are NOT one > organism. There is a placental barrier that stops the foetus from being > exposed to many harmful substances. But only after a certain time. There is no placental barrier (or placenta) for the first, dividing cells in the womb. So what is preventing infection? Alex Signing my name to my previous post, Michael Kilduff > If the world is round why doesn't all the water in the oceans fall off > the edge? I fully understand that you want to change the subject. If I had to defend such a ludicrous notion of a mother being infected with an infections disease, and not passing it on to the child she was carrying, I would want to change the subject too. Alex Like they said- google "mammal", "placenta", and throw in "infection" for good measure. You want us to do all your basic thinking for you? > > If the world is round why doesn't all the water in the oceans fall off > > the edge? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Alex Have you bothered to do even a google search for "vertical transmission rate" HSV ? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22vertical+transmission+r ate%22+HSV&btnG=Google+Search&meta= or "vertical transmission rate" Hepatitis B ? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22vertical+transmission+r ate%22+hepatitis+b&btnG=Search&meta= What exactly is the "ludicous notion"? That vertical transmission rates should be 100%? Why don't you bother to do basic literature searches? Even google will tell you your question is based on ignorance. Chris Noble >How can it be, that fetuses are not infected from conception? LOL. Idiot. > >How can it be, that fetuses are not infected from conception? > > LOL. Idiot. Notice that you did not answer the question. Look, GM, I am all for debate, but if you don't shape up, you're heading for my killfile. I haven't seen a productive or coherent argument from you in years. Alex >> >How can it be, that fetuses are not infected from conception? >> >> LOL. Idiot. > >Notice that you did not answer the question. Why bother? You're too f.cking stupid to understand the reply. So, the foetus is protected from viral infection by the placenta, is it?? Counter 1: Cytomegalovirus Infection in Pregnancy When a pregnant woman becomes infected, she can pass the virus on to her fetus. In a minority of cases, this leads to serious illness in the newborn, lasting disabilities and even death. (Source: http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1195.asp ) Counter 2: Which viral infections have harmful affects on pregnancy? Viral infections in pregnancy are major causes of morbidity and mortality for both mother and fetus. Infections can occur in the neonate *transplacentally*, perinatally (from vaginal secretions or blood), or postnatally (from breast milk or other sources). Traditionally, the only viral infections of concern during pregnancy were those caused by rubella virus, cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV). Other viruses now known to cause congenital infections include parvovirus B19 (B19V), varicella-zoster virus (VZV), coxsackieviruses, measles virus, enteroviruses, adenovirus, and *human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)*. (Source: http://www.doctorndtv.com/faq/detailfaq.asp?id=7331&heading=Which+viral+infectio ns+have+harmful+affe cts+on+pregnancy? ) Counter 3 (the piece de resistance): Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection of human placenta. Transplacental transmission of HIV is an important route of neonatal infection. (Source: http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1991/jul/M9170848.html ) In other words, the person who so authoritatively claimed that HIV infection of the unborn does not happen because of the placental barrier, is hereby allowed to eat his hat. Alex > So, the foetus is protected from viral infection by the placenta, is it?? > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Alex Before you get into hat eating consider who it was that was arguing that vertical transmission of HIV should be 100% and who it was that said "Viruses can and do pass through the placental barrier but it is by no means 100% probable that the foetus will be infected." Now do some research of your own rather than asking ignorant questions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi search for "vertical transmission rate" and CMV HSV .... Is there a 100% transmission rate for these viruses? Why do you expect a 100% transmission rate for HIV? Can you see a pattern between my "paradoxes" of gravity and your "paradoxes"? Chris Noble > > So, the foetus is protected from viral infection by the placenta, is it?? > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > (Source: http://www.doctorndtv.com/faq/detailfaq.asp?id=7331&heading=Which+viral+infectio ns+have+harmful+affe > > cts+on+pregnancy? > > ) [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Can you see a pattern between my "paradoxes" of gravity and your > "paradoxes"? You wrote: " There is a placental barrier that stops the foetus from being exposed to many harmful substances. " Well guess what, that has nothing to do with the discussion, because HIV does get through. " Viruses can and do pass through the placental barrier but it is by no means 100% probable that the foetus will be infected. " So basically you can't say. Viruses get through, they don't get through... But still only 25% of babies born to HIV positive parents are HIV positive. Don't tell me the 25% are the ones not taking ARVs. That's not an explanation. " It depends quite markedly on how well the virus is under control. " But you don't know *how* it is supposed to only infect 25% of babies, even in the absence of ARVs. Alex |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.