FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
Bushmeat seeds new virus
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [28 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Author Message
ironjustice@aol.com
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:38 am    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

ironjustice@aol.com wrote:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2610

June 29, 2006

Bushmeat surveyed in Western cities
Illegally hunted animals turn up in markets from New York to London.
by Emma Marris
news@nature.com


Quote:

Who loves ya.
Tom


Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com


Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3


DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
Back to top
monty1945@lycos.com
medicine forum addict


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:46 am    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

Remember that all these claims are based upon conjecture and textbook
assumptions that were never verified experimentally. If you read the
literature written by the top "virus hunters," they say explicitly that
cytotoxic mechanisms are not known and/or don't appear to be deadly.
However, if one is exposed to foreign protein in a high enough dose, a
powerful inflammatory response can do enough damage to kill someone.
The "germ theory" notions are simply inconsistent with the evidence now
available. If anyone wants to read about this, including numerous
citations from the relevant professional literature, go to:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

The essays are linked on the left hand side. There is a message board
and you can ask me questions by posting them on the general board.
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

On 12 Jul 2006 00:46:45 -0700, monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

Quote:
Remember that all these claims are based upon conjecture and textbook
assumptions that were never verified experimentally.

Nonsense. There are ample experimental data. Could there be more?
Sure.

But you begin to sound like the jackanapes in the Bush administration
who keep whining for more data as the ice caps and glaciers melt.

George M. Carter
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
Quote:
Remember that all these claims are based upon conjecture and textbook
assumptions that were never verified experimentally. If you read the
literature written by the top "virus hunters," they say explicitly that
cytotoxic mechanisms are not known and/or don't appear to be deadly.
However, if one is exposed to foreign protein in a high enough dose, a
powerful inflammatory response can do enough damage to kill someone.
The "germ theory" notions are simply inconsistent with the evidence now
available. If anyone wants to read about this, including numerous
citations from the relevant professional literature, go to:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

The essays are linked on the left hand side. There is a message board
and you can ask me questions by posting them on the general board.

I agree. All these virus hunters and the
just-around-the-corner-but-not-quite-here-yet viral pandemics scare
tactics and the pseudo-scientific conjecture in this arena seems to be
aimed at reviving big pharmas sales of vaccinations. More marketing
crap.

TC
Back to top
monty1945@lycos.com
medicine forum addict


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

Mr. Carter:

On my web site, I quote the very words of the "virus hunters"
themselves. If you have evidence that you would like to share with the
rest of it, I suggest you present it here. Otherwise, your comments
are not scientific, and there is no reason for me to consider in a
serious way. Cite your studies, and I will investigate thoroughly.
Without any citations, you are asking us to believe someone (as one
would a cult leader) who enjoys attacking people personally on
newsgroups and also using plenty of obscentities over the course of the
last couple of years of newsgroup posts.
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
Quote:
Mr. Carter:

On my web site, I quote the very words of the "virus hunters"
themselves. If you have evidence that you would like to share with the
rest of it, I suggest you present it here. Otherwise, your comments
are not scientific, and there is no reason for me to consider in a
serious way. Cite your studies, and I will investigate thoroughly.
Without any citations, you are asking us to believe someone (as one
would a cult leader) who enjoys attacking people personally on
newsgroups and also using plenty of obscentities over the course of the
last couple of years of newsgroup posts.

you're welcome
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

On 12 Jul 2006 08:23:40 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

snip
I agree. All these virus hunters and the
just-around-the-corner-but-not-quite-here-yet viral pandemics scare
tactics and the pseudo-scientific conjecture in this arena seems to be
aimed at reviving big pharmas sales of vaccinations. More marketing
crap.

Are there problems in the land of pharma? You bet!

Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

George M. Carter
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

On 12 Jul 2006 08:57:25 -0700, monty1945@lycos.com wrote:

Quote:
Mr. Carter:

On my web site, I quote the very words of the "virus hunters"
themselves. If you have evidence that you would like to share with the
rest of it, I suggest you present it here. Otherwise, your comments
are not scientific, and there is no reason for me to consider in a
serious way. Cite your studies, and I will investigate thoroughly.

Mr. Montygram--I have cited many hundreds of studies. There are many
studies that look at a huge array of issues from the genome of HIV,
isolation, attachment, adhesion, infeciton, RNA->DNA translation,
integration, expression, packaging, and budding of new virus. There
are many papers on interactions between CD4 cells, memory and naive,
CD8 cells, glial cells, dendritic cells, macrophages, CD8 cells,
neuronal involvement. There are studies that examine the impact of HIV
on organ systems, notable the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous
system and lymph system. There are studies that evaluate the clinical
outcomes of people infected with HIV, on elite controllers and fast
progressors. There are papers on the role of concomitant infections
like mycobacterial infections and parasitic infections.

If you want, LOOK for the areas that interest you. Pick some papers.
Read them. Discuss.

This vague call for papers on your part merely underscores your
disingneuous intent and desire to dismiss.

George M. Carter
Back to top
cathyb
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

GMCarter wrote:
Quote:
On 12 Jul 2006 08:23:40 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:


snip
I agree. All these virus hunters and the
just-around-the-corner-but-not-quite-here-yet viral pandemics scare
tactics and the pseudo-scientific conjecture in this arena seems to be
aimed at reviving big pharmas sales of vaccinations. More marketing
crap.

Are there problems in the land of pharma? You bet!

Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

Oh, well put.

Quote:

George M. Carter
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

GMCarter wrote:
Quote:
On 12 Jul 2006 08:23:40 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:


snip
I agree. All these virus hunters and the
just-around-the-corner-but-not-quite-here-yet viral pandemics scare
tactics and the pseudo-scientific conjecture in this arena seems to be
aimed at reviving big pharmas sales of vaccinations. More marketing
crap.

Are there problems in the land of pharma? You bet!

Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

It does not mean that HIV does cause AIDS either. One concept has
nothing to do with the other.

Did you know that the research that was first presented at a press
conference announcing the discovery that HIV causes AIDS has never been
actually published?

Quote:

AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

AIDS is not marketing crap, it is a real health problem. The idea that
HIV, a simple retro-virus, is the sole cause of AIDS is a bit of an
issue though.

Quote:

If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

Well I don't know about that. It is truly a tragic situation and I
sympathize. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if
there had been research on other possible causes other than HIV, and if
treatments had taken that into account. What if HIV is only a marker or
is just a marker that shows up more in the high risk population? What
if HIV has nothing to do with AIDS? Then your friends treatments,
suffering, and their deaths may have been prevented with other less
tragic means.

Quote:

That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

George M. Carter

I think that the belief that a simple retro-virus could cause such a
plethora of various combinations of symptoms and system breakdowns is
kinda hard to believe. And the fact that this simple retro-virus has
been able to completely baffle researchers and to evade being tamed by
vaccination is hard to believe. It is just a simple retro-virus like
thousands of other retro-viri.

The disease has, for the most part, not gone much beyond the initial
risk groups in the Western world where a diagnosis requires a positive
HIV test. Many people with all the signs of AIDS are not HIV positive.
Many HIV positive people have not developed any symptoms, even after
decades. A new term had to be created specifically for these people,
non-progressors.

In Africa, a positive HIV test is not even part of the official
definition. If you have a fever and have lost a significant amount of
weight, you are considered to have AIDS in Africa.

The numbers of AIDS victims has been increased more with the widening
of the definition of AIDS than it has by actual diagnosis.

And most importantly of all, the HIV/AIDS correlation has not been
demonstrated to meet Koch's Postulates. Period. It has never been
properly isolated. It has never been introduced to a human subject and
then seen to cause all the appropriate symptoms. It has never been
isolated from the same human subject. This has been the yardstick in
viral research for decades and decades, why would we expect less proof
of causality for such a far reaching disease like AIDS.

TC
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

On 13 Jul 2006 07:38:54 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

snip
Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

It does not mean that HIV does cause AIDS either. One concept has
nothing to do with the other.

I agree--but many denialists try to claim that AZT causes AIDS or
other unsupportable nonsense.

Quote:
Did you know that the research that was first presented at a press
conference announcing the discovery that HIV causes AIDS has never been
actually published?

LOL--no, I do NOT know that. In fact, that happens to be not true. The
Gallo/HHS announcement was made PRIOR to the publication but the
material was "in press." It was indeed published. It was part of the
race to announce to be the "first" though history tells us that the
original discoverers were Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and, possibly, Jay
Levy. Gallo was a third in that.

Quote:

AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

AIDS is not marketing crap, it is a real health problem. The idea that
HIV, a simple retro-virus, is the sole cause of AIDS is a bit of an
issue though.

Yes, but not the way you mean it. HIV causes AIDS. HOW it does so
remains an extremely important and not yet fully elucidated question.
But that being said, there is an ENORMOUS amount of information about
how HIV causes AIDS, its replication cycle etc.

Fundamentally, it is simple. People with HIV see a chronic and
persistent decline in CD4 T cell counts toward zero, if untreated. As
the CD4 count plummets, the ability to fight off infections (mostly
those defended against via cell-mediated immunity) is impaired and
then AIDS develops.

One of the most breathtakingly stupid "arguments" of denialists is
that HIV causes pneumonia or cancer. It doesn't--infection results in
the impaired immunity that then makes a potentially LETHAL situation
of death by Pneumocystis, CMV, etc.

What HIV DOES cause is neuropathy, dementia and wasting, the latter of
which can be lethal.

Quote:

If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

Well I don't know about that. It is truly a tragic situation and I
sympathize. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if
there had been research on other possible causes other than HIV, and if
treatments had taken that into account. What if HIV is only a marker or
is just a marker that shows up more in the high risk population? What
if HIV has nothing to do with AIDS? Then your friends treatments,
suffering, and their deaths may have been prevented with other less
tragic means.

Darling there HAS been research. LOOK before you make these bold
statements that only reveal the fact that you have NOT looked.

Syphilis is NOT a co-factor. Parasitic infections are NOT a co-factor.
They are not necessary for HIV infection to result in AIDS. They ARE
however VERY significant co-infections that can accelerate disease
progression.

By contrast, you're right in the sense that understanding HOW HIV
causes AIDS has pointed us away from a variety of interventions. Yet
even there, data are developing, albeit painfully slowly. For example,
a multivitamin has been shown to reduce disease progression rate by
30%. Not a cure but a significant intervention in HIV disease
management (nothing is a cure at this point).

Yet politics prevents a vigorous embrace and utilization of this
because some fat miserable fucking stockholder doesn't make the
EXPECTED HUGE return on investment in pharma and fat fucking shits
like CEO Hank McKinnell won't make a murdering pofiteering killing on
selling multis that he can from selling Pfizer's drug.

Quote:

That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

I think that the belief that a simple retro-virus could cause such a
plethora of various combinations of symptoms and system breakdowns is
kinda hard to believe.

Because you don't understand and just parrot some of the brain dead
crap denialists spout. Some of it was mildly entertaining or even
worth a look 17 years ago but at this point, it is just incredibly
stupid to parrot the same stupid and REFUTED whinings.

Quote:
And the fact that this simple retro-virus has
been able to completely baffle researchers and to evade being tamed by
vaccination is hard to believe. It is just a simple retro-virus like
thousands of other retro-viri.

Most retroviruses do NOT cause disease--and now name for me some
retroviruses for which a successful vaccine has been developed.

There's another story where the REAL disaster is missed by conspiracy
ditherings. The research community (and Pentagon) wasted HUGE amounts
of resources chasing after envelope vaccines that DO NOT WORK. And it
was quite apparent they did not work.

Quote:
The disease has, for the most part, not gone much beyond the initial
risk groups in the Western world where a diagnosis requires a positive
HIV test. Many people with all the signs of AIDS are not HIV positive.

Provide evidence and clarification for this statement.

Quote:
Many HIV positive people have not developed any symptoms, even after
decades. A new term had to be created specifically for these people,
non-progressors.

You bet. Again--parroting ridiculous nonsense.

MOST infections have a pretty HUGE percentage of people who never
develop disease. Name me one that doesn't. TB. Ebola even!

What makes HIV so horrible is that so FEW people are long-term
non-progressors or "elite controllers" that sustain a low viral load
and no impact on CD4 counts.

Quote:
In Africa, a positive HIV test is not even part of the official
definition. If you have a fever and have lost a significant amount of
weight, you are considered to have AIDS in Africa.

That is just WRONG. Yes, there are places in Africa where testing
(was) limited and clinical signs and symptoms were relied upon for a
diagnosis. However, these are fewer and fewer.

Again, through jumping on this inaccurate polemic, you MISS the real
disaster and tragedy.

We all hear about the horrible cost of drugs--but we often forget the
horrible cost of diagnostics.

I have worked in Nepal and India--very poor countries--and have many
friends in these places. HIV testing is not the problem....finding an
affordable way to get CD4 counts (let alone viral load) is the big
problem.

Quote:
The numbers of AIDS victims has been increased more with the widening
of the definition of AIDS than it has by actual diagnosis.

God's teeth....no wonder people here sneer at you. All you do is act
like a little fucking puppet....like Dubya the Dork having his strings
pulled by the two-headed Cheney/Rumsfeld Beast.

The definition has been pretty much the same for 13 years.

It had a small impact when there was a change in the numbers of people
with AIDS--but not the numbers of people with HIV.

Quote:
And most importantly of all, the HIV/AIDS correlation has not been
demonstrated to meet Koch's Postulates. Period. It has never been
properly isolated. It has never been introduced to a human subject and
then seen to cause all the appropriate symptoms. It has never been
isolated from the same human subject. This has been the yardstick in
viral research for decades and decades, why would we expect less proof
of causality for such a far reaching disease like AIDS.

BULLSHIT. HIV HAS met Koch's postulates. Even Duesberg knows it has
been isolated.

And darling, if you want to prove HIV causes AIDS--why gosh, take the
HIV challenge. Get a bit of infected blood--harmless right?

And inject it.

We'll see what happens.

George M. Carter
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

GMCarter wrote:
Quote:
On 13 Jul 2006 07:38:54 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:


snip
Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

It does not mean that HIV does cause AIDS either. One concept has
nothing to do with the other.

I agree--but many denialists try to claim that AZT causes AIDS or
other unsupportable nonsense.

AZT is a toxic cocktail that had little or no testing done to ensure
any kind of safety of effectiveness of the drugs in combination in the
real world. And AZT does damage that closely mimics the symptoms of
AIDS. If you immune system wasn't compromised by HIV it will be
compromised by AZT.

Quote:

Did you know that the research that was first presented at a press
conference announcing the discovery that HIV causes AIDS has never been
actually published?

LOL--no, I do NOT know that. In fact, that happens to be not true. The
Gallo/HHS announcement was made PRIOR to the publication but the
material was "in press." It was indeed published. It was part of the
race to announce to be the "first" though history tells us that the
original discoverers were Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and, possibly, Jay
Levy. Gallo was a third in that.

It was published "in the press"??? What the frig does that mean? When I
say that the study was never published, I mean that it was never
published in a scientifc journal where it could be scrutinized,
duplicated, critiqued or otherwise examined by the scientists that work
in the field of virology. It has never been published to be peer
reviewed, and that my friend, peer review that is, is the very basic
cornerstone of the scientific method.

Quote:


AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

AIDS is not marketing crap, it is a real health problem. The idea that
HIV, a simple retro-virus, is the sole cause of AIDS is a bit of an
issue though.

Yes, but not the way you mean it. HIV causes AIDS. HOW it does so
remains an extremely important and not yet fully elucidated question.
But that being said, there is an ENORMOUS amount of information about
how HIV causes AIDS, its replication cycle etc.

But no vaccine. It's just a virus. Like many viri before it. Except
this little retro-virus has eaten up literally billions of dollars in
research money. When it was first announced, it was predicted that we
would have a vaccine within 18 months, because that was the state of
the science at the time. Virology is a fairly advanced field. They have
a pretty good idea of what they are doing, but HIV just seems to have
them completely stumped. And there is no other comparable problem in
the field of virology. They have effective vaccines, albeit containing
nasty s**t like mercury and other poisons, but that is a processing and
manufacturing issue. Manufactured without the poisonous crap, vaccines
actually are effective and developing vaccines is a well understood
process. Why this little retro-virus would be so elusive to deal with
is a big question.

Quote:

Fundamentally, it is simple. People with HIV see a chronic and
persistent decline in CD4 T cell counts toward zero, if untreated. As
the CD4 count plummets, the ability to fight off infections (mostly
those defended against via cell-mediated immunity) is impaired and
then AIDS develops.

Except that a significant number of people who are HIV positive never
see this happen. And many people with the same symptoms are not HIV
positive. And compound this with the fact that there are numerous other
factors that can lead to the same problems with acquired impaired
immunity, which have mostly been conveniently ignore or minimized. What
factors? Narcotics and other drug use. Excessive use of blood
transfusions. Illness. Malnourishment. Semen in the colon. And many
combinations of these factors.

Quote:

One of the most breathtakingly stupid "arguments" of denialists is
that HIV causes pneumonia or cancer. It doesn't--infection results in
the impaired immunity that then makes a potentially LETHAL situation
of death by Pneumocystis, CMV, etc.

Well, stupid people often come up with strange and silly points to back
their arguments. But you won't here that said by me or the dozens of
virologists that disagree with the HIV/AIDS connection.

Quote:

What HIV DOES cause is neuropathy, dementia and wasting, the latter of
which can be lethal.

And the likelihood of invasive infections of all types.

Quote:


If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

Well I don't know about that. It is truly a tragic situation and I
sympathize. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if
there had been research on other possible causes other than HIV, and if
treatments had taken that into account. What if HIV is only a marker or
is just a marker that shows up more in the high risk population? What
if HIV has nothing to do with AIDS? Then your friends treatments,
suffering, and their deaths may have been prevented with other less
tragic means.

Darling there HAS been research. LOOK before you make these bold
statements that only reveal the fact that you have NOT looked.

But virtually all the research assumes the HIV/AIDS causality, and
excludes any possibility of any other causality. Since the press
conference that presented the HIV/AIDS causality, virtually all
research in other causalities have been shut down. They are researching
one paradigm, HIV and AIDS. And researching HIV has been very lucrative
for the researchers. It pays fo rthem to keep researching something
that will never make sense and will never be resolved by continuing to
research what they are researching. And as long as we buy into the
HIV/AIDS causality, no vaccine will ever be found and the
pharmaceutical companies will makes billions in drug sales to AIDS
victims. The people profitting from AIDS are very happy with a
causality paradigm that leads to nothing but more research and drug
sales.

Quote:

Syphilis is NOT a co-factor. Parasitic infections are NOT a co-factor.
They are not necessary for HIV infection to result in AIDS. They ARE
however VERY significant co-infections that can accelerate disease
progression.

By contrast, you're right in the sense that understanding HOW HIV
causes AIDS has pointed us away from a variety of interventions. Yet
even there, data are developing, albeit painfully slowly. For example,
a multivitamin has been shown to reduce disease progression rate by
30%. Not a cure but a significant intervention in HIV disease
management (nothing is a cure at this point).

Good nutrition is the key to the health of the immune system. It cannot
function properly without the necessary nutrients. Did you notice that
in africa they are getting away from their traditional foods and eating
more and more westernized nutrient-depleted grains and sugars and other
assorted manufactured crap? And in the environment they are in with
more infectious diseases like malaria, their immune systems are being
pounded down daily. I am not surprised that they are experiencing more
and more immune system failures. And also remember that in africa they
do not need an HIV test to be considered AIDS.

Quote:

Yet politics prevents a vigorous embrace and utilization of this
because some fat miserable fucking stockholder doesn't make the
EXPECTED HUGE return on investment in pharma and fat fucking shits
like CEO Hank McKinnell won't make a murdering pofiteering killing on
selling multis that he can from selling Pfizer's drug.

As long as we believe that the cause is HIV, we will only research and
treat HIV. And the treatment is drugs. Pharma is making a killing, no
pun intended.

Quote:


That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

I think that the belief that a simple retro-virus could cause such a
plethora of various combinations of symptoms and system breakdowns is
kinda hard to believe.

Because you don't understand and just parrot some of the brain dead
crap denialists spout. Some of it was mildly entertaining or even
worth a look 17 years ago but at this point, it is just incredibly
stupid to parrot the same stupid and REFUTED whinings.

This is still a valid argument that has not been refuted. They've tried
to refute it but they haven't convinced some of the top virologits in
the world.

Quote:

And the fact that this simple retro-virus has
been able to completely baffle researchers and to evade being tamed by
vaccination is hard to believe. It is just a simple retro-virus like
thousands of other retro-viri.

Most retroviruses do NOT cause disease--and now name for me some
retroviruses for which a successful vaccine has been developed.

Exactly. Most do not cause disease. Retro-viri are not even full
fledged viri. Virulent viri are hard to kill, HIV can't even be grown
and isolated in the lab in optimal conditions, how is it going to be so
tough and persistent in less than optimal conditions in the human body?

Quote:

There's another story where the REAL disaster is missed by conspiracy
ditherings. The research community (and Pentagon) wasted HUGE amounts
of resources chasing after envelope vaccines that DO NOT WORK. And it
was quite apparent they did not work.

And what if the HIV/AIDS causality is bogus? What of the billions
wasted on useless research that could not possibly help anyone. And the
poison drug cocktails that were fed to patients to kill a non-existent
cause of the disease? And what of the ethics of those pushing the
HIV/AIDS causality while knowing that it is a bogus paradigm?

Quote:

The disease has, for the most part, not gone much beyond the initial
risk groups in the Western world where a diagnosis requires a positive
HIV test. Many people with all the signs of AIDS are not HIV positive.

Provide evidence and clarification for this statement.

Check the stats.

Quote:

Many HIV positive people have not developed any symptoms, even after
decades. A new term had to be created specifically for these people,
non-progressors.

You bet. Again--parroting ridiculous nonsense.

The term non-progressors did not exist until HIV researchers found HIV
positive people who failed to develop AIDS symptoms. First it was
thought that the virus took months to start doing the damage. Then when
HIV positive people failed to develop symptoms in the alloted time, the
time period was extended, and when the time lag became overly long and
the latent period had to be extended by years, the term was coined. It
is what scientists call a paradox, when one thing is expected and fails
to materialize as expected it becomes a paradox and yet another thing
for the to research, and of course, that means more research money for
them.

Quote:

MOST infections have a pretty HUGE percentage of people who never
develop disease. Name me one that doesn't. TB. Ebola even!

That is some strange logic.

Quote:

What makes HIV so horrible is that so FEW people are long-term
non-progressors or "elite controllers" that sustain a low viral load
and no impact on CD4 counts.

In Africa, a positive HIV test is not even part of the official
definition. If you have a fever and have lost a significant amount of
weight, you are considered to have AIDS in Africa.

That is just WRONG. Yes, there are places in Africa where testing
(was) limited and clinical signs and symptoms were relied upon for a
diagnosis. However, these are fewer and fewer.

Money has been raised thru all kinds of intra-governmental granst and
aid that now they have money for testing. Pharma is now making a profit
there.

Quote:

Again, through jumping on this inaccurate polemic, you MISS the real
disaster and tragedy.

We all hear about the horrible cost of drugs--but we often forget the
horrible cost of diagnostics.

I have worked in Nepal and India--very poor countries--and have many
friends in these places. HIV testing is not the problem....finding an
affordable way to get CD4 counts (let alone viral load) is the big
problem.

The numbers of AIDS victims has been increased more with the widening
of the definition of AIDS than it has by actual diagnosis.

God's teeth....no wonder people here sneer at you. All you do is act
like a little fucking puppet....like Dubya the Dork having his strings
pulled by the two-headed Cheney/Rumsfeld Beast.

The definition has been pretty much the same for 13 years.

It had a small impact when there was a change in the numbers of people
with AIDS--but not the numbers of people with HIV.

And most importantly of all, the HIV/AIDS correlation has not been
demonstrated to meet Koch's Postulates. Period. It has never been
properly isolated. It has never been introduced to a human subject and
then seen to cause all the appropriate symptoms. It has never been
isolated from the same human subject. This has been the yardstick in
viral research for decades and decades, why would we expect less proof
of causality for such a far reaching disease like AIDS.

BULLSHIT. HIV HAS met Koch's postulates. Even Duesberg knows it has
been isolated.

And darling, if you want to prove HIV causes AIDS--why gosh, take the
HIV challenge. Get a bit of infected blood--harmless right?

And inject it.

We'll see what happens.

George M. Carter

I have no fears of HIV. And I would take you up on that. I kid you not.

TC
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

GMCarter wrote:
Quote:
On 13 Jul 2006 07:38:54 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:


snip
Sadly, because those slimy profiteering shits kill people who can't
afford their overpriced drugs, diagnostics, etc., does NOT mean that
HIV does not cause AIDS.

It does not mean that HIV does cause AIDS either. One concept has
nothing to do with the other.

I agree--but many denialists try to claim that AZT causes AIDS or
other unsupportable nonsense.

Did you know that the research that was first presented at a press
conference announcing the discovery that HIV causes AIDS has never been
actually published?

LOL--no, I do NOT know that. In fact, that happens to be not true. The
Gallo/HHS announcement was made PRIOR to the publication but the
material was "in press." It was indeed published. It was part of the
race to announce to be the "first" though history tells us that the
original discoverers were Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and, possibly, Jay
Levy. Gallo was a third in that.


AIDS, my dear, is not marketing crap. It is a situation that pharma
has capitalized on horribly.

AIDS is not marketing crap, it is a real health problem. The idea that
HIV, a simple retro-virus, is the sole cause of AIDS is a bit of an
issue though.

Yes, but not the way you mean it. HIV causes AIDS. HOW it does so
remains an extremely important and not yet fully elucidated question.
But that being said, there is an ENORMOUS amount of information about
how HIV causes AIDS, its replication cycle etc.

Fundamentally, it is simple. People with HIV see a chronic and
persistent decline in CD4 T cell counts toward zero, if untreated. As
the CD4 count plummets, the ability to fight off infections (mostly
those defended against via cell-mediated immunity) is impaired and
then AIDS develops.

One of the most breathtakingly stupid "arguments" of denialists is
that HIV causes pneumonia or cancer. It doesn't--infection results in
the impaired immunity that then makes a potentially LETHAL situation
of death by Pneumocystis, CMV, etc.

What HIV DOES cause is neuropathy, dementia and wasting, the latter of
which can be lethal.


If HIV/AIDS were just marketing crap, I'd still have a hell of a lot
of friends alive.

Well I don't know about that. It is truly a tragic situation and I
sympathize. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if
there had been research on other possible causes other than HIV, and if
treatments had taken that into account. What if HIV is only a marker or
is just a marker that shows up more in the high risk population? What
if HIV has nothing to do with AIDS? Then your friends treatments,
suffering, and their deaths may have been prevented with other less
tragic means.

Darling there HAS been research. LOOK before you make these bold
statements that only reveal the fact that you have NOT looked.

Syphilis is NOT a co-factor. Parasitic infections are NOT a co-factor.
They are not necessary for HIV infection to result in AIDS. They ARE
however VERY significant co-infections that can accelerate disease
progression.

By contrast, you're right in the sense that understanding HOW HIV
causes AIDS has pointed us away from a variety of interventions. Yet
even there, data are developing, albeit painfully slowly. For example,
a multivitamin has been shown to reduce disease progression rate by
30%. Not a cure but a significant intervention in HIV disease
management (nothing is a cure at this point).

Yet politics prevents a vigorous embrace and utilization of this
because some fat miserable fucking stockholder doesn't make the
EXPECTED HUGE return on investment in pharma and fat fucking shits
like CEO Hank McKinnell won't make a murdering pofiteering killing on
selling multis that he can from selling Pfizer's drug.


That you believe that HIV does not cause AIDS is the kind of rank
stupidity that renders all commentary on your otherwise sometimes
interesting posts of abstracts completely unreliable to me.

I think that the belief that a simple retro-virus could cause such a
plethora of various combinations of symptoms and system breakdowns is
kinda hard to believe.

Because you don't understand and just parrot some of the brain dead
crap denialists spout. Some of it was mildly entertaining or even
worth a look 17 years ago but at this point, it is just incredibly
stupid to parrot the same stupid and REFUTED whinings.

And the fact that this simple retro-virus has
been able to completely baffle researchers and to evade being tamed by
vaccination is hard to believe. It is just a simple retro-virus like
thousands of other retro-viri.

Most retroviruses do NOT cause disease--and now name for me some
retroviruses for which a successful vaccine has been developed.

There's another story where the REAL disaster is missed by conspiracy
ditherings. The research community (and Pentagon) wasted HUGE amounts
of resources chasing after envelope vaccines that DO NOT WORK. And it
was quite apparent they did not work.

The disease has, for the most part, not gone much beyond the initial
risk groups in the Western world where a diagnosis requires a positive
HIV test. Many people with all the signs of AIDS are not HIV positive.

Provide evidence and clarification for this statement.

Many HIV positive people have not developed any symptoms, even after
decades. A new term had to be created specifically for these people,
non-progressors.

You bet. Again--parroting ridiculous nonsense.

MOST infections have a pretty HUGE percentage of people who never
develop disease. Name me one that doesn't. TB. Ebola even!

What makes HIV so horrible is that so FEW people are long-term
non-progressors or "elite controllers" that sustain a low viral load
and no impact on CD4 counts.

In Africa, a positive HIV test is not even part of the official
definition. If you have a fever and have lost a significant amount of
weight, you are considered to have AIDS in Africa.

That is just WRONG. Yes, there are places in Africa where testing
(was) limited and clinical signs and symptoms were relied upon for a
diagnosis. However, these are fewer and fewer.

Again, through jumping on this inaccurate polemic, you MISS the real
disaster and tragedy.

We all hear about the horrible cost of drugs--but we often forget the
horrible cost of diagnostics.

I have worked in Nepal and India--very poor countries--and have many
friends in these places. HIV testing is not the problem....finding an
affordable way to get CD4 counts (let alone viral load) is the big
problem.

The numbers of AIDS victims has been increased more with the widening
of the definition of AIDS than it has by actual diagnosis.

God's teeth....no wonder people here sneer at you. All you do is act
like a little fucking puppet....like Dubya the Dork having his strings
pulled by the two-headed Cheney/Rumsfeld Beast.

The definition has been pretty much the same for 13 years.

It had a small impact when there was a change in the numbers of people
with AIDS--but not the numbers of people with HIV.

And most importantly of all, the HIV/AIDS correlation has not been
demonstrated to meet Koch's Postulates. Period. It has never been
properly isolated. It has never been introduced to a human subject and
then seen to cause all the appropriate symptoms. It has never been
isolated from the same human subject. This has been the yardstick in
viral research for decades and decades, why would we expect less proof
of causality for such a far reaching disease like AIDS.

BULLSHIT. HIV HAS met Koch's postulates. Even Duesberg knows it has
been isolated.

And darling, if you want to prove HIV causes AIDS--why gosh, take the
HIV challenge. Get a bit of infected blood--harmless right?

And inject it.

We'll see what happens.

George M. Carter

Oh.... and it has not met Koch's postulates. Isolation of the virus is
only one part of Koch's Postulates. And if it has been isolated it must
have happen not very long ago because the last time I looked it hadn't
been isolated. Do you have a cite for this?

TC
Back to top
GMCarter
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

On 14 Jul 2006 09:52:41 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Quote:
Oh.... and it has not met Koch's postulates. Isolation of the virus is
only one part of Koch's Postulates. And if it has been isolated it must
have happen not very long ago because the last time I looked it hadn't
been isolated. Do you have a cite for this?

Ah, you know what? Frankly, it doesn't HAVE to fulfill Koch's
postulates. Not all infectious diseases do.

But as it so happens, HIV does:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm

And the ONLY people who think HIV hasn't been isolated are the whack
jobs of the so-called "Perth group", some armchair theorizing nut
jobs. See, the denialist community is split:
1) Thinks HIV doesn't exist. Perties.

2) Thinks it does, but doesn't cause AIDS. Duesberg.

Both groups consist of a tiny cadre of cranks and right wing nuts who
have sucked in a few gullible lefties to tote their propaganda.

There's LOTS of data on the isolation of HIV. If it hasn't been, then
there are no infectious diseases and you can join the rank of
crackpots that believe that nonsense.

George M. Carter
Back to top
TC
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Bushmeat seeds new virus Reply with quote

GMCarter wrote:
Quote:
On 14 Jul 2006 09:52:41 -0700, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
Oh.... and it has not met Koch's postulates. Isolation of the virus is
only one part of Koch's Postulates. And if it has been isolated it must
have happen not very long ago because the last time I looked it hadn't
been isolated. Do you have a cite for this?

Ah, you know what? Frankly, it doesn't HAVE to fulfill Koch's
postulates. Not all infectious diseases do.

But as it so happens, HIV does:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm

And the ONLY people who think HIV hasn't been isolated are the whack
jobs of the so-called "Perth group", some armchair theorizing nut
jobs. See, the denialist community is split:
1) Thinks HIV doesn't exist. Perties.

2) Thinks it does, but doesn't cause AIDS. Duesberg.

Both groups consist of a tiny cadre of cranks and right wing nuts who
have sucked in a few gullible lefties to tote their propaganda.

There's LOTS of data on the isolation of HIV. If it hasn't been, then
there are no infectious diseases and you can join the rank of
crackpots that believe that nonsense.

George M. Carter

Some of those "cranks and right wing nuts" are pretty highly respected
in their fields.

TC
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [28 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:43 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Creating effective CMV virus controls for shell vial assay HD-NZ laboratory 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:40 am
No new posts Seaweed extract may help halt cervical cancer virus Roman Bystrianyk cancer 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:34 am
No new posts The H5N1 Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) Virus has mutated in ... Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD cardiology 10 Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:26 pm
No new posts Interaction of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato with Epste... georgia lyme 0 Mon May 15, 2006 11:34 pm
No new posts Hybrid virus - being tested in dog J cancer 0 Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:55 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0317s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0020s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]