To DavidT from worried us

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

jean013 - 10 Oct 2005 07:52 GMT

--talkabouthealthnetwork is back on-line so I repost my last message--

Friends,

Last week I wrote on this board :

>>> The specialist humbug about existing or non-existing viruses, well, I
>>> can't judge and although I must admit that sometimes the so-called
>>> "denialists" do seem to make a point, I stick to my opinion that it's
>>> highly unlikely regular science be wrong in it's overall approach.<<<

Why did I write that ? I figure it would be a terrible blow to modern
society if we were to realize that aids-dissidents were right after all
and to me the result would be a total disillusion I cannot cope with.
After all, I recently discovered that all criticism has been brutally
shovelled under for more than twenty years already and if the critics were
to be right in the end, it would imply that politics, science and media
are totally rotten and corrupt on a planetary scale.

I think you're wrong, DavidT. You wrote:

>>> Whatever the field of science, the dissenting voice gets all the
>>> attention. <<<

I object. Dissenting voices get NO attention. You may say that it's
smeared all over the web, and that's true, but even if those dissident web
pages were read by the thousands every day, the hundreds of millions get
their information from the leading newspapers and TV shows exclusively and
AIDS deniers are absolutely unknown to the masses.

DavidT, some days ago you wrote in an answer to one of my messages:

>>> What I mean by "someone like you" is precisely what you mean when
>>> describing yourself- someone who has visited these boards looking for
>>> information/discussion on the topics <<<

OK, let's restart from there. I'm looking for information and you gave me
some. For instance, you provided me with some links. I read them and one
of my reactions was:

>>> !!!! First described in 1980 but you might not get sick until several
>>> decades after being infected. !!!! This is ridiculous. We're only in
>>> 2005 so where's the wizard who can show me reliable statistics about
>>> several decades after 1980 ? And even: the idea of a virus that makes
>>> one sick twenty years after infection, I don't know, but I'd say you
>>> definitely seem to forget something if you think that that virus is
>>> the only cause of the disease. <<<

Now, if this isn't a crying example of a sheep loosing the herd. Where is
your reaction?

You wrote:

>>> But occasionally there is someone like you who comes along and tries
>>> to see what is going on, and it is important that the dissidents don't
>>> have unfettered sway on forums like these. <<<

I conclude that you've put on the boots of the sheepherder. So then, do
the job. There must be something you can write to stop me from reading
that article as a piece of hilarious nonsense while drifting away to
another shore from where I will never be able again to think of science
and journalism otherwise than totally crippled and crooked.

Take good care, all of you,

Very worried Charles Hoy and Joan of Arc

Reply to this Message

DavidT - 10 Oct 2005 12:28 GMT

I'm not clear exactly what you are getting at. My intentions are for
the best. If you've had kids, you will appreciate the frustration of
having arguments when each one thinks he knows best. Sometimes we sit
and discuss rationally, sometimes not.

You think viruses cannot have long term effects? There are many
examples outside the retroviral field. What about lymphomas, some
leukaemias, chronic hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinomas, encephalitis,
cardiac damage, cervical cancer etc. These are all diseases arising
from long term virus carriage/infection.

I agree- infections are not the only cause of some diseases. Ask a
microbiologist what causes tuberculosis and he will reply Mycobacterium
tuberculosis. Ask a social scientist and he will reply poverty. The
diseases are inextricably linked, but the organism merely uses us and
our underlying circumstances to its own advantage. If the bacterium did
not exist, it would not matter how poor someone was, he would not get
TB.

Medical scientists concentrate on tackling the pathogen - its what they
do best.

So no, I don't think HIV is the only "cause" of the "disease", but let
us address the undelying primary problem - HIV, and not get too
confused with co-factors for disease progression, transmission and
expression.

Finally, why exactly are you worried?

Reply to this Message

Iconoclaster - 21 Oct 2005 02:12 GMT

>"You think viruses cannot have long term effects? There are many examples

outside the retroviral field. What about lymphomas, some leukaemias,
chronic hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinomas, encephalitis, cardiac
damage, cervical cancer etc. These are all diseases arising from long term
virus carriage/infection."

In your dreams, Master David! If a virus has a long-term effect (I said
IF), then it also has an immediate effect, right after infection.
Leukemias?? That's something from the days of the "War on Cancer". And
that was a thundering flop. They searched and searched... and they NEVER
found a cancer virus. Because the wole basic thoughts behind this virus
hunting were bullshit.
And the rest of them... Cardiac damage??(!), chronic hepatitis, etc. are
at the very least controversial. It's about time to give all these
over-eager virologists a kick in the butt. They have had their chance,
and they haven't achieved jack sh.t.
Yes, let's address the underlying problem. And that's NOT HIV.

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 21 Oct 2005 11:31 GMT

>>"You think viruses cannot have long term effects? There are many examples
>outside the retroviral field. What about lymphomas, some leukaemias,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>In your dreams, Master David! If a virus has a long-term effect (I said
>IF), then it also has an immediate effect, right after infection.

Ah, yeah. HIV has a set of symptoms associated with acute infection.
In some people, there are virtually none. In others, it can be
extreme.

Yet again: you evince an ignorance of staggering proportions.
snip dither

>Yes, let's address the underlying problem. And that's NOT HIV.

Well, yes it is. But what is the problem from your perspective?

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

DavidT - 02 Nov 2005 19:52 GMT

>In your dreams, Master David! If a virus has a long-term effect
>(I said IF), then it also has an immediate effect, right after infection.

Check the blood counts - some people may not be aware of it, but the
changes are undeniable. And what of CMV, EBV for example? - these both
are usually innaparent infections of childhood (although if you get EBV
as a young adult it can cuase clinical lymphadenopathy). They both
persist lifelong and can cause damage later in life.
You are obviously unaware that EBV is the primary agent involved in
Burkitts lymphoma and non-hodgkins lymphomas. And nasopharyngeal
carcinomas.

>Leukemias?? That's something from the days of the "War on Cancer".
>And that was a thundering flop. They searched and searched.
>and they NEVER found a cancer virus.

HTLVs causing leukaemia is entirely imaginary, huh? If you prefer, look
to the veterinary field, where viral induced leukaemias are not at all
uncommon.
Cancer viruses? - ever heard of Hepatitis B and C (hepatocellular
carcinoma)? Evidently not. Ever hear of HPV? - I guess no chance of
that either.

God you are one medically ignorant SOB.

>Yes, let's address the underlying problem. And that's NOT HIV

So what's your own pet hypothesis then?

Reply to this Message

Brian Mailman - 10 Oct 2005 18:51 GMT

> I object. Dissenting voices get NO attention.

You mean "dissenting voices don't get the only attention."

> ...Joan of Arc

We know how THAT turned out.

B/

Reply to this Message