Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005
Mr. Noble, please explain this-
|
|
Thread rating:  |
SuperSport - 06 Nov 2005 02:45 GMT As you know "HIV" is spread by drug addicts sharing needles.
But how can drug addicts get HIV when not sharing needles...like in this study??
High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study.
Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, Vincelette J.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Needle exchange programs (NEPs) are designed to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission among injection drug users. Although most studies report beneficial effects in terms of behavior modification, a direct assessment of the effectiveness of NEPs in preventing HIV infection has been lacking. A cohort study was conducted to assess the association between risk behaviors and HIV seroprevalence and seroincidence among injection drug users in Montreal, Canada. The association between NEP use and HIV infection was examined in three risk assessment scenarios using intensive covariate adjustment for empirical confounders: a cross-sectional analysis of NEP use at entry as a determinant of seroprevalence, a cohort analysis of NEP use at entry as a predictor of subsequent seroconversion, and a nested case-control analysis of NEP participation during follow-up as a predictor of seroconversion. From September 1988 to January 1995, 1,599 subjects were enrolled with a baseline seroprevalence of 10.7%. The mean follow-up period was 21.7 months. The adjusted odds ratio for HIV seroprevalence in injection drug users reporting recent NEP use was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.5-3.2). In the cohort study, there were 89 incident cases of HIV infection with a cumulative probability of HIV seroconversion of 33% for NEP users and 13% for nonusers (p < 0.0001). In the nested case-control study, consistent NEP use was associated with HIV seroconversion during follow-up (odds ratio = 10.5, 95% confidence interval 2.7-41.0). Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with NEP attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users, despite extensive adjustment for confounders. In summary, in Montreal, NEP users appear to have higher seroconversion rates then NEP nonusers.
PMID: 9420522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Looking forward to your answers,
Sincerely,
Michael Kilduff
" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Chris Noble - 06 Nov 2005 03:20 GMT > As you know "HIV" is spread by drug addicts sharing needles. > > But how can drug addicts get HIV when not sharing needles...like in this > study?? The statement does not follow from the study. Have you read it?
The study does not test directly that question. It attempts to test whether this particular NEP is effective.
Taking part in a NEP does not necessarily mean that you do not share needles or more importantly do not have other high risk behaviours.
Not taking part in a NEP does not necessarily mean that you share needles.
In Canada you can buy clean needles from pharmacies without any questions. Drug addicts that have more money often do this and do not take part in NEPs.
Poorer drug addicts that take part in NEPs also take part in other high risk activities such as sex for money.
Now I know that because you only read dissident websites that this particular study will be the only one on NEPs that you have read (well at least the abstract).
Have you done a literature search to check whether NEPs are effective in the vast majority of cases?
That would be the honest thing to do wouldn't it?
Let's ask the author of the article you are citing as evidence.
Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that "in the vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence lower."
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56611-2005Feb26.html
Chris Noble
SuperSport - 06 Nov 2005 03:31 GMT Straw man. Pathetic little straw man.
" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Chris Noble - 06 Nov 2005 03:45 GMT > Straw man. Pathetic little straw man. Do you know what a straw man is? I mean apart from the one in the Wizard of Oz?
Can you respond in a rational way to any of the points I made?
Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Nov 2005 01:11 GMT >"Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that "in the vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence lower."
Who does Julie Bruneau work for? Mark Wainberg? (haw! haw! haw!)
How can anybody be so naïve to think that it makes a difference whether you inject yourselves with harmful drugs using a clean needle or a dirty one?
GMCarter - 07 Nov 2005 11:52 GMT >>"Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that "in the >vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >you inject yourselves with harmful drugs using a clean needle or a dirty >one? Your naivete is amply on display every day, dear.
Even if you don't believe in HIV, endocarditis has been a problem for drug users. Clean needles prevent that.
The harm produced by good heroin is less than that produced by alcohol, depending on the dose. Heroin will kill if too much is taken, so the acute effect is more dire. The chronic effect is less damaging to organs than alcohol or nicotine. The other problem with street drugs is purity, of course.
So the idea, then, is "harm reduction." It's actually better for the user and ultimately cheaper to the society to have an addict have access to clean needles and, I'd say, cleaner, cheaper drugs, along with programs to help them make other choices. Hospitalizing people for endocarditis--or AIDS for those of us not living in la-la land as you are--is far more costly than preventing new infections by providing access to clean needles.
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 08 Nov 2005 00:48 GMT >"The harm produced by good heroin is less than that produced by alcohol, depending on the dose. Heroin will kill if too much is taken, so the acute effect is more dire. The chronic effect is less damaging to organs than alcohol or nicotine. The other problem with street drugs is purity, of course."
Oh, I agree with most of what you say in this post. Clean needles are better than dirty ones, in any case. But I still maintain that what's inside the syringe is potentially more harmful than the grime that may be sticking to the needle. And especially the connection with "HIV" rates high on the bullshit index. Eh... You mentioned alcohol. What do you recommend? A clean glass?
GMCarter - 08 Nov 2005 11:55 GMT >>"The harm produced by good heroin is less than that produced by alcohol, >depending on the dose. Heroin will kill if too much is taken, so the acute [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >sticking to the needle. And especially the connection with "HIV" rates >high on the bullshit index. That's because you fail utterly to understand that HIV exists and causes AIDS. Despite ample evidence from a wide array of disciplines and research teams.
>Eh... You mentioned alcohol. What do you recommend? A clean glass? LOL....in your case, probably right out of the bottle is best. But alcohol is an excellent intervention. A glass of red wine a day? Marvelous. 14 vodka tonics a night? A plan for cirrhosis. Duh. It's about dose...and metabolism....hmmm....weren't we just discussing this?
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 12 Nov 2005 01:36 GMT >"That's because you fail utterly to understand that HIV exists and causes AIDS. Despite ample evidence from a wide array of disciplines and research teams."
Naw, I often asked these research teams what this "ample evidence" is. Never got a clear answer. Just mumbling, and things that were obviously untrue.
>"LOL....in your case, probably right out of the bottle is best. But alcohol is an excellent intervention. A glass of red wine a day? Marvelous. 14 vodka tonics a night? A plan for cirrhosis."
Absolutely true. I have also noticed that heroin addicts who have just gotten their fix, function better than someone who just had 14 vodka tonics. Yet, I don't recommend using heroin. On the other hand, our liver has the capacity of dealing with small amounts of alcohol. All these substances have an acute lethal dosage. Yet, I see with most things that are abused (even running and pumping iron at the gym), chronic effects are causing a lot of harm.
GMCarter - 12 Nov 2005 12:07 GMT >>"That's because you fail utterly to understand that HIV exists and causes >AIDS. Despite ample evidence from a wide array of disciplines and research [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Never got a clear answer. Just mumbling, and things that were obviously >untrue. There it is again. You're opinion based on the flatulence of your mind.
>>"LOL....in your case, probably right out of the bottle is best. But >alcohol is an excellent intervention. A glass of red wine a day? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >tonics. Yet, I don't recommend using heroin. On the other hand, our >liver has the capacity of dealing with small amounts of alcohol. It's all a matter of dose. I DO think heroin is an excellent option for people in chronic pain such as that related to cancer.
>All these substances have an acute lethal dosage. Yet, I see with most >things that are abused (even running and pumping iron at the gym), chronic >effects are causing a lot of harm. But they don't cause AIDS.
George M. Carter
Death - 08 Nov 2005 00:48 GMT "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> So the idea, then, is "harm reduction." It's actually better for the > user and ultimately cheaper to the society to have an addict have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you are--is far more costly than preventing new infections by > providing access to clean needles. Better, cheaper, more easily to obtain heroin, is not the cure for aids. Cement is. Pack it up an infected faggots a.shole.
Chris Noble - 06 Nov 2005 05:40 GMT > As you know "HIV" is spread by drug addicts sharing needles. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, Vincelette > J. I could of course follow standard dissident practice and say that the study is worthless because it is not double blind randomised and that it does not use matched cohorts.
That was simple!
Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Nov 2005 01:13 GMT >"I could of course follow standard dissident practice and say that the study is worthless because it is not double blind randomised and that it does not use matched cohorts."
There now! That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Chris Noble - 07 Nov 2005 01:21 GMT > >"I could of course follow standard dissident practice and say that the > > study is worthless because it is not double blind randomised and that it > > does not use matched cohorts." > > There now! That wasn't so difficult, was it? No. Indeed it was very easy.
With a few lessons from you I can ignore any study I don't like the results of without bothering to read or understand it.
Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 06 Nov 2005 05:47 GMT > As you know "HIV" is spread by drug addicts sharing needles. > > But how can drug addicts get HIV when not sharing needles...like in this > study?? Why do most NEPs appear to be effective? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=9269214&query_hl=15
Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Nov 2005 01:24 GMT Tell me honestly, Mr. Noble, if you read that last sentence:
"Despite the possibility of confounding, our results, together with the clear theoretical mechanisms by which NEPs could reduce HIV incidence, strongly support the view that NEPs are effective."
..don'tcha get an uneasy feeling too? Like they know they are ignoring a lot of variables that may play a role. Yet they zero in on the conclusion they want to reach? The part about "the clear theoretical mechanisms by which NEPs could reduce HIV incidence" tells it all. I call this Preconceptual Science.
Chris Noble - 07 Nov 2005 01:44 GMT > Tell me honestly, Mr. Noble, if you read that last sentence: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The part about "the clear theoretical mechanisms by which NEPs could > reduce HIV incidence" tells it all. I call this Preconceptual Science. I call ignoring data from a study based on 81 cities while accepting results from a study based on 1 city Preconceptual Science.
Chris Noble
SuperSport - 07 Nov 2005 05:14 GMT Mr. Noble I call it a good start on deconstructing a flawed hypothesis.
While I have your attention I would like to rekindle this problem with the "HIV as Cause Of AIDS" hypothesis.
Anthony Fauci has published in Science that only 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 T cells are ever infected in antibody-positive people with and without AIDS (Schnittman et al 1989). A British group, Simmonds et al., reports even lower rates of infection, namely 1 in 500 to 1 in 3000. Even more importantly regarding the "activity" of HIV under these conditions, they report that only 1 in 10,000 to 100,000 cells express some HIV RNA (Simmonds et al 1990).
How can a "virus" ( I quote it like that because I am skeptical that "HIV" is an actual infectious virus) cause immune collapse when it's infectivity is so small, and the cells that express some HIV RNA is so insignificant?
Now...I hope you do not respond with something about how can I prove that some books burned in a library, or how I can prove gravity. Or, how a virus causes Dengue hemmorhagic fever.
I am not interested in any of that conjecture.
What pertains to our discussion is "Does HIV cause AIDS, and if it does, how does it cause AIDS?" Since you are the resident expert and an HIV Pundit, you should be able to answer that question in the fourth paragraph in this post.
Would you please give me a direct answer to my question above, and support it with a citation from the medical literature.
Thank you in advance,
Michael Kilduff
" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Chris Noble - 07 Nov 2005 05:52 GMT > Mr. Noble I call it a good start on deconstructing a flawed hypothesis. Which one?
You haven't responded to any of the points I made or the paper I cited.
You haven't actually read any papers.
> While I have your attention I would like to rekindle this problem with > the "HIV as Cause Of AIDS" hypothesis. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Thank you in advance, Duesberg ignores the fact that levels of HIV in lymph nodes is much higher than in peripheral blood and that HIV replication occurs there at all times even in the clinical latent period. The majority of CD4 cells are in the lymph nodes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=8455722&query_hl=17 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=8096068
It is worth looking at the commentary to these two articles by the editor John Maddox.
"Two research groups have independently shown that the long and variable latency period between HIV infection and overt AIDS is explained by replication of virus in the lymph nodes. Even Duesberg must pay attention."
Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 07 Nov 2005 06:53 GMT I should add that since 1993 the paper by Pantaleo et al has been cited 1378 times but not by Duesberg.
Maddox writes "These developments will be a conundrum for Duesberg and his disciples. Will they now abandon their opinion that the 'HIV Hypothesis' is an insubstantial hypothesis, less plausible than others, that AIDS is caused by drug-taking for example?"
No. Cognitive dissonance will set in and Duesberg will simply ignore data that contradicts his beliefs.
Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 08 Nov 2005 01:16 GMT >"Cognitive dissonance will set in and Duesberg will simply ignore data that contradicts his beliefs."
Not exactly. While data are data, the conclusions drawn on the basis of them are often pathetic, especially in HIV-fairyland. My classification of John Maddox you have seen already.
Iconoclaster - 08 Nov 2005 01:11 GMT >"Duesberg ignores the fact that levels of HIV in lymph nodes is much higher than in peripheral blood and that HIV replication occurs there at all times even in the clinical latent period. The majority of CD4 cells are in the lymph nodes."
Assuming that's so: Take the lymph nodes from a person who died of AIDS, and isolate the HIV from thatmaterial. Should work, if there's so much HIV replicating there. Straightforward? Yes. Have they done it? No. Have they tried? Eh... well, yes, but they'd rather not talk about it.
>"Two research groups have independently shown that the long and variable latency period between HIV infection and overt AIDS is explained by replication of virus in the lymph nodes."
Never seen before, with any virus. But if HIV replicates there, WHERE IS IT? And by the way, John Maddox is a doofus.
GMCarter - 08 Nov 2005 11:59 GMT snip
>Assuming that's so: Take the lymph nodes from a person who died of AIDS, >and isolate the HIV from thatmaterial. Should work, if there's so much >HIV replicating there. Straightforward? Yes. Have they done it? No. Once again, you have failed to look at the literature. This took approximately 1 second to find.
George M. Carter
** Tamalet C. Isolation and quantification of HIV from lymph nodes. Methods Mol Biol. 2005;304:87-94.
Laboratory of Virology, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.
This chapter describes a standardized microculture technique adapted from a peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) microculture assay to isolate and quantify HIV from lymph nodes. This quantitative lymph node microculture estimates the number of infectious cells per million lymph node mononuclear cells. The assay, as described below, is performed in two 24-well tissue culture plates using six fivefold dilutions. Each sample of patient cells is cocultivated with phytohemagglutinin-stimulated normal donor PBMC for 21 d. The supernatant from each well is assayed for HIV p24 antigen production by the standard HIV p24 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). HIV-1 infectious titers are expressed as tissue culture infective dose (TCID50/10(6) cells) according to Reed and Muench.
** and
Cohen OJ, Pantaleo G, Lam GK, Fauci AS. Studies on lymphoid tissue from HIV-infected individuals: implications for the design of therapeutic strategies. Springer Semin Immunopathol. 1997;18(3):305-22.
Laboratory of Immunoregulation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1876, USA.
Lymphoid tissue is a major reservoir of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in vivo. In addition, the lymphoid microenvironment provides a replicative advantage to the virus in that it provides a milieu of activated target cells that allows for efficient virus spread. The process of mobilization and activation of immune competent cells directed against the virus paradoxically contributes to the propagation of virus replication. Disruption of the lymphoid microenvironment during the progression of HIV disease is a poorly understood process, which may be of considerable importance pathogenically. Studies of lymph node biopsy samples taken 8 weeks apart from individuals who did not undergo any change in their therapeutic regimen (i.e., patients who either remained untreated or remained on their ongoing nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor monotherapy regimen) revealed little change in histopathology or viral load over the 8-week period. These results with successive lymph node biopsy samples taken from different sites indicate that an isolated lymph node biopsy accurately reflects the pathologic process associated with HIV infection and that this process diffusely involves the lymphoid system. Treatment with reverse transcriptase inhibitor monotherapy of patients in relatively early stage HIV disease had no detectable impact on the viral load in lymphoid tissue, suggesting the need to investigate more potent antiretroviral regimens during this stage of disease. Among patients with moderately advanced HIV disease, switching to combination therapy from a monotherapy regimen resulted in decreased viral replication in lymph nodes; this effect was associated with decreases in plasma viremia. Despite the fact that measures of viral replication decreased significantly, the net frequency of HIV-infected cells in peripheral blood and lymph nodes remained unchanged. Potent antiretroviral drug combinations may be capable of profound and long-term downregulation of plasma viremia. It will be essential to monitor the status of viral trapping, viral burden, and viral replication within lymphoid tissue during treatment with such drugs to determine accurately their true potential for impact on these key features of HIV pathogenesis.
Iconoclaster - 12 Nov 2005 01:22 GMT >"Once again, you have failed to look at the literature. This took approximately 1 second to find."
I'm happy for you, Mr. Carter. You wasted only 1 second of your time. Could have been worse. But the papers are hot air, of course. I quote:
"This quantitative lymph node microculture ESTIMATES the number of infectious cells per million lymph node mononuclear cells." (capitalization mine)
Just up to their old tricks again: Instead of isolating virus particles, they do a co-culture in PHA-pestered cells, and from the output of that they calculate how many virus particles there "could have been" in the original sample from the lymph node material. That's not what ANYBODY calls isolation.
The Fauci group doesn't mention their method of "isolation". They just state:
"Lymphoid tissue is a major reservoir of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in vivo." Period! He who does not believe this will be charged with heresy, and has to appear before the Board of Inquisition.
GMCarter - 12 Nov 2005 12:09 GMT >>"Once again, you have failed to look at the literature. This took >approximately 1 second to find." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >infectious cells per million lymph node mononuclear cells." >(capitalization mine) Oh my god. You're not serious are you? You expect anyone to accept this as a legitimate, valid or useful criticism?
>Just up to their old tricks again: Instead of isolating virus particles, Excuse me--but they're just one of thousands of papers that have done so....this is not a critique. This is a complete load of fecal-flecked flatulence.
>they do a co-culture in PHA-pestered cells, and from the output of that >they calculate how many virus particles there "could have been" in the >original sample from the lymph node material. That's not what ANYBODY >calls isolation. "could have been" is not in the paper--that's your words for the lamest ever commentary on a paper.
With each post you reveal yourself to be even more of an idiot than even I had imagined.
George M. Carter
>The Fauci group doesn't mention their method of "isolation". They just >state: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Period! He who does not believe this will be charged with heresy, and has >to appear before the Board of Inquisition. Chris Noble - 13 Nov 2005 22:39 GMT > >>"Once again, you have failed to look at the literature. This took > >approximately 1 second to find." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh my god. You're not serious are you? You expect anyone to accept > this as a legitimate, valid or useful criticism? Each infectious cell has to be personally counted one-by-one.
I personally refuse to accept the existence of Iconoclaster's brain until each brain cell is individually isolated and counted one-by-one. Any estimates are simply hot air.
Chris Noble
GMCarter - 14 Nov 2005 18:55 GMT >Each infectious cell has to be personally counted one-by-one. > >I personally refuse to accept the existence of Iconoclaster's brain >until each brain cell is individually isolated and counted one-by-one. >Any estimates are simply hot air. Oh, Chris, Chris, Chris. Please don't make it so damn difficult. Of course, that's not a valid comparison because counting beyond one is unnecessary for the above task.....
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 01:06 GMT >"Oh, Chris, Chris, Chris. Please don't make it so damn difficult." Riiiiight! Counting my brain cells holds no importance for other people. But all these scare stories about "HIV" cause many innocent victims to get spooked, after which they are driven into a mindset where they let themselves be slowly murdered with poisonous drugs.
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 01:01 GMT >"I personally refuse to accept the existence of Iconoclaster's brain until each brain cell is individually isolated and counted one-by-one. Any estimates are simply hot air."
Well, who wants to know anyway?
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 00:57 GMT >""could have been" is not in the paper--that's your words for the lamest ever commentary on a paper."
Of course it's not in the paper. That would give their game away. But it's inherent in the method. Thy amlify small pieces of nucleic acid, amplify them with a messy co-culture, which is notoriously unreproducible, and then *calculate* how many "HIV-particles" they must have started with. And you tell me there are thousands of these stories more? How many of them did you read? I hope not too many, because that would mean you're wasting the second half of your life also.
SuperSport - 07 Dec 2005 05:13 GMT Mr. Noble, you wrote-
Duesberg ignores the fact that levels of HIV in lymph nodes is much higher than in peripheral blood and that HIV replication occurs there at all times even in the clinical latent period. The majority of CD4 cells are in the lymph nodes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=8455722&query_hl=17 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=8096068
It is worth looking at the commentary to these two articles by the editor John Maddox.
"Two research groups have independently shown that the long and variable latency period between HIV infection and overt AIDS is explained by replication of virus in the lymph nodes. Even Duesberg must pay attention."
What you and the rest of the HIV Pundits choose to ignore is that HIV is supposedly the cause of AIDS, which is a CD-4 deficiency, and yet there are thousands, maybe millions, of people with low cd-4 counts and no HIV detected either by antibody testing or genetic testing.
This "HIV negative AIDS" is called idiopathic t-cell lymphocytopenia. With such an obscure amount of "virus" in even a morbid "HIV positive" AIDS patient, and the fact that AIDS exists without prescence of HIV, don't you think it is time to investigate the real cause of low cd-4 counts?
" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Chris Noble - 07 Dec 2005 07:02 GMT > Mr. Noble, you wrote- > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > are thousands, maybe millions, of people with low cd-4 counts and no HIV > detected either by antibody testing or genetic testing. Duesberg goes to extraordinary lengths to find HIV-free AIDS cases. Even after stretching the definition of AIDS he only produces a small number for the whole world. Most of these can be distinguished clinically from HIV disease. If you have a low CD4 count that is steadily decreasing over time and an inverted CD4/CD8 ratio the probability is overwhelming that you are infected with HIV.
> This "HIV negative AIDS" is called idiopathic t-cell lymphocytopenia. > With such an obscure amount of "virus" in even a morbid "HIV positive" > AIDS patient, and the fact that AIDS exists without prescence of HIV, > don't you think it is time to investigate the real cause of low cd-4 > counts? If the vast majority of people with chronic low CD4 counts are infected with HIV don't you think it is about to stop your denial. Nobody is claiming that HIV causes 100% of all cases of immune suppression or even 100% of all cases of specific CD4 cell depletion just the vast majority. No other single factor can predict CD4 depletion like HIV serology.
> " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell > of a mistake" > Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain > Reaction. "...at the far end of the path, under a fir tree, there was something glowing. I pointed my flashlight at it anyhow. It only made it whiter where the beam landed. It seemed to be a raccoon. I wasn't frightened. Later, I wondered if it could have been a hologram, projected from God knows where." "The raccoon spoke. 'Good evening, doctor,' it said. I said something back, I don't remember what, probably, 'Hello.' The next thing I remember, it was early in the morning. I was walking along a road uphill from my house." Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction.
DavidT - 07 Dec 2005 17:21 GMT Iconoclaster - 08 Nov 2005 01:00 GMT >"I call ignoring data from a study based on 81 cities while accepting results from a study based on 1 city Preconceptual Science."
I'm not ignoring any results. I just agreed warmly with Mr. Carter that clean needles are better than dirty needles. No needles would be even better (unless medically required), because it's th stuff that's in the syringe that causes the trouble. But all that hullabaloo about HIV is rather far-fetched. Drinking from a clean glass is also better than drinking from a glass that is contaminated with Salmonella typhosa. Does that mean that drinking from such a dirty glass can get you infected with HIV? How, oh how to stop this tunnel vision? (Maybe I should heve paid for your studies).
|
|
|