Always skeptical of somebody working anonomously. Look at Duesburg and thousands like him who put their name and sometimes face to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis---come on out "COn" courdance if you have somethng show us your credentials---everybody is playing the game. Who you working for G S K ...
This video is full of lies. This guy talks like this imaginary HIV is real. This guy has no clue about the basis of life at the cellular level. Whatever he shows has no real scientific fact as he has ignored the fundamental facts about a virus as HIV's existence is only messured by anti-bodies and risk factors by asking the questions about the sexlife and other risk factors during the test
just as Edward Jenner, a doctor in Berkeley, Gloucestershire, rural England, discovered that immunity to smallpox could be produced by inoculating a person with material from a cowpox lesion. Cowpox is a poxvirus in the same family as variola, why are we not experimenting with FIV,BIV,SIV ect in order to induce an immune response. If your answer is they are not infective cross species why then did a cowpox lesion allow for a vaccine for small pox?
We are. I invite you to look up "SHIV vaccine". The Simian Immunodeficiency Virus is being humanized so that it can serve as a dynamic weakened-virus vaccine and research tool. There are also some vaccines going to more distantly related lentiviruses, usually splicing non-primate lentivirus genes into a SHIV.
Poxviruses are to lentiviruses as aircraft carriers are to mountain bikes. The poxvirus genomes are hundreds or thousands of times larger and more complex than lentis.
No. Different strategies. Lentis are masters of evading the immune system: "stealth jet", and they are long-term, low infective and present a low radar cross-section. Vaccines are a challenge because they don't have a very antigenic signature.
Poxvirus are about aggressiveness and adaptation, like "tanks". They borrow cellular proteins and have more capabilities than most, but that also makes them very antigenic and vulnerable to the immune system. Thus, immunity and vaccines.
@C0nc0rdance I understand know.....geese you would think this sort of information would be easy to find but you almost need a PHD in Microbiology to get a strait answer everyone has disinformation.
I dont know how big the difference is between FIV and HIV but I can imagine they are even greater. They maybe are related somewhere along the line, but all viruses are, but they are not AIDS. It is one thing to look like, and one thing to be like.
That is from HIV researchers by the way. They seem quite proud of that. Other estimates show a 30 percent similarity. That is bad science mate.........
That I will look into. It says it is very rare. My point is that these seem very common diseases for cats. especially conjunctivitus, dermatitis, enteritis, stomatisis. Our cat had three of these diseases. I hope this is not dodgy manipulation by the Gallo team again. It seems very like clutching at straws type science again.
Cats may incur stomatitis, odontoclasia, periodontitis, gingivitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, pneumonitis, enteritis, and dermatitis in the later stages of infection.
Here we go. There is also an FIV, feline immunodeficiency virus, which infects cats. However there has been no known case of FIV infecting humans, its just too different. ???? Why is it so different?? There is also a BIV, bovine immunodeficiency virus, which infects cows. I am going to read into this, but so far I dont understand the conclusive link to Aids, and just a link to a VIRUS.
In general, SIV does not cause any symptoms in its natural host monkey species. What does this say I dont know, they inject it in other monkeys most SIV strains get macaques sick, but dont get humans sick. There is evidence of one chimp having HIV. Where can I find the articles about the cats. Are these species getting AIDS or just the virus?
You mention the animals have become immune to the virus thousands of years ago.. How do you know if they were being infected thousands of years ago without being there. I am not talking about being infected with the virus, but the Aids symptoms. What I am thinking is could it be a passenger virus, not causing any effect.
Question is. It is one thing to look like Aids, and one thing to be Aids. The actual structure of hiv genetically is quite simple. I am reading into this now but I am not sure if what they infected these animals with they died in a matter of weeks or not. Is that the case or did the virus hide for a while and then pop up like pacman gobbling up t cells, after so many years.
Concordance. You mention that this is similar to HIV, but in what way is it similar. If you are talking about this genetically, how similar is it. Dont forget we share 75% of the same dna as a banana, and 99.9 % the same dna as a chimp. Also with Aids and viruses, it is supposed to change its genetic structure. The question is how sure are you that this is AIDS in an animal. All viruses share similar genetic structure. All viruses are related in some way.
Would like to mention that the BBC has done quite a few investigations into the African infection rates. Turns out, many of the stats are simply common causes of death. Since tests aren't generally given to poor people, check lists are often used. If an individual dies with diarrhea and a cough lasting more than two months, then they are considered HIV+. Common cases of poor drinking water and lack of vaccination are driving the African infection rates higher. Unsure if this is still an issue.
@Armando51roosters There are people who are resistant. That's how evolutions works. For example, if we were to develop a completely effective vaccine for HIV, we'd be less likely to evolve a resistance. If an AIDS epidemic were large enough, it's possible that the HIV resistant people would survive, and do a great job of reproducing, over enough generations, most of the population might end up resistant.
How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? For example, I assess every new idea that is presented to me on the basis of the underlying logic and empirical evidence.
@glennpeterperez Umm... no. Scientific studies are really just finding everything we can know for sure about HIV. There is no evidence that it "chooses" to infect people. None. I don't know what articles you're reading, but the only people I hear saying anything close to that are religious nutters who tend to claim AIDS is punishment for sin.
Do you know how/when the viruses crossed species? if it could survive from lions to house cat -old world to new world monkeys..could it cross bonobo to human?
not that i'm worried my bonobo and i are just friends...honest!
i'm looking for the evolution of _IV. Was it in our common ancestor?
It appears to have jumped multiple times, based on molecular evidence of S/HIV sequences in the genome of humans in Africa.
HIV-1 and 2 are from different zoonotic cross-overs, and some SIV strains can permissively infect human T-cell lines today.
The genetic potential for human infectivity seems to be there in many of the SIV strains, and we may have been going back and forth with the SIVs for centuries.
I won't tell anybody about your bonobo "friend" : )
As good as I know there were few denialists who actually died because of AIDS (ie. died from diseases because their immune system shut down) and they usually stood firm in their beliefs until the end.
im sorry for coming on here and flaming a few people, but i do have a more intellectual question for you. that being where did hiv come from? i was reading that the polio vaccine hypothosis was descredited is this true?
I think the scientific consensus right now is that HIV is likely to be a relative of SIM (simian immunodeficiency virus). Some hypotheses are that it crossed into the human population through perhaps hunters who were in close contact with blood. The monkey fucking hypothesis has been largely discredited lol
@toothpaste100 Monkey, aids thing+ other things big scam as well. Many problems have been helped by upper cervical specific a classic case is Montel Williams MS ,doctors were having a field day giving him pharmaceuticals. Have an Atlas orthogonal, one good technique, and he suddenly begins to get better. Look it up,. I have done so much studying on this you could no way comprehend how much. I am gaining noting by doing this, only but losing hours of sleep trying to wake people up.upcspine,
@toothpaste100 well the one i saw a docu on that made a lot of sense was that it came out of a experimental polio vaccine developed by belgian scientists who used chimp kidneys for the polio vaccine, and that these chimps or bonobos had siv and that it got transfered into the children immunized. the first recorded outbreaks occured coincide perfectly with the age those children would have reached sexual maturity long enough to spread it to plenty of people (about 10-15 years after exposure).
@toothpaste100 just google "OPV AIDS hypothesis" they say its refuted but it was refuted by that molecular phylogenetic studies contradicted it and disproved it, but being that my field of science was paleontology i dont know how accurate it can be to determine age in viruses. the problem now is, if the jump happend medically no one wants to be the doc who made aids, so everyone will deny everything. so who knows.
I knows. The epidemiology of AIDS is very clearly not by iatrogenic spread. For one thing, HIV (and SIV) is incredibly fragile. It could never have survived long-term storage in a cell-free vaccine solution at room temp with the slightest amount of detergent. Unless intact, live monkey cells were being injected with the vaccine, there is virtually no chance of vaccine-born transmission.
HIV needs blood-blood contact. It is not like HepC that can survive in the environment.
The nature of vaccination is that it crosses all boundaries of race, income, age, etc. If HIV were vaccine-borne, we would have seen geographic and date of injection clustering (all the GRIDs cases got their injection at a small subset of clinics, or a particular lot of vaccine).
That would have been picked up in the first months of the outbreak. Instead, we see demographic clustering, followed by general spread. Consistent with point source transmission aka index cases.
see but thats the exact reason i find the age hypothesis to be unreasonable, given the population, sexual habits, and social habits of the people living in that area, who i might add have been eating chimp meat occasionally for the past few thousand years, aids sort of suddenly appears, with no historical record of any kind. if it had been around since the 30s when there were plenty of western doctors there to record it, that it would have been noticed. but again i dont know a lot about this.
You're in luck. This was actually the topic of my dissertation. The reason HIV "suddenly" emerged is the shift in lifestyle from a primarily macrophage-tropic to a T-cell tropic virus, and the emergence of the vpr/vpu open reading frames. Prior to that, SIVmac, for example, would have been non-lethal. It's quite likely that SIV has made the jump before, invisibly to clinicians, but we only know about this time because of the pathology.
I'd link you to my papers... but I like anonymity.
@FUBUXGEAR I will save you a lot of trouble.Totally ignore the pharmaceuticals altogether. Those humans are not interested in your health at all. Humans languishing in hospitals with all kinds of named things.
Some of the medication is needed for surgery, and things like that dentists, and the like, but not much much more than that..
@kobidobidog and most of the people languishing in hospitals would be languishing in graves if not for those pharmaceuticals. opiod dependence is often a small price to pay for a life free of debilitating pain.
@kobidobidog no it hasnt, you have no proof, you have no evidence, you are just a furfag with delusions who lives in a warped little world that lives inside a glowing computer monitor.
To say aids exist is to say God made it, nothing exists that God did not make. Satan wants to blame the misery of the world on God. God did not make aids, host of other doctor named ailments humans give drugs in a vain attempt to help. To listen to this man is like listening to the deceptive serpent in the Garden of Eden. A shifted atlas partially closing the door to the nerve's exiting the brain that gets worse over time more that likely from birth is the beginning of a worsening problem.
To say aids exsits is to say God made it because nothing exsits that God did not make. Satan wants to blame the missery of the woeld on God and God did not make nyther did anyone else this thing called aids and ther host of oyher doctor nam,ed things.
Aids is a demonic lie, upper cervical specific has helped so many people with doctor named things that it is staggering. Read upcspine evidence, scientific studies as one example, Have humans be treated, and watch how many diagnoses are reversed. Pharmaceutical companies are using the recreational drugs as a smoke screen to their own drug trade; Need More U, C, S, Sherman Collage, AO, good technique. Upcspine practitioners, knee chest good, if near you use it, all ages as soon as possible!
@toothpaste100 NO,Aids, H1N1,host of other doctor named things exits only to enrichen pharmaceutical, industry. They really don't care about you. To buy into it is to believe God would give you a bad gift. God is a Good God that would not to do that. What he created is very good. Upper cervical specific is very too. Learn about it on upcspine. Knee chest is good too, that is a technique.
This is the answer to prevent, and help humans with existing conditions. Spinal Disk health is important.
@kobidobidog except that there is no reason for the pharmaceutical industry to invent aids when they have no cure and no way to profit, they dont even do research into cures for aids, thats mostly medical colleges. you are a complete moron. i suggest you end yourself before your own form of mental aids spreads.
@FUBUXGEAR Look at upcspine evidence scientific studies 10 one down on the list. this needs to be done even more. You are missing the best health care, and preventable care thre is. Don't be like the humans who scoffed at Noah before the rain came. You will not be disappointed if you listen to me many will thank you for taking me seriously, and acting on my advise. You will thank me when you have this care,can tell you if you will need an adjustment to your atlas or not. They are good people.
As for your scientific evidence, I tried to google "upcspine evidence scientific studies 10" and found nothing. Take the time to write your sentences clearly so that we can understand you, because your posts are essentially a train of jibberish with some meaning hidden somewhere.
@toothpaste100 Go to upcspine, first, then look for"evidence, click on that, ,then look for scientific study's,Click on that.You will get a list, and it will be the 10th one down on the list.
@kobidobidog you advocate beastiality, then you say all of lifes problems are caused by a mystical vertebrae, you are simply retarded. i suggest killing yourself.
@toothpaste100 a twisted spine=a very bad problem will occur. Beginning can start years before you are aware of a problem. Pharmacologists are having a hay day. Stop there gravy train of deadly toxins. Learn U, C, S, only, Sherman Collage. AO is one technique, learn, upcspine, When you get to that collage. Avoid techniques that practice cavitation, popping of the joints, does not adjust a thing. Popping you knuckles, that adjusts nothing diversified, full spines chiropractors do that, avoid.
There is no science linking chiropractic ideology to any physiological effects. I'm pretty sture (and shoot me if I'm wrong) Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, or any messenger of divinity said anything about chiropractic technique, so for all I know it may be "created by the devil", as you say about diseases. Also, where can I purchase a "Sheman collage", as it sounds like a beautiful piece of art. I'm a big collector of collages and the collage technique, so I'm glad to meet a fan
@toothpaste100 Not talking about full spine, diversified,mixers all of which have muddied the waters. Talking about upper cervical specific. They wanted to be separate from the bad chiropractic. I am directing you to what is good. I am an upper cervical advocate. I am directing you in the right way for everyone. Whoever has to reverse their thinking that the pharmaceutical industry has made you think? Sherman collage is where you learn that trade. This is not demonic, I can assure you of that.
Dude did you hear that whooshing sound? Its the sound of a joke going over your head... Sherman collage is spelt 'Sherman College', which you still describe it as. A 'collage' is a piece of art composed of fragments.
Man, if your chiropractor makes you feel better, then that is totally cool. My friends, when they go to church, feel great after too! Science DOES NOT back up chiropractors and nor does it back up creationists, but if it works for you, use it! Don't lie about it.
@toothpaste100 I am not telling you a lie at all. What I am telling you is real.. The longer whoever Waits to get help the more internal damaged is going to occur due to spinal imbalances wearing away at your spinal disks, and what wear occurs is irreversible.Time is of the essence to get evaluated and treated. keep appointments to to be sure the whole body is improving.
@kobidobidog oh so those big pharmaceuticals are using hiv as an excuse to get people to buy drugs (that dont exist), but the retards that run that site arent lying at all to get you to shell out half a grand to get your back popped. NOTHING SUSPICIOUS THERE AT ALL!
Especially since those "studies" he directed me towards were from journals of chiropractic medicine (for the most part). Considering that the vast majority of chiros believe in "subluxations", which are medically disproved (other than real dislocations, that share the same name, sadly) and other quackery, I'd hardly call them skeptical.
@toothpaste100 while i do believe there is some merit from the point of view of relaxing muscles and mechanical tensions that occur, a lot of the dogma around chiropractors reminds me of all the various medical fads that have come and gone, like the one involving bumps on your head showing that you are a killer, or that laylines cause you to be sick, or best of all that alien ghosts called thetans are haunting your body.
Yeah totally, my uncles a massage therapist; I know that works atleast! The problem comes when a massage therapist decides his healing hands can get rid of your heart condition or cure your deafness... of course if this happened now, instead of in the late 19th century, well, we probably wouldn't even know what a chiropractor is (or whatever it is FUBUXGEAR goes to) since they would be the laughing stock of the medical community.
Explain to me how subluxations affect nerve transmission. Nerve impulses are quantified; they are either transmitted for not. This is easily verified with electrographs. As for how chiro can help an AIDS patient; the specific immune response does its job fine without any interaction with the central nervous system, so how can you justify any statements about chiro helping an HIV infection with a straight face?
@toothpaste100 pharmaceutical companies have pulled the wool over your eyes on so many things it is not funny. When the atlas is mechanically tilted shifted it will rub up against the nerves that surround that bone, shifted more than likely at birth. That mechanical shifting has a domino effect down the entire spine that asymmetrically begins to wear down the disks. When you see a person popping their neck that is an advanced spinal problem staring at you, a symptom of a primary cause,.
@kobidobidog how could unformed bone shift? your bones are still malliable at birth, or its more likely that modern back problems are caused by poor posture and not a misaligned vertebra. or maybe you are just genetically diseased kobi. that seems far more likely.
i do have another question though. I could have sworn that when taking my biomed course last semester and we were learning about aids my teacher brought up a picture that was supposed to be the HIV virus and he said that this is what we THINK hiv looks like and that no one had actually isolated it yet. a very vague memory but just came to me.
I can lay my hands on dozens of electron micrographs of HIV budding from monocytes in culture.
Lentiviruses tend to be fragile and smaller than the wavelength of visible light. It's easier to assay for the DNA, RNA or protein components than an intact particle.
Seriously, if you have lingering doubts, I would recommend sitting down with a medical researcher at a local university. The Internet is so full of false information, go to the source. Ask a real expert.
If I get any more interested maybe I will do that but right now I am too overwhelmed with other areas I am studying. This was just a quick thing that bothered me. I dont really have much doubt in the current status quo of HIV. thanks for the info though
@C0nc0rdance ya kobidobidog here is pretty full of misinfo, imo id say that hiv is at least linked, not everyone who has hiv gets aids, but everyone who gets aids has hiv, and siv is linked to the simian equivilant of aids the name of which i cant remember at the moment.
does that map at 2:49 say that america is one of the most hiv infected places on the planet!!!!! AAHH!! that sucks big time!!
david rasnick, "the best evidence against the hiv hypothesis is that there is no evidence for it. In the vast scientific medical literature we cannot find anywhere that hiv causes aids, that aids is a contagious disease, or that it is even sexually transmitted" he then just asks who has proven this. what do you have to say to that quote?
"In June, 2008, the South African Cape High Court ruled against Rasnick and other defendants associated with the Rath Foundation, declaring their vitamin trials illegal and prohibiting the publication of false advertisements for vitamins. The Court also stated that health authorities in South Africa have an obligation to investigate and stop illegal activities of Rasnick and the Rath Foundation."
Is the statement of his quote true or untrue? I am not interested in what he has been convicted of. An untrue statement from a lier should be just as easily discredited as an untrue statment from someone honest.
I am asking you because you seem to have more knowledge on this subject than I do. I don't know what to make of his statement other than it is coming from a berkley professor that developed protease inhibitors that are commonly used for people with AIDS
Rasnick was NEVER a professor at UC Berkeley. He was a "visiting scholar", which is a pretty meaningless term.
He did not "develop protease inhibitors". They were well documented in the 1950's.
He was a staffer at a small biotech that became part of Merck. His project was on arthritis and malaria, not HIV. He has a PhD in chemistry, and has never done any viral research.
He has 18 papers since 1978. For comparison, his graduate advisor at G.I.T., Dr. JC Powers, has 200. Pretty poor.
Are there papers that demonstrate that HIV is infectious? sexually transmitted? that HIV causes AIDS?
Absolutely.
But these things aren't accomplished in one paper. Science is about answering a single question at a time with well-controlled evidence. You shouldn't expect to find all the evidence in a single document for ANY virus.
If you want a bibliography on HIV and it's etiological role in AIDS, I can PM you some articles to read. Or, better, I can locate a lab for you to visit.
@C0nc0rdance and that statement concordance (the "scientific papers focus on one problem at a time" one) is why such skeptics and mystics continue to pervade modern society, people want all their answers wrapped up easily and have trouble believing anything that isnt plainly spelled out. that is of course a problem with the occasional individual.
Nancy Padian making assumptions about risk of transmission based on this study is suspicious. Because in the prospective part, there is no new seroconversions.
If conversion is not important to you then why is HIV?
Conversion leads to AIDS, so indirectly it is an important end point in this theory and needs to clearly verified. Even if only one element of the HIV-AIDS theory is wrong, then the whole construct might turn out incorrect.
There were 3000 couple-months in the study. 25% of them failed to use condoms, at least PART of the time. Assume 4 sexual encounters per month, that's 3000 contacts in the non-compliant population. Transmission is 5-10 per 10,000. We would expect 1-3 infections in a Poisson distribution. We got zero. That's 1-3 less than expected.
HIV isn't EASY to get by normal hetero contact, but it happens every day.
What about the transfused population? Does that data support your hypothesis?
OR at least its UNPROVEN to ME. And since I have adequate graduate education in a related field I can tell you when something looks this suspicious, and I will never again believe this theory, until somebody provides adequate proof.
"That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success.... Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade."
I just read the article Nancy Padian. Don't tell me I'm wrong, cause Its right here, it says, that in the prospective part of her study, no partners of HIV infected people got infected, during her observation of 175 couples. Max time of observation was 6 years. HIV causing AIDS theory IS A LIE !!!
You say you have a graduate level understanding. But you are citing a study that doesn't even test the HIV-AIDS theory. AIDS endpoints were not included, merely conversion.
What is the p value significance of HIV seroconversion status for AIDS diagnosis? Are there any more relevant markers?
What is the OR for HIV seroconversion status with regards to AIDS diagnosis. What about CD4+ circulating cell in peripheral blood compartment, does that also correlate with disease state?
Once the truth gets out about equine infectious anemia virus, they will retroactively de-fund the research I did on a horse virus 9 years ago. Boy, all those vets will be missing the hundreds of dollars spent on FIV treatments, too ...
As a health science student earnestly trying to understand this whole HIV/ AIDS thing from many different angles, I am deeply concerned about the fact that with so many people suffering badly whilst their fates are bandied about between feuding scientists, AIDS organisations and government policy makers, here we have pedantic pissing contests between people on public forums putting each other down and creating personal feuds, mixing up the thirst for truth with the need to protect their egos...
There is NO scientific debate about whether HIV exists or is the primary causative etiology in AIDS. All that exists is Internet conspiracy theories and fringe people.
If you are interested in the sociology of denialism sub-culture, I suggest Seth Kalichman's book: "Denying AIDS" in which he infiltrated the denialist inner circle.
But if you want the real science, find a real HIV researcher or doctor and talk with them. Don't ever take medical advice from the Internet.
I guess there's no excuse for you not doing your own research. It's not a question of who you're going to believe. This is not ghostbusters. Where's the scientific articles showing that HIV exists, that HIV tests have been validated, that transmission patterns are sexual, that AIDS drugs are better than a placebo?
David, your problem is that you've chosen an outcome beforehand, and now you've gone looking for any information that supports that outcome. Your ability to be critical ends at your own skin.
Your standard of proof is that a single paper must contain all the proof for a causality link. That's not how science works. It works by overturning/failing to overturn a well-supported hypothesis with tests and evidence.
If you want to disprove HIV-AIDS, pick up a pipettor and get to work, man.
I never asked for a single paper with everything. A good start would be a single paper, or even a group of papers, addressing one of my major concerns.
David are you somehow Asserting HIV is not a real virus? Have you not bothered looking on PubMed? The articles and papers are there. It has been extensively documented, We know quite a bit about its structure and its
constituent proteins. Are you positing a conspiracy theory or have you merely not looked on any peer reviewed medical journals for your answers?
I have read over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on HIV alone. Not one of them documents the purification of HIV. Not one of them documents the validation of an HIV test. Not one of them proves that sexual transmission occurs. Not one of them documents a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of an AIDS drugs (save the early AZT trials which really weren't any of those things).
2,000 papers eh? That sounds dubious given your position. Like i said. This virus has been extensively studied. We know it exists, it is no more invented then any of its relatives. Active Attempts to produce vaccines against it are detailed in the peer reviewed literature but have had little effect for number of reasons. And yes it has been isolated despite Conspiracy theorists claim to the contrary. We even have its Genome sequenced.
Well, give me the name of a citation proving purification. Maybe it's the one that got away.
And I was wrong on the 2000. It's only 1,474. Plus about the same amount of non-scientific documents including government reports, manufacturer information, newspaper and magazine reports, etc. Apologies for that.
Culture supernatant was filtered and centrifuged. Clearly not pure. They said this "concentrated" the virions, not purified. They were then centrifuged again (52000 rpm, 75 min) and then gradient fractions were collected. Still not pure.
Then, "The virus concentration in each stock was quantified using an in-house [assay] specific for p24gag protein". Quantified, not purified. Purification appears only in the title of this section.
See what happens? He moves the goal posts. How exactly, David, do you think we purify any virus?
The paper is about cell free supes, and all the exosomes were resolved away. There is nothing biological left in that suspension that is not a virus. Hence, it is purified virus. I can give you a stack of other pubs that purified to cell-free virus, but why bother?
It's a combo of your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to be self-critical that makes you a denialist.
Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates. Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates. Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.
-- Dr. Wikipedia. Koch is not the Bible, David. Viral diseases don't grow in pure culture. They are many times smaller than a human cell, are more fragile, and more heterogenous.
Your inability to comprehend them, and your ignorance of virology, does not have any bearing on the very real diseases they cause.
Any thoughts on the non-primate lentiviruses? They don't exist either, I suppose?
Koch's postulates are logical, not scientific. If they cannot be fulfilled there is no logical connection between a pathogen and a disease. Virologists have tried to wriggle out of Koch's postulates for the entire duration of the subject, even prior to the 1930s when visualizing viruses was impossible and all the evidence for their existence was negative, not positive. With the electron microscope it was possible to find lots of small particles, but were they viruses?
"If they cannot be fulfilled there is no logical connection between a pathogen and a disease."
Says who? Where is it written?
Many diseases have a causative role, but in a non-deterministic way. Not every infected person has the disease, or there may be a long silent period, or the infection may lead to a secondary pathology. Koch's postulates would miss ALL of these things.
Syphilis and neurodegenerative disease, Helicobacter pylori and ulcers, nvKJD, HHV6 and MS.
I've heard of this idea of HIV/Aids being a "conspiracy" before but never gave much attention to it as it sounded so absurd but I realized through some of your vids that there are actually some people defending the idea.
But what would be the aim of such conspiracy? Who do they(the ones that do believe in it) claim is behind it and why would they do it?
They think it's the pharmaceutical companies and the research labs. The idea is that a great deal of money has been spent on AIDS research, treatment, and diagnosis. But diabetes, obesity, women's health/fertility, asthma, cancer, heart disease are all more profitable categories.
If someone really wanted to invent a disease, they should come up with one that only affects rich people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The idea is that a great deal of money has been spent on AIDS research, treatment, and diagnosis. But diabetes, obesity, women's health/fertility, asthma, cancer, heart disease are all more profitable categories."
Does one exclude the other?
"If someone really wanted to invent a disease, they should come up with one that only affects rich people."
Why would they limit themselves to rich people alone? Dont the rich thrive on the many as well?
Here's a challenge. Find citations to the scientific data that backs up the graph at the 4 minute mark. My working hypothesis: You won't, because that graph is fraudulent, despite it having been replicated many times.
Predicting progression to AIDS: combined usefulness of CD4 lymphocyte counts and p24 antigenemia.
MacDonell et al.
Am J Med. 1990 Dec;89(6):706-12.
"Our data indicate that p24 antigenemia can first be detected with moderate CD4 cell depletion, is associated with a more rapid decline in the CD4 lymphocyte population, and combined with CD4 lymphocyte counts is useful in identifying individuals at significantly greater risk of disease progression."
Viral DNA and mRNA expression correlate with the stage of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 infection in humans: evidence for viral replication in all stages of HIV disease.
J Virol. 1992 January; 66(1): 310316.
Michael et al.
"We have studied viral DNA, genomic RNA, and spliced mRNA expression of HIV-1 in infected patients with a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. Viral RNA expression is detected in all stages of infection."
"is detected in all stages of infection" hardly sounds like they are claiming that there are any specific patterns. And what about people with "undetectable" viral load?
But you have agree with me that the graph is not based on data. That means it's fraudulent. It's a vision (perhaps hallucinogenic) of what scientists wish was true, not what is true.
Whoa, hoss. Fraud is claiming something is true that isn't.
This is a generalized graph, like a diagram of a human body that doesn't have wrinkles, scars, or tattoos. It's not meant to be a set of rules, just an idea of typical progression.
You're committing the mapmaker's fallacy of assuming that the map is the territory. Likewise, graphs are not the real values. They are reductions of observations. Philosophy of Science 101.
"Reductions of Observations" means derived from data. You've admitted that this graph is not derived from data. Therefore it is fraudulent. Certainly maps are derivations of data, and they always omit something, but what they show is based on data, whether it's altitude, vegetation type, population density, roadways or whatever. The graph you showed is like the map of Narnia. Enhances a great work of fiction, but shouldn't guide health decisions.
Now you're taking it too far. I said it was a generalized graph. It is based on data. I posted two papers where the data matches what is on the graph. You're playing "let's quibble over minutia" and it's not a game I play.
The data in the two papers you sent me did not match this graph. They were talking about averages, and one of them didn't even have a graph. The other had several graphs, but they were various illustrations of the fairly weak correlation between viral load and CD4 counts. There was nothing in those two papers anything like the graph at the four minute mark of your video. That graph is fraudulent and clinical guidelines based on the belief that CD4 counts are diagnostic are also fraudulent.
I'm getting tired of your dogged denialism. Here's a paper in the Lancet from this year. Read it, don't just skim it looking for holes.
Lancet. 2009 April 18; 373(9672): 13521363.
It has something very useful to tell us about how doctors should direct treatment. When you can tell me what the message is in your own words, come back and tell me what you think it is.
First you quote papers from the early 1990s saying that we knew all this back then, then you quote a paper from 2009 that says "The CD4 cell count at which combination antiretroviral therapy should be started is a central, unresolved issue in the care of HIV-1-infected patients". Unresolved as of 2009!
And then it's not saying anything about the pattern of CD4 counts over time except that there's a relatively small benefit (1.28 hazard ratio) to starting therapy at higher CD4 counts.
Find schematic representation from an online encyclopedia which outlines the natural history of HIV infection for a lay audience, and then play the "show me the ONE study" rhetorical game so beloved by denialists.
Of course, there is no ONE single study underpinning what is represented there. It is based on literally housands of pieces of evidence. This, of course, gives you thousands of opportunities to misrepresent and quote mine.
If I calculate the average June 1st temperature for Omaha I would hope that was based on temperature measurements. For the graph in this video what we have is an admission that the graph is not based on data points, but on the beliefs of the scientists who drew lines on a piece of paper divorced from the constraints of using actual data. That's why the graph is fraudulent.
Quote mining is a form of dishonesty, David. Why do you do it?
If you read the study (or even the title) you would realise that viral DNA and mRNA expression correlate with the stage of HIV- 1 infection. Do you know what "correlate" means? It means a pattern was observed.
The second important finding of evidence for viral replication in all stages of HIV disease indicates there is no period of true viral latency. This is important, but in no way contradictory to the first.
Commercial viral load tests have a detection cut-off of 50 or several hundred copies per mL. An "undetectable" viral load means a viral load below the cut-off for the test, not zero. That's why they say "undetectable", not zero.
A large amount of data may lead to a correlation and to statistical significance. But is the correlation good enough that you can work backwards from a single data point to an accurate prediction of where someone is on the supposed CD4 decline curve?
Often they do. A single CD4 count under 500, 300, 200 or whatever the magic limit is (interesting that they're all multiples of 50) can cause many doctors to say "You must start drugs now before it's too late". That's a life altering (possibly life-terminating) decision based on a single data point.
Is this based on your years of experience as a practicing physician? Or are you failing to cite support for your statement because it has none?
The standard of care is based on the judgment of a highly trained professional, using a variety of factors, and in consultation with the patient. Generally, a CD4 count of below 350-200 is a warning sign for a physician that the patient may be progressing to a more severe chronic state, but this is not a computer algorithm.
Standard of care is based on treatment guidelines, written by people who codify their prejudices (and financial conflicts of interest) knowing that doctors will slavishly follow, e.g. "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. DHHS. 2008 Nov 3" and "Guidelines for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections among HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children. NIH. 2008 Jun 20". But what about that graph? Now it's "judgment", not data?
I see you like to appeal to emotions instead of reason.
Have you ever spent any time with practicing doctors? Do they seem like slaves to you?
Who do you THINK writes the standards of care? Physicians. People with more years of education than you, and some knowledge of what they are talking about.
The graph is on Wikipedia, is meant for educational purposes, and reflects a generalized course of infection. If you don't understand that, go back to school.
The 146 page 2008 adult/adolesc. Guidelines distill the totality of the data to date from literally hundreds of peer reviewed trials and studies to produce practical recommendations based on real, actual evidence - a therapeutic approach which is clearly alien to you, David.
The beauty of it is that anyone can follow the recommendations back to the data: nothing "slavish" about that.
To style the process a mere "codification of prejudices" can most generously be described as simpleminded.
Yes, go to page 124 and read the 3-1/2 pages of financial disclosures from Jean Anderson (Abbot, B-I, GSK, Pfizer) to David Wohl (Abbott, B-i, BMS, Gilead, Merck, Roche, Tibotec).
And about following the data. Where is the reference for that graph at the 4 minute mark? Or are you going to finally admit it represents prejudice and belief, not a mathematical reduction of data.
When I did data analysis I used real numbers, but maybe I'm old fashioned.
Gosh. Requiring financial disclosures. How terrible.
So when's your new book coming out, David? You know, the one where you claim that not only is AIDS not caused by an infectious virus, but neither are polio, hepatitis C, West Nile or foot and mouth? Nor was the 1918 influenza pandemic?
I'd be fascinated to see what "following the data" really means to you.
Thanks for your interest. It's going slowly because it's a lot of research. But already I have tons of compelling information about WNV, SARS, Polio that conclusively shows that they were not infectious diseases, but probably all caused by chemical exposures, either environmental or internal.
"information about WNV, SARS, Polio that conclusively shows that they were not infectious diseases, but probably all caused by chemical exposures, either environmental or internal."
For your first chapter I suggest you describe, in detail and with heavy referencing, exactly how the heck a chemical contaminant, sans biological reproduction, can follow the exact paths predicted for the spread of contagious diseases.
Why did Polio follow the fruit harvest season every year, for years? Including an inversion in the Southern Hemisphere. Why were there so few occurrences of multiple polio cases in the same family? Try starting with:
Nathanson N et al. The epidemiology of poliomyelitis: enigmas surrounding its appearance, epidemicity, and disappearance. Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Dec; 110(6): 67292
I can get you a copy if you want to open your eyes.
1979? 30 years ago? Pre-modern molecular biology.
Here's a more relevant paper to a virologist.
Selinka et al.
Poliovirus can enter and infect mammalian cells by way of an intercellular adhesion molecule 1 pathway.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 May 1;88(9):3598-602.
"Several receptor constructs, all containing the coding region of the first 143 amino acids of PVR, were able to render mouse cells susceptible to poliovirus infection."
It's a virus. It's infectious, and we know the receptor.
Isn't it cherry picking season all year round for denialists?
Seasonality is a standard feature of numerous infectious diseases. Other enteroviruses are still summer-autumn in temperate climates, like polio was.
David is trying to claim that polio is caused by pesticides, particularly DDT, despite the fact it's been endemic since ancient times, and most of the major epidemics (mid to late 19th and early 20th century) predated DDT use by decades (first used widely in the 1940s).
"and most of the major epidemics (mid to late 19th and early 20th century) predated DDT use by decades (first used widely in the 1940s)."
Lol that is hilarious, I guess DDT invented in 1936 is the secret to time travel because it apparently was able to cause polio epidemics in Johannesburg as far back as 1918. That is some impressive stuff right there.
This guys an ahole
Deanx24 4 months ago
Always skeptical of somebody working anonomously. Look at Duesburg and thousands like him who put their name and sometimes face to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis---come on out "COn" courdance if you have somethng show us your credentials---everybody is playing the game. Who you working for G S K ...
kbickford 4 months ago
This video is full of lies. This guy talks like this imaginary HIV is real. This guy has no clue about the basis of life at the cellular level. Whatever he shows has no real scientific fact as he has ignored the fundamental facts about a virus as HIV's existence is only messured by anti-bodies and risk factors by asking the questions about the sexlife and other risk factors during the test
goldstallion 6 months ago
Odd
dartplayer170 7 months ago
I find it interesting that we apparently know as much or more about FIV SIV BIV etc.... than HIV
dartplayer170 7 months ago
Holyshit, my cat has bitten me plenty of times, I must have FIV.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 9 months ago
thank you for this information i need to know all that i can ....about this ...thank you.
rlb2369 9 months ago
just as Edward Jenner, a doctor in Berkeley, Gloucestershire, rural England, discovered that immunity to smallpox could be produced by inoculating a person with material from a cowpox lesion. Cowpox is a poxvirus in the same family as variola, why are we not experimenting with FIV,BIV,SIV ect in order to induce an immune response. If your answer is they are not infective cross species why then did a cowpox lesion allow for a vaccine for small pox?
ethanhines 10 months ago
@ethanhines
We are. I invite you to look up "SHIV vaccine". The Simian Immunodeficiency Virus is being humanized so that it can serve as a dynamic weakened-virus vaccine and research tool. There are also some vaccines going to more distantly related lentiviruses, usually splicing non-primate lentivirus genes into a SHIV.
Poxviruses are to lentiviruses as aircraft carriers are to mountain bikes. The poxvirus genomes are hundreds or thousands of times larger and more complex than lentis.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance does that mean Poxviridae is more evolved then lenti's?
ethanhines 10 months ago
@ethanhines
No. Different strategies. Lentis are masters of evading the immune system: "stealth jet", and they are long-term, low infective and present a low radar cross-section. Vaccines are a challenge because they don't have a very antigenic signature.
Poxvirus are about aggressiveness and adaptation, like "tanks". They borrow cellular proteins and have more capabilities than most, but that also makes them very antigenic and vulnerable to the immune system. Thus, immunity and vaccines.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I understand know.....geese you would think this sort of information would be easy to find but you almost need a PHD in Microbiology to get a strait answer everyone has disinformation.
ethanhines 10 months ago
I dont know how big the difference is between FIV and HIV but I can imagine they are even greater. They maybe are related somewhere along the line, but all viruses are, but they are not AIDS. It is one thing to look like, and one thing to be like.
simwatts 1 year ago
That is from HIV researchers by the way. They seem quite proud of that. Other estimates show a 30 percent similarity. That is bad science mate.........
simwatts 1 year ago
Here we go. SIV and HIV are 60 percent similar lol. That is a bigger difference genetically than a banana is to a human........
simwatts 1 year ago
That I will look into. It says it is very rare. My point is that these seem very common diseases for cats. especially conjunctivitus, dermatitis, enteritis, stomatisis. Our cat had three of these diseases. I hope this is not dodgy manipulation by the Gallo team again. It seems very like clutching at straws type science again.
simwatts 1 year ago
Cats may incur stomatitis, odontoclasia, periodontitis, gingivitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, pneumonitis, enteritis, and dermatitis in the later stages of infection.
simwatts 1 year ago
Im not doubting you but there are hundreds of related viruses, lent viruses etc.
simwatts 1 year ago
Here we go. There is also an FIV, feline immunodeficiency virus, which infects cats. However there has been no known case of FIV infecting humans, its just too different. ???? Why is it so different?? There is also a BIV, bovine immunodeficiency virus, which infects cows. I am going to read into this, but so far I dont understand the conclusive link to Aids, and just a link to a VIRUS.
simwatts 1 year ago
In general, SIV does not cause any symptoms in its natural host monkey species. What does this say I dont know, they inject it in other monkeys most SIV strains get macaques sick, but dont get humans sick. There is evidence of one chimp having HIV. Where can I find the articles about the cats. Are these species getting AIDS or just the virus?
simwatts 1 year ago
You mention the animals have become immune to the virus thousands of years ago.. How do you know if they were being infected thousands of years ago without being there. I am not talking about being infected with the virus, but the Aids symptoms. What I am thinking is could it be a passenger virus, not causing any effect.
simwatts 1 year ago
Question is. It is one thing to look like Aids, and one thing to be Aids. The actual structure of hiv genetically is quite simple. I am reading into this now but I am not sure if what they infected these animals with they died in a matter of weeks or not. Is that the case or did the virus hide for a while and then pop up like pacman gobbling up t cells, after so many years.
simwatts 1 year ago
Concordance. You mention that this is similar to HIV, but in what way is it similar. If you are talking about this genetically, how similar is it. Dont forget we share 75% of the same dna as a banana, and 99.9 % the same dna as a chimp. Also with Aids and viruses, it is supposed to change its genetic structure. The question is how sure are you that this is AIDS in an animal. All viruses share similar genetic structure. All viruses are related in some way.
simwatts 1 year ago
AIDS denial is one disgusting river in Egypt.
alabamamanable 1 year ago
More like Dr. Doucheberg to me. Am I right?
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
Comment removed
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Um... I think it's the other way around...
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto, #LOL , I fail. To bad there isn't an edit :/
Actually I think I meant to say "isn't caused by" not "doesn't cause".
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter your a retard.... .... aids is a conditon hiv is a virus viruses arent caused by condiotions retard
OChubbyO 1 year ago
@OChubbyO, I know dipshit, read my correction.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Simple... He or she could be a moron. Then it makes sense :D
Unknowntyper 9 months ago
@Unknowntyper I meant HIV cause AIDS. Whatever, same difference.
Houshalter 9 months ago
Would like to mention that the BBC has done quite a few investigations into the African infection rates. Turns out, many of the stats are simply common causes of death. Since tests aren't generally given to poor people, check lists are often used. If an individual dies with diarrhea and a cough lasting more than two months, then they are considered HIV+. Common cases of poor drinking water and lack of vaccination are driving the African infection rates higher. Unsure if this is still an issue.
suckit333 1 year ago
To see how "aids scientists" say we got Aids, please search : Dave Chappelle aids monkey
MIGCEL44 1 year ago
That was very interesting. Is there the possibility that we will one day evolve a resistance to the virus?
Armando51roosters 2 years ago
@Armando51roosters There are people who are resistant. That's how evolutions works. For example, if we were to develop a completely effective vaccine for HIV, we'd be less likely to evolve a resistance. If an AIDS epidemic were large enough, it's possible that the HIV resistant people would survive, and do a great job of reproducing, over enough generations, most of the population might end up resistant.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
Comment removed
glennpeterperez 2 years ago
@glennpeterperez
How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? For example, I assess every new idea that is presented to me on the basis of the underlying logic and empirical evidence.
What process do you use?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 11
@C0nc0rdance none apparently :) logic ? whats that lol
quosmo1 1 year ago
@glennpeterperez Umm... no. Scientific studies are really just finding everything we can know for sure about HIV. There is no evidence that it "chooses" to infect people. None. I don't know what articles you're reading, but the only people I hear saying anything close to that are religious nutters who tend to claim AIDS is punishment for sin.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
@glennpeterperez Your stupidity hurts my brain.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@glennpeterperez
Spriritual side? It's a virus. This isn't the place for New Age mumbo-jumbo, proper scientific studies are the only thing that should be considered.
jimmyboyG485 11 months ago
@ COncO
Do you know how/when the viruses crossed species? if it could survive from lions to house cat -old world to new world monkeys..could it cross bonobo to human?
not that i'm worried my bonobo and i are just friends...honest!
i'm looking for the evolution of _IV. Was it in our common ancestor?
penvsword 2 years ago
It appears to have jumped multiple times, based on molecular evidence of S/HIV sequences in the genome of humans in Africa.
HIV-1 and 2 are from different zoonotic cross-overs, and some SIV strains can permissively infect human T-cell lines today.
The genetic potential for human infectivity seems to be there in many of the SIV strains, and we may have been going back and forth with the SIVs for centuries.
I won't tell anybody about your bonobo "friend" : )
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
@C0nc0rdance So why have there been no other crossover events after the first two?
dartplayer170 7 months ago
If the denialist are so convinced they are right, why not put their money where their mouth is and willingly expose themselves to HIV injections?
These folks are weird, but a lot of people love a good story over the truth.
bloodypeasant13 2 years ago
As good as I know there were few denialists who actually died because of AIDS (ie. died from diseases because their immune system shut down) and they usually stood firm in their beliefs until the end.
KristoffDoe 2 years ago
im sorry for coming on here and flaming a few people, but i do have a more intellectual question for you. that being where did hiv come from? i was reading that the polio vaccine hypothosis was descredited is this true?
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR
I think the scientific consensus right now is that HIV is likely to be a relative of SIM (simian immunodeficiency virus). Some hypotheses are that it crossed into the human population through perhaps hunters who were in close contact with blood. The monkey fucking hypothesis has been largely discredited lol
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 Monkey, aids thing+ other things big scam as well. Many problems have been helped by upper cervical specific a classic case is Montel Williams MS ,doctors were having a field day giving him pharmaceuticals. Have an Atlas orthogonal, one good technique, and he suddenly begins to get better. Look it up,. I have done so much studying on this you could no way comprehend how much. I am gaining noting by doing this, only but losing hours of sleep trying to wake people up.upcspine,
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog searching google and wikipedia for 10 minutes does not count as research sorry.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 well the one i saw a docu on that made a lot of sense was that it came out of a experimental polio vaccine developed by belgian scientists who used chimp kidneys for the polio vaccine, and that these chimps or bonobos had siv and that it got transfered into the children immunized. the first recorded outbreaks occured coincide perfectly with the age those children would have reached sexual maturity long enough to spread it to plenty of people (about 10-15 years after exposure).
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR
That sounds really interesting, mind linking me if you can remember the name?
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 just google "OPV AIDS hypothesis" they say its refuted but it was refuted by that molecular phylogenetic studies contradicted it and disproved it, but being that my field of science was paleontology i dont know how accurate it can be to determine age in viruses. the problem now is, if the jump happend medically no one wants to be the doc who made aids, so everyone will deny everything. so who knows.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
"So who knows"
I knows. The epidemiology of AIDS is very clearly not by iatrogenic spread. For one thing, HIV (and SIV) is incredibly fragile. It could never have survived long-term storage in a cell-free vaccine solution at room temp with the slightest amount of detergent. Unless intact, live monkey cells were being injected with the vaccine, there is virtually no chance of vaccine-born transmission.
HIV needs blood-blood contact. It is not like HepC that can survive in the environment.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
The nature of vaccination is that it crosses all boundaries of race, income, age, etc. If HIV were vaccine-borne, we would have seen geographic and date of injection clustering (all the GRIDs cases got their injection at a small subset of clinics, or a particular lot of vaccine).
That would have been picked up in the first months of the outbreak. Instead, we see demographic clustering, followed by general spread. Consistent with point source transmission aka index cases.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
see but thats the exact reason i find the age hypothesis to be unreasonable, given the population, sexual habits, and social habits of the people living in that area, who i might add have been eating chimp meat occasionally for the past few thousand years, aids sort of suddenly appears, with no historical record of any kind. if it had been around since the 30s when there were plenty of western doctors there to record it, that it would have been noticed. but again i dont know a lot about this.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
You're in luck. This was actually the topic of my dissertation. The reason HIV "suddenly" emerged is the shift in lifestyle from a primarily macrophage-tropic to a T-cell tropic virus, and the emergence of the vpr/vpu open reading frames. Prior to that, SIVmac, for example, would have been non-lethal. It's quite likely that SIV has made the jump before, invisibly to clinicians, but we only know about this time because of the pathology.
I'd link you to my papers... but I like anonymity.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 2
@C0nc0rdance So why have there been no other crossover events after the first two?
dartplayer170 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance So why have there been no other crossover events after the first two?
dartplayer170 7 months ago
@FUBUXGEAR I will save you a lot of trouble.Totally ignore the pharmaceuticals altogether. Those humans are not interested in your health at all. Humans languishing in hospitals with all kinds of named things.
Some of the medication is needed for surgery, and things like that dentists, and the like, but not much much more than that..
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog and most of the people languishing in hospitals would be languishing in graves if not for those pharmaceuticals. opiod dependence is often a small price to pay for a life free of debilitating pain.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR Upper cervical specific has helped polio too. I study everything.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog no it hasnt, you have no proof, you have no evidence, you are just a furfag with delusions who lives in a warped little world that lives inside a glowing computer monitor.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
Comment removed
kobidobidog 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To say aids exist is to say God made it, nothing exists that God did not make. Satan wants to blame the misery of the world on God. God did not make aids, host of other doctor named ailments humans give drugs in a vain attempt to help. To listen to this man is like listening to the deceptive serpent in the Garden of Eden. A shifted atlas partially closing the door to the nerve's exiting the brain that gets worse over time more that likely from birth is the beginning of a worsening problem.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
Comment removed
kobidobidog 2 years ago
To say aids exsits is to say God made it because nothing exsits that God did not make. Satan wants to blame the missery of the woeld on God and God did not make nyther did anyone else this thing called aids and ther host of oyher doctor nam,ed things.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
Aids is a demonic lie, upper cervical specific has helped so many people with doctor named things that it is staggering. Read upcspine evidence, scientific studies as one example, Have humans be treated, and watch how many diagnoses are reversed. Pharmaceutical companies are using the recreational drugs as a smoke screen to their own drug trade; Need More U, C, S, Sherman Collage, AO, good technique. Upcspine practitioners, knee chest good, if near you use it, all ages as soon as possible!
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog
What a load of jibberish. Can you read that over and try again using English?
toothpaste100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toothpaste100 NO,Aids, H1N1,host of other doctor named things exits only to enrichen pharmaceutical, industry. They really don't care about you. To buy into it is to believe God would give you a bad gift. God is a Good God that would not to do that. What he created is very good. Upper cervical specific is very too. Learn about it on upcspine. Knee chest is good too, that is a technique.
This is the answer to prevent, and help humans with existing conditions. Spinal Disk health is important.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog except that there is no reason for the pharmaceutical industry to invent aids when they have no cure and no way to profit, they dont even do research into cures for aids, thats mostly medical colleges. you are a complete moron. i suggest you end yourself before your own form of mental aids spreads.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR Look at upcspine evidence scientific studies 10 one down on the list. this needs to be done even more. You are missing the best health care, and preventable care thre is. Don't be like the humans who scoffed at Noah before the rain came. You will not be disappointed if you listen to me many will thank you for taking me seriously, and acting on my advise. You will thank me when you have this care,can tell you if you will need an adjustment to your atlas or not. They are good people.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog
As for your scientific evidence, I tried to google "upcspine evidence scientific studies 10" and found nothing. Take the time to write your sentences clearly so that we can understand you, because your posts are essentially a train of jibberish with some meaning hidden somewhere.
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 Go to upcspine, first, then look for"evidence, click on that, ,then look for scientific study's,Click on that.You will get a list, and it will be the 10th one down on the list.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog you advocate beastiality, then you say all of lifes problems are caused by a mystical vertebrae, you are simply retarded. i suggest killing yourself.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago 2
@toothpaste100 a twisted spine=a very bad problem will occur. Beginning can start years before you are aware of a problem. Pharmacologists are having a hay day. Stop there gravy train of deadly toxins. Learn U, C, S, only, Sherman Collage. AO is one technique, learn, upcspine, When you get to that collage. Avoid techniques that practice cavitation, popping of the joints, does not adjust a thing. Popping you knuckles, that adjusts nothing diversified, full spines chiropractors do that, avoid.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog
There is no science linking chiropractic ideology to any physiological effects. I'm pretty sture (and shoot me if I'm wrong) Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, or any messenger of divinity said anything about chiropractic technique, so for all I know it may be "created by the devil", as you say about diseases. Also, where can I purchase a "Sheman collage", as it sounds like a beautiful piece of art. I'm a big collector of collages and the collage technique, so I'm glad to meet a fan
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 Not talking about full spine, diversified,mixers all of which have muddied the waters. Talking about upper cervical specific. They wanted to be separate from the bad chiropractic. I am directing you to what is good. I am an upper cervical advocate. I am directing you in the right way for everyone. Whoever has to reverse their thinking that the pharmaceutical industry has made you think? Sherman collage is where you learn that trade. This is not demonic, I can assure you of that.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog
Dude did you hear that whooshing sound? Its the sound of a joke going over your head... Sherman collage is spelt 'Sherman College', which you still describe it as. A 'collage' is a piece of art composed of fragments.
Man, if your chiropractor makes you feel better, then that is totally cool. My friends, when they go to church, feel great after too! Science DOES NOT back up chiropractors and nor does it back up creationists, but if it works for you, use it! Don't lie about it.
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 I am not telling you a lie at all. What I am telling you is real.. The longer whoever Waits to get help the more internal damaged is going to occur due to spinal imbalances wearing away at your spinal disks, and what wear occurs is irreversible.Time is of the essence to get evaluated and treated. keep appointments to to be sure the whole body is improving.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog oh so those big pharmaceuticals are using hiv as an excuse to get people to buy drugs (that dont exist), but the retards that run that site arent lying at all to get you to shell out half a grand to get your back popped. NOTHING SUSPICIOUS THERE AT ALL!
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR
Especially since those "studies" he directed me towards were from journals of chiropractic medicine (for the most part). Considering that the vast majority of chiros believe in "subluxations", which are medically disproved (other than real dislocations, that share the same name, sadly) and other quackery, I'd hardly call them skeptical.
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 while i do believe there is some merit from the point of view of relaxing muscles and mechanical tensions that occur, a lot of the dogma around chiropractors reminds me of all the various medical fads that have come and gone, like the one involving bumps on your head showing that you are a killer, or that laylines cause you to be sick, or best of all that alien ghosts called thetans are haunting your body.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
@FUBUXGEAR
Yeah totally, my uncles a massage therapist; I know that works atleast! The problem comes when a massage therapist decides his healing hands can get rid of your heart condition or cure your deafness... of course if this happened now, instead of in the late 19th century, well, we probably wouldn't even know what a chiropractor is (or whatever it is FUBUXGEAR goes to) since they would be the laughing stock of the medical community.
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@kobidobidog
Explain to me how subluxations affect nerve transmission. Nerve impulses are quantified; they are either transmitted for not. This is easily verified with electrographs. As for how chiro can help an AIDS patient; the specific immune response does its job fine without any interaction with the central nervous system, so how can you justify any statements about chiro helping an HIV infection with a straight face?
toothpaste100 2 years ago
@toothpaste100 pharmaceutical companies have pulled the wool over your eyes on so many things it is not funny. When the atlas is mechanically tilted shifted it will rub up against the nerves that surround that bone, shifted more than likely at birth. That mechanical shifting has a domino effect down the entire spine that asymmetrically begins to wear down the disks. When you see a person popping their neck that is an advanced spinal problem staring at you, a symptom of a primary cause,.
kobidobidog 2 years ago
@kobidobidog how could unformed bone shift? your bones are still malliable at birth, or its more likely that modern back problems are caused by poor posture and not a misaligned vertebra. or maybe you are just genetically diseased kobi. that seems far more likely.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
i do have another question though. I could have sworn that when taking my biomed course last semester and we were learning about aids my teacher brought up a picture that was supposed to be the HIV virus and he said that this is what we THINK hiv looks like and that no one had actually isolated it yet. a very vague memory but just came to me.
fupasack2 2 years ago
I can lay my hands on dozens of electron micrographs of HIV budding from monocytes in culture.
Lentiviruses tend to be fragile and smaller than the wavelength of visible light. It's easier to assay for the DNA, RNA or protein components than an intact particle.
Seriously, if you have lingering doubts, I would recommend sitting down with a medical researcher at a local university. The Internet is so full of false information, go to the source. Ask a real expert.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
If I get any more interested maybe I will do that but right now I am too overwhelmed with other areas I am studying. This was just a quick thing that bothered me. I dont really have much doubt in the current status quo of HIV. thanks for the info though
fupasack2 2 years ago
@C0nc0rdance ya kobidobidog here is pretty full of misinfo, imo id say that hiv is at least linked, not everyone who has hiv gets aids, but everyone who gets aids has hiv, and siv is linked to the simian equivilant of aids the name of which i cant remember at the moment.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
does that map at 2:49 say that america is one of the most hiv infected places on the planet!!!!! AAHH!! that sucks big time!!
david rasnick, "the best evidence against the hiv hypothesis is that there is no evidence for it. In the vast scientific medical literature we cannot find anywhere that hiv causes aids, that aids is a contagious disease, or that it is even sexually transmitted" he then just asks who has proven this. what do you have to say to that quote?
fupasack2 2 years ago
Wikipedia "David Rasnick"
"In June, 2008, the South African Cape High Court ruled against Rasnick and other defendants associated with the Rath Foundation, declaring their vitamin trials illegal and prohibiting the publication of false advertisements for vitamins. The Court also stated that health authorities in South Africa have an obligation to investigate and stop illegal activities of Rasnick and the Rath Foundation."
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Is the statement of his quote true or untrue? I am not interested in what he has been convicted of. An untrue statement from a lier should be just as easily discredited as an untrue statment from someone honest.
I am asking you because you seem to have more knowledge on this subject than I do. I don't know what to make of his statement other than it is coming from a berkley professor that developed protease inhibitors that are commonly used for people with AIDS
fupasack2 2 years ago
Rasnick was NEVER a professor at UC Berkeley. He was a "visiting scholar", which is a pretty meaningless term.
He did not "develop protease inhibitors". They were well documented in the 1950's.
He was a staffer at a small biotech that became part of Merck. His project was on arthritis and malaria, not HIV. He has a PhD in chemistry, and has never done any viral research.
He has 18 papers since 1978. For comparison, his graduate advisor at G.I.T., Dr. JC Powers, has 200. Pretty poor.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Are there papers that demonstrate that HIV is infectious? sexually transmitted? that HIV causes AIDS?
Absolutely.
But these things aren't accomplished in one paper. Science is about answering a single question at a time with well-controlled evidence. You shouldn't expect to find all the evidence in a single document for ANY virus.
If you want a bibliography on HIV and it's etiological role in AIDS, I can PM you some articles to read. Or, better, I can locate a lab for you to visit.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
well then i guess i was blatantly lied to. i didnt know that he also proposed that HIV testing be outlawed... how very unproductive.
although i would like to see articles that demonstrate that hiv is infectious, sexually transmitted, and that it causes aids if you have any on hand
fupasack2 2 years ago
@C0nc0rdance and that statement concordance (the "scientific papers focus on one problem at a time" one) is why such skeptics and mystics continue to pervade modern society, people want all their answers wrapped up easily and have trouble believing anything that isnt plainly spelled out. that is of course a problem with the occasional individual.
FUBUXGEAR 2 years ago
BLA BLA BLA so untrue!
~South Africa~
annie46664 2 years ago
Nancy Padian making assumptions about risk of transmission based on this study is suspicious. Because in the prospective part, there is no new seroconversions.
If conversion is not important to you then why is HIV?
Conversion leads to AIDS, so indirectly it is an important end point in this theory and needs to clearly verified. Even if only one element of the HIV-AIDS theory is wrong, then the whole construct might turn out incorrect.
satrapy27 2 years ago
There were 3000 couple-months in the study. 25% of them failed to use condoms, at least PART of the time. Assume 4 sexual encounters per month, that's 3000 contacts in the non-compliant population. Transmission is 5-10 per 10,000. We would expect 1-3 infections in a Poisson distribution. We got zero. That's 1-3 less than expected.
HIV isn't EASY to get by normal hetero contact, but it happens every day.
What about the transfused population? Does that data support your hypothesis?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
OR at least its UNPROVEN to ME. And since I have adequate graduate education in a related field I can tell you when something looks this suspicious, and I will never again believe this theory, until somebody provides adequate proof.
satrapy27 2 years ago
"That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success.... Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade."
--N Padian
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I just read the article Nancy Padian. Don't tell me I'm wrong, cause Its right here, it says, that in the prospective part of her study, no partners of HIV infected people got infected, during her observation of 175 couples. Max time of observation was 6 years. HIV causing AIDS theory IS A LIE !!!
satrapy27 2 years ago
You say you have a graduate level understanding. But you are citing a study that doesn't even test the HIV-AIDS theory. AIDS endpoints were not included, merely conversion.
What is the p value significance of HIV seroconversion status for AIDS diagnosis? Are there any more relevant markers?
What is the OR for HIV seroconversion status with regards to AIDS diagnosis. What about CD4+ circulating cell in peripheral blood compartment, does that also correlate with disease state?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
satrapy ~ You know what you're talking about, this shill doesn't. He's been brainwashed for $ I bet!
~South Africa~
annie46664 2 years ago
There are "conspiracists" and deniers for this ( O_o)
How scary...
CommS007 2 years ago
What are you reading from a CDC brochure at your local public health department?
Afraid you are going to lose your livelihood once the truth gets out about the killer drugs and your superstitious disease?
canaan1967 2 years ago
*Laugh* Yup, that's it. You nailed me.
Once the truth gets out about equine infectious anemia virus, they will retroactively de-fund the research I did on a horse virus 9 years ago. Boy, all those vets will be missing the hundreds of dollars spent on FIV treatments, too ...
*Laugh* what a genius.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
As a health science student earnestly trying to understand this whole HIV/ AIDS thing from many different angles, I am deeply concerned about the fact that with so many people suffering badly whilst their fates are bandied about between feuding scientists, AIDS organisations and government policy makers, here we have pedantic pissing contests between people on public forums putting each other down and creating personal feuds, mixing up the thirst for truth with the need to protect their egos...
MrsCrazyLegs 2 years ago
There is NO scientific debate about whether HIV exists or is the primary causative etiology in AIDS. All that exists is Internet conspiracy theories and fringe people.
If you are interested in the sociology of denialism sub-culture, I suggest Seth Kalichman's book: "Denying AIDS" in which he infiltrated the denialist inner circle.
But if you want the real science, find a real HIV researcher or doctor and talk with them. Don't ever take medical advice from the Internet.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I guess there's no excuse for you not doing your own research. It's not a question of who you're going to believe. This is not ghostbusters. Where's the scientific articles showing that HIV exists, that HIV tests have been validated, that transmission patterns are sexual, that AIDS drugs are better than a placebo?
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
David, your problem is that you've chosen an outcome beforehand, and now you've gone looking for any information that supports that outcome. Your ability to be critical ends at your own skin.
Your standard of proof is that a single paper must contain all the proof for a causality link. That's not how science works. It works by overturning/failing to overturn a well-supported hypothesis with tests and evidence.
If you want to disprove HIV-AIDS, pick up a pipettor and get to work, man.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I never asked for a single paper with everything. A good start would be a single paper, or even a group of papers, addressing one of my major concerns.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
David are you somehow Asserting HIV is not a real virus? Have you not bothered looking on PubMed? The articles and papers are there. It has been extensively documented, We know quite a bit about its structure and its
constituent proteins. Are you positing a conspiracy theory or have you merely not looked on any peer reviewed medical journals for your answers?
AcanLord 2 years ago
I have read over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on HIV alone. Not one of them documents the purification of HIV. Not one of them documents the validation of an HIV test. Not one of them proves that sexual transmission occurs. Not one of them documents a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of an AIDS drugs (save the early AZT trials which really weren't any of those things).
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
2,000 papers eh? That sounds dubious given your position. Like i said. This virus has been extensively studied. We know it exists, it is no more invented then any of its relatives. Active Attempts to produce vaccines against it are detailed in the peer reviewed literature but have had little effect for number of reasons. And yes it has been isolated despite Conspiracy theorists claim to the contrary. We even have its Genome sequenced.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Well, give me the name of a citation proving purification. Maybe it's the one that got away.
And I was wrong on the 2000. It's only 1,474. Plus about the same amount of non-scientific documents including government reports, manufacturer information, newspaper and magazine reports, etc. Apologies for that.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
*Watch what happens when I feed a citation to David.*
Here you go, David. A paper that not only purifies, but discriminates cultured virus.
J Immunol Methods. 2008 Sep 30;338(1-2):21-30. Epub 2008 Jul 31.
Discrimination between exosomes and HIV-1: purification of both vesicles from cell-free supernatants.
Cantin R, Diou J, Bélanger D, Tremblay AM, Gilbert C.
Centre de recherche en infectiologie, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Québec, Canada.
I assume you are satisfied?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
What happens? David actually reads it.
Culture supernatant was filtered and centrifuged. Clearly not pure. They said this "concentrated" the virions, not purified. They were then centrifuged again (52000 rpm, 75 min) and then gradient fractions were collected. Still not pure.
Then, "The virus concentration in each stock was quantified using an in-house [assay] specific for p24gag protein". Quantified, not purified. Purification appears only in the title of this section.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
See what happens? He moves the goal posts. How exactly, David, do you think we purify any virus?
The paper is about cell free supes, and all the exosomes were resolved away. There is nothing biological left in that suspension that is not a virus. Hence, it is purified virus. I can give you a stack of other pubs that purified to cell-free virus, but why bother?
It's a combo of your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to be self-critical that makes you a denialist.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Exactly, nobody ever purifies a virus. Well, duh! What does that tell you about viruses and Koch's postulates?
Didn't you ever read Thomas River's 1937 paper, still cited today, where he let the cat out of the bag?
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates. Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates. Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
-- Dr. Wikipedia. Koch is not the Bible, David. Viral diseases don't grow in pure culture. They are many times smaller than a human cell, are more fragile, and more heterogenous.
Your inability to comprehend them, and your ignorance of virology, does not have any bearing on the very real diseases they cause.
Any thoughts on the non-primate lentiviruses? They don't exist either, I suppose?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Koch's postulates are logical, not scientific. If they cannot be fulfilled there is no logical connection between a pathogen and a disease. Virologists have tried to wriggle out of Koch's postulates for the entire duration of the subject, even prior to the 1930s when visualizing viruses was impossible and all the evidence for their existence was negative, not positive. With the electron microscope it was possible to find lots of small particles, but were they viruses?
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
"If they cannot be fulfilled there is no logical connection between a pathogen and a disease."
Says who? Where is it written?
Many diseases have a causative role, but in a non-deterministic way. Not every infected person has the disease, or there may be a long silent period, or the infection may lead to a secondary pathology. Koch's postulates would miss ALL of these things.
Syphilis and neurodegenerative disease, Helicobacter pylori and ulcers, nvKJD, HHV6 and MS.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Comment removed
phospholipasec 2 years ago
People actually believe Duesberg and think they're the open minded ones. Maybe if open minded means believing any nonsense thrown at you.
terminaldeity 2 years ago
Hi Concordance, great vids!
I've heard of this idea of HIV/Aids being a "conspiracy" before but never gave much attention to it as it sounded so absurd but I realized through some of your vids that there are actually some people defending the idea.
But what would be the aim of such conspiracy? Who do they(the ones that do believe in it) claim is behind it and why would they do it?
Thanks
tommytalks77 2 years ago
They think it's the pharmaceutical companies and the research labs. The idea is that a great deal of money has been spent on AIDS research, treatment, and diagnosis. But diabetes, obesity, women's health/fertility, asthma, cancer, heart disease are all more profitable categories.
If someone really wanted to invent a disease, they should come up with one that only affects rich people.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The idea is that a great deal of money has been spent on AIDS research, treatment, and diagnosis. But diabetes, obesity, women's health/fertility, asthma, cancer, heart disease are all more profitable categories."
Does one exclude the other?
"If someone really wanted to invent a disease, they should come up with one that only affects rich people."
Why would they limit themselves to rich people alone? Dont the rich thrive on the many as well?
Kaandorpius 2 years ago
Here's a challenge. Find citations to the scientific data that backs up the graph at the 4 minute mark. My working hypothesis: You won't, because that graph is fraudulent, despite it having been replicated many times.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Predicting progression to AIDS: combined usefulness of CD4 lymphocyte counts and p24 antigenemia.
MacDonell et al.
Am J Med. 1990 Dec;89(6):706-12.
"Our data indicate that p24 antigenemia can first be detected with moderate CD4 cell depletion, is associated with a more rapid decline in the CD4 lymphocyte population, and combined with CD4 lymphocyte counts is useful in identifying individuals at significantly greater risk of disease progression."
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Viral DNA and mRNA expression correlate with the stage of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 infection in humans: evidence for viral replication in all stages of HIV disease.
J Virol. 1992 January; 66(1): 310316.
Michael et al.
"We have studied viral DNA, genomic RNA, and spliced mRNA expression of HIV-1 in infected patients with a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. Viral RNA expression is detected in all stages of infection."
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
"is detected in all stages of infection" hardly sounds like they are claiming that there are any specific patterns. And what about people with "undetectable" viral load?
But you have agree with me that the graph is not based on data. That means it's fraudulent. It's a vision (perhaps hallucinogenic) of what scientists wish was true, not what is true.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Whoa, hoss. Fraud is claiming something is true that isn't.
This is a generalized graph, like a diagram of a human body that doesn't have wrinkles, scars, or tattoos. It's not meant to be a set of rules, just an idea of typical progression.
You're committing the mapmaker's fallacy of assuming that the map is the territory. Likewise, graphs are not the real values. They are reductions of observations. Philosophy of Science 101.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
"Reductions of Observations" means derived from data. You've admitted that this graph is not derived from data. Therefore it is fraudulent. Certainly maps are derivations of data, and they always omit something, but what they show is based on data, whether it's altitude, vegetation type, population density, roadways or whatever. The graph you showed is like the map of Narnia. Enhances a great work of fiction, but shouldn't guide health decisions.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Now you're taking it too far. I said it was a generalized graph. It is based on data. I posted two papers where the data matches what is on the graph. You're playing "let's quibble over minutia" and it's not a game I play.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
The data in the two papers you sent me did not match this graph. They were talking about averages, and one of them didn't even have a graph. The other had several graphs, but they were various illustrations of the fairly weak correlation between viral load and CD4 counts. There was nothing in those two papers anything like the graph at the four minute mark of your video. That graph is fraudulent and clinical guidelines based on the belief that CD4 counts are diagnostic are also fraudulent.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
I'm getting tired of your dogged denialism. Here's a paper in the Lancet from this year. Read it, don't just skim it looking for holes.
Lancet. 2009 April 18; 373(9672): 13521363.
It has something very useful to tell us about how doctors should direct treatment. When you can tell me what the message is in your own words, come back and tell me what you think it is.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
First you quote papers from the early 1990s saying that we knew all this back then, then you quote a paper from 2009 that says "The CD4 cell count at which combination antiretroviral therapy should be started is a central, unresolved issue in the care of HIV-1-infected patients". Unresolved as of 2009!
And then it's not saying anything about the pattern of CD4 counts over time except that there's a relatively small benefit (1.28 hazard ratio) to starting therapy at higher CD4 counts.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Here's the denialist game:
Find schematic representation from an online encyclopedia which outlines the natural history of HIV infection for a lay audience, and then play the "show me the ONE study" rhetorical game so beloved by denialists.
Of course, there is no ONE single study underpinning what is represented there. It is based on literally housands of pieces of evidence. This, of course, gives you thousands of opportunities to misrepresent and quote mine.
Then you claim "fraud".
eSnout 2 years ago
If I calculate the average June 1st temperature for Omaha I would hope that was based on temperature measurements. For the graph in this video what we have is an admission that the graph is not based on data points, but on the beliefs of the scientists who drew lines on a piece of paper divorced from the constraints of using actual data. That's why the graph is fraudulent.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Quote mining is a form of dishonesty, David. Why do you do it?
If you read the study (or even the title) you would realise that viral DNA and mRNA expression correlate with the stage of HIV- 1 infection. Do you know what "correlate" means? It means a pattern was observed.
The second important finding of evidence for viral replication in all stages of HIV disease indicates there is no period of true viral latency. This is important, but in no way contradictory to the first.
eSnout 2 years ago
Commercial viral load tests have a detection cut-off of 50 or several hundred copies per mL. An "undetectable" viral load means a viral load below the cut-off for the test, not zero. That's why they say "undetectable", not zero.
eSnout 2 years ago
A large amount of data may lead to a correlation and to statistical significance. But is the correlation good enough that you can work backwards from a single data point to an accurate prediction of where someone is on the supposed CD4 decline curve?
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Those "fraudulent" "manipulative" doctors from the "toxic" "death machine" don't work from single data points, David.
eSnout 2 years ago 4
Often they do. A single CD4 count under 500, 300, 200 or whatever the magic limit is (interesting that they're all multiples of 50) can cause many doctors to say "You must start drugs now before it's too late". That's a life altering (possibly life-terminating) decision based on a single data point.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Is this based on your years of experience as a practicing physician? Or are you failing to cite support for your statement because it has none?
The standard of care is based on the judgment of a highly trained professional, using a variety of factors, and in consultation with the patient. Generally, a CD4 count of below 350-200 is a warning sign for a physician that the patient may be progressing to a more severe chronic state, but this is not a computer algorithm.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Standard of care is based on treatment guidelines, written by people who codify their prejudices (and financial conflicts of interest) knowing that doctors will slavishly follow, e.g. "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. DHHS. 2008 Nov 3" and "Guidelines for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections among HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children. NIH. 2008 Jun 20". But what about that graph? Now it's "judgment", not data?
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
"prejudices" "slavishly"?
I see you like to appeal to emotions instead of reason.
Have you ever spent any time with practicing doctors? Do they seem like slaves to you?
Who do you THINK writes the standards of care? Physicians. People with more years of education than you, and some knowledge of what they are talking about.
The graph is on Wikipedia, is meant for educational purposes, and reflects a generalized course of infection. If you don't understand that, go back to school.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
The 146 page 2008 adult/adolesc. Guidelines distill the totality of the data to date from literally hundreds of peer reviewed trials and studies to produce practical recommendations based on real, actual evidence - a therapeutic approach which is clearly alien to you, David.
The beauty of it is that anyone can follow the recommendations back to the data: nothing "slavish" about that.
To style the process a mere "codification of prejudices" can most generously be described as simpleminded.
eSnout 2 years ago
Yes, go to page 124 and read the 3-1/2 pages of financial disclosures from Jean Anderson (Abbot, B-I, GSK, Pfizer) to David Wohl (Abbott, B-i, BMS, Gilead, Merck, Roche, Tibotec).
And about following the data. Where is the reference for that graph at the 4 minute mark? Or are you going to finally admit it represents prejudice and belief, not a mathematical reduction of data.
When I did data analysis I used real numbers, but maybe I'm old fashioned.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
Gosh. Requiring financial disclosures. How terrible.
So when's your new book coming out, David? You know, the one where you claim that not only is AIDS not caused by an infectious virus, but neither are polio, hepatitis C, West Nile or foot and mouth? Nor was the 1918 influenza pandemic?
I'd be fascinated to see what "following the data" really means to you.
eSnout 2 years ago
Thanks for your interest. It's going slowly because it's a lot of research. But already I have tons of compelling information about WNV, SARS, Polio that conclusively shows that they were not infectious diseases, but probably all caused by chemical exposures, either environmental or internal.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I rest my case.
eSnout 2 years ago
"information about WNV, SARS, Polio that conclusively shows that they were not infectious diseases, but probably all caused by chemical exposures, either environmental or internal."
For your first chapter I suggest you describe, in detail and with heavy referencing, exactly how the heck a chemical contaminant, sans biological reproduction, can follow the exact paths predicted for the spread of contagious diseases.
JebusGeist 2 years ago 2
Why did Polio follow the fruit harvest season every year, for years? Including an inversion in the Southern Hemisphere. Why were there so few occurrences of multiple polio cases in the same family? Try starting with:
Nathanson N et al. The epidemiology of poliomyelitis: enigmas surrounding its appearance, epidemicity, and disappearance. Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Dec; 110(6): 67292
I can get you a copy if you want to open your eyes.
DavidRCrowe 2 years ago
1979? 30 years ago? Pre-modern molecular biology.
Here's a more relevant paper to a virologist.
Selinka et al.
Poliovirus can enter and infect mammalian cells by way of an intercellular adhesion molecule 1 pathway.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 May 1;88(9):3598-602.
"Several receptor constructs, all containing the coding region of the first 143 amino acids of PVR, were able to render mouse cells susceptible to poliovirus infection."
It's a virus. It's infectious, and we know the receptor.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Isn't it cherry picking season all year round for denialists?
Seasonality is a standard feature of numerous infectious diseases. Other enteroviruses are still summer-autumn in temperate climates, like polio was.
David is trying to claim that polio is caused by pesticides, particularly DDT, despite the fact it's been endemic since ancient times, and most of the major epidemics (mid to late 19th and early 20th century) predated DDT use by decades (first used widely in the 1940s).
Fruity.
eSnout 2 years ago
"and most of the major epidemics (mid to late 19th and early 20th century) predated DDT use by decades (first used widely in the 1940s)."
Lol that is hilarious, I guess DDT invented in 1936 is the secret to time travel because it apparently was able to cause polio epidemics in Johannesburg as far back as 1918. That is some impressive stuff right there.
JebusGeist 2 years ago 2