[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mr.White:
Power-hungry Asshole.

PHAs don't admit they may have made a bad call then fix it.

I commend him for this. It takes humility. Something PHAs don't have.

Actually I don't know of any PHAs in MacNN.

[boots]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Fact is that not all AIDS is caused by HIV, so what I am proposing is to narrow the definition of AIDS. It is far too broad. Likely there are a few types of AIDS.

No, this is not fact. this is speculation based on an epidemiological study.

Nor is it fact that only HIV causes AIDS. This too is speculation based on epidemiological study.

So in the end...we don't know shit.

Lets start by agreeing to this. As a scientist, I'm sure you're willing to at least agree to that much.

There are many types of retroviruses and none of them seem to be as hard to fight as HIV. We don't know enough about its role in AIDS to make such sweeping generalizations as many scientists make. It is irresponsible and to put it bluntly it is bad science. AIDS was defined as a viral disease 20 years ago which means we've only seen two cycles of patients that go from recently HIV+ to dead from AIDS. During that time a lot of controversy and bias seems to have prospered among scientists preventing much needed research. That is the biggest irony IMO.

No arguments from me on this point.

Think about this: Some cancers are caused by a virus (i.e. Raus sarcoma virus) but not all cancers are caused by virus. AIDS is like cancer not one disease but many rolled up into one. Hence it is called a syndrome. There is no universal law that says "one disease one virus/bacteria". Especially when the disease is a relatively fuzzy syndrome that is so controversial that people waste more time arguing about it than actually agreeing to find a cure. A real cure. [/B]

How many of them (retoviruses) have been as devistating as we suppose HIV is? We have not really done diddly in the past to learn about the other retroviruses, and there is no cure for those either. The reason we got the jump on HIV like we did is because we had done a TON of research on aspartate proteases when we were looking at renin inhibitors in the 70's. It was a coincidence that the key to HIV replication was an aspartate protease too. Had it not been, we wouldn't have seen the first drugs until, oh, say, the late 90's at earliest. Maybe not even yet.

The thing that makes HIV so insidious is that that protein (HIV-RT) can accommodate a lot of structural change and still remain active (perhaps why it seems like wide range of diseases). That's what makes the search for a drug so hard. We need specificity (target HIV-RT) but in a non-specific way. It's an oxymoron.

The best we can do is take a serious look at how drugs feed into this.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
I just meant that if he went around calling himself a 'rogue' scientist, he wasn't helping his credibility much. Your addition of the word just seems like misplaced sensationalism.

I like how you just assume that I didn't read the article. Where did I say I didn't? I mentioned reading his abstracts, at his website, of his past papers on the subject, so as to better inform myself of his position. I'll grant you that I didn't read the article, just the abstracts, because I don't have access to J. Biosci, but I resent your automatic assumption without cause. In any case, is there somewhere I can get the whole article? I would like to read it.

That said, having read his abstracts, and having found them lacking, I am inclined to not agree with the ideas he presents in them. I have read many other papers on HIV/AIDS that contain ideas I agree with more than his. Does that mean this Professor is wrong? Not necessarily, it just means the facts he presented were not enough to change my mind on the subject to his viewpoint.

Please also bear in mind that being published in a peer-reviewed journal, even such respected ones as Science and PNAS does not mean that your ideas are automatically correct.

Your attitude seems to be that since I disagree with him, I must be some closed-minded fellow. Being open-minded doesn't mean you agree with everything, voodoo. I respect your opinion, please respect mine.



I said 'like ten' because I couldn't remember his exact age. I looked it up just for you, he was diagnosed with AIDS in Dec 1984, age 13. Three months after AZT was first considered for use as an AIDS treatment. So how did he get AIDS from AZT again? Dr. Duesberg insinuates in one of his abstracts that Ryan (and other hemophiliacs) got AIDS from their hemophilia drugs, not HIV. It's apparently a coincidence that Ryan's drugs gave him AIDS right around the same time as he contracted HIV from a transfusion. I'm sorry if that sounds, to me, like Duesberg's stretching to make his model fit.

Oh, and your Magic Johnson example doesn't help your case much, since he slept with women like it was going out of style (which is how he apparently got HIV), and has been taking anti-HIV drugs since 1991, when he admitted he had the virus. His lifestyle gave him HIV. Did the massive amount of drugs he's taken for 13 years give him AIDS? No.

Yes, criticism of ideas can make them better. I'm criticising this Professor's ideas. What's my problem again?

--J

From your original post I assumed that you had only read the abstract from these comments you made:

- I find it hard to take seriously someone termed a "rogue molecular biologist". I hope that was your adjective, Voodoo, and not Dr. Duesberg's.

- But simply as a thinking individual, reading this fellow's abstracts, he's got "black helicopter-itis" written all over him.

and

- This paper is nothing new, just a re-iteration of old ideas

Those comments pretty much showed that you hadn't read the article but rather deduced your biased opinion from reading the abstract. Now as you have a degree in this field I expect better comments from you than the ones you've made. I'm getting my B.Sc. in this field next year myself and I find it rather shallow and (unintentionally perhaps) insulting how you commented.

I'm of course playing the devil's advocate here. I think this is a very interesting discussion and if you don't agree I respect that. If you would read the article though I'm sure you'd enjoy it. It is written in an unusually clear way for a scientific article. As such it is also up for criticism by Dr Duesenberg's peers. That is us you know. But we have to read it first now don't we

AZT was licensed by the FDA as a HIV drug in 1987. Plenty of time. 3 years. HIV+ does not equal AIDS. AIDS comes later and quite frankly AZT alone is a horrible drug and so unspecialized it is sad. I don't think anyone claims that AZT alone helped anyone in combating AIDS. Unless you'd like to put your neck forward...

That MJ thing was just tit for tat. One boy doesn't prove anything. This is science not religion.

[macvillage.net]

I had a textbook supplement that taught AIDS could only be contracted by Homosexuals, and people of African decent.

No joke. It claimed medical mis-diagnosis, and government regulations caused false diagnosis for many people.

Yes, it was written by a Christian organization.

I've also heard that Cancer risk is increased by contact with people of different races, or Homosexuals.

I tend not to believe this S--- unless there is firm, commonly accepted medical backing.


There's a new hoax on this front every week.

I particularly enjoyed how obesity is not unhealthy for you. It's actually better for you. Or so I've also seen. Ends up people doctors call "healthy" are grossly underweight.


This sounds to me, like just another guy trying to make some shockwaves and controversy. If it's true, there will be backing of the entire medical community. Until that, I'll ignore it.

If I believed everything, I'd have skin cancer from shaking an African American's hand.

[Eug]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I had a textbook supplement that taught AIDS could only be contracted by Homosexuals, and people of African decent.

No joke. It claimed medical mis-diagnosis, and government regulations caused false diagnosis for many people.

Yes, it was written by a Christian organization.

I've also heard that Cancer risk is increased by contact with people of different races, or Homosexuals.

I tend not to believe this S--- unless there is firm, commonly accepted medical backing.

There's a new hoax on this front every week.

I particularly enjoyed how obesity is not unhealthy for you. It's actually better for you. Or so I've also seen. Ends up people doctors call "healthy" are grossly underweight.

This sounds to me, like just another guy trying to make some shockwaves and controversy. If it's true, there will be backing of the entire medical community. Until that, I'll ignore it.

If I believed everything, I'd have skin cancer from shaking an African American's hand.

Actually, cancer risk is increased by risky sexual behaviour. Certain cancers are caused by sexually transmitted diseases for example. And patients who have AIDS have increased development of certain types of cancer.
Also, it is likely that anal sex has a higher risk of HIV transmission than vaginal.

But yeah, re: those publications: What it sounds like is that they've intentionally twisted some bits and pieces of info to mislead people for their own benefit.

[boots]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There's a new hoax on this front every week.

I particularly enjoyed how obesity is not unhealthy for you. It's actually better for you. Or so I've also seen. Ends up people doctors call "healthy" are grossly underweight.


This sounds to me, like just another guy trying to make some shockwaves and controversy. If it's true, there will be backing of the entire medical community. Until that, I'll ignore it.

If I believed everything, I'd have skin cancer from shaking an African American's hand.

No, I think this is legitimate. What people seem to miss in this is that he is a compiler of other people's research. He's an epidemiologist. So he isn't spouting things that aren't already out there.

He makes a very legitimate and compelling argument that drug use correlates with AIDS. The question people need to ask is how.

I've already given my thoughts that trying to isolate a single theory while discounting previous theories is less than helpful.

Example: The first theory was "lifestyle." simply being a gay male predisposed you to getting AIDS.

The we discovered HIV. HIV is sexually transmitted. Aha. The lifestyle theory is not true...but it informs us about transmission. Certain lifestyle will increase risk.

The article says that hookers don't have a higher AIDS rate, so it can't be as serious a threat via sexual transmission. Two things wrong with this:

1) Hookers got paranoid FAST. They practice safe sex.

2) They (as a demographic) are high on the "drug consumer" list. This alone make the argument for chemical triggering by itself weak.

[boots]

Originally posted by Eug:
Actually, cancer risk is increased by risky sexual behaviour. Certain cancers are caused by sexually transmitted diseases for example.

I'll back you up on this. Cervical cancer is thought to be primarily caused by human pappiloma virus (type II) - HPV-II.

Also, it is likely that anal sex has a higher risk of HIV transmission than vaginal.

Which supports the blood borne pathogen idea of transmission. The vaginal wall is more resistant to lesions than the anal wall (for lack of a better term).

[Eug]

Originally posted by boots:
Cervical cancer is thought to be primarily caused by human pappiloma virus (type II) - HPV-II.

Actually HPV 16, 18, and a bunch of others. HPV 2 gives you benign warts of the skin.

[boots]

Originally posted by Eug:
Actually HPV 16, 18, and a bunch of others. HPV 2 gives you warts.

Thanks...got 'em reversed in my head.

[theolein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Thanks TI!

What drew me into this article was the questions it asked. Fundamentally: Why doesn't the current AIDS treatment work? 23 years after AIDS was first defined nothing has been accomplished really. But what people don't always realize is the definition of AIDS. It was defined by the CDC in 1981 as:

If you have had at least one of the following defining illnesses --
Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
Candidiasis, esophageal
Cervical cancer, invasive**
Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month's duration)
Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen, or nodes)
Cytomegalovirus retinitis (with loss of vision)
Encephalopathy, HIV-related
Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (greater than 1 month's duration); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month's duration)
Kaposi's sarcoma
Lymphoma, Burkitt's (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, primary, of brain
Mycobacterium avium complex or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, any site (pulmonary** or extrapulmonary)
Mycobacterium, other species or unidentified species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
Pneumonia, recurrent**
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
Toxoplasmosis of brain
Wasting syndrome due to HIV

** are 1993 additions.

Also the number of T-cell count enters into this and a number of other diseases. The complete definition is found here:
http://www.aegis.com/topics/definition.html

So a low t-cell count and one of the named diseases is AIDS. In 1984 HIV was determined to be the probable cause for AIDS, so you can use HIV infection as a part of the definition.

But is HIV the AIDS culprit? In Africa we have no idea. Since 1985 the WHO decided it would be too costly to test for HIV antibodies in AIDS suspects, so they are diagnosed only by symptoms. Bad science there. Is it the culprit in the US/EU? Perhaps, but the virus is never found in AIDS patients, only the antibodies. The cultivation of the virus itself is very difficult and expensive but it does not appear to be in AIDS patients. It seems that the body destroys the HIV virus before dying of AIDS. Meaning that the HIV virus may be a passenger virus or a partial reason for AIDS. The article mentions that some drugs, including AZT and/or severe malnutrition may simply destroy the immune system or suppress it enough for opportunistic microbial diseases to develop => AIDS.

There are many problems with this line of thought. The main one is that, if accepted, there are many who would use this as a reason to abandon both research and aid to the ill.

In my country, South Africa, the AIDS rate is the highest in the world. Some 5 million South Africans are HIV positive. There is a big problem in that the SA government under Nelson Mandela fought hard in court to be able to legally produce cheap generic AIDS medicine and they won, only for the next president Thabo Mbeki, to be of very much the same opinion as this Dr. Duesberg, which was nice for Mbeki, since that allowed him to cop out and avoid helping the millions of sick South Africans so that he could restock SA's military.

The argument that it comes through malnutrition is laughable. For one, South Africa is not a country where starvation is prevalent- there are a lot of very poor, but almost none starving - and for two, it would mean that the AIDS rate in places where there is starving, like Ethiopia and Sudan, would be much higher.

The doctor sounds like an idiot, to put it simply.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by boots:
No, I think this is legitimate. What people seem to miss in this is that he is a compiler of other people's research. He's an epidemiologist. So he isn't spouting things that aren't already out there.

He makes a very legitimate and compelling argument that drug use correlates with AIDS. The question people need to ask is how.

I've already given my thoughts that trying to isolate a single theory while discounting previous theories is less than helpful.

Example: The first theory was "lifestyle." simply being a gay male predisposed you to getting AIDS.

The we discovered HIV. HIV is sexually transmitted. Aha. The lifestyle theory is not true...but it informs us about transmission. Certain lifestyle will increase risk.

The article says that hookers don't have a higher AIDS rate, so it can't be as serious a threat via sexual transmission. Two things wrong with this:

1) Hookers got paranoid FAST. They practice safe sex.

2) They (as a demographic) are high on the "drug consumer" list. This alone make the argument for chemical triggering by itself weak.

You make a point about how there could be different causes for the same observation.

Small groups who court and mate together are prone to spread disease within.

A community of 500 homosexuals in a city, are most likely going to have sexual relations WITHIN the group. Hence there will not be a great risk to spreading outside of this community.

Same within race, as religions and society often make interracial relations impossible.

Hence the observation that only Homosexuals and people of African American decent can contract HIV.


It's a commonly accepted belief of many.

It's also commonly accepted (Despite the HIV virus being found in semen and vaginal secretions) that it can't be contacted sexually. Remember both the skin of the penis, and vagina tear ever so slightly every time sexual intercorse takes pleace. Just because you don't see blood doesn't mean your skin is torn.

Skin itself is a very good barrier against AIDS. It's cuts that allow it to get through. Doesn't need to be large enough to bleed, just enough for fluids to get through.



My question is:

How do you get people, who have been told for 20 years they are immune from the diease, that they could contract it? it is possible as a white heterosexual to get HIV, despite the common belief among many that it isn't.


This theory also doesn't explain many other issues. Mainly: If it's spread by lifestyle, how do so many who don't have the means for such a lifestyle contract it?

Are there really muli-million misdiagnoses? Is it really falsely detected millions of times in each country every year like this article implies?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by boots:
No, this is not fact. this is speculation based on an epidemiological study.

Nor is it fact that only HIV causes AIDS. This too is speculation based on epidemiological study.

So in the end...we don't know shit.

Lets start by agreeing to this. As a scientist, I'm sure you're willing to at least agree to that much.

Of course

Using the word fact there was plain wrong by me, I concede that point. What I meant was "some researches indicate". We seem to be in agreement after all. For all practical reasons we know very very little about AIDS, HIV, cause and effect between them is not fully understood, lifestyle certainly has something to do with this pandemic and we would do well in researching how/if the HIV is triggered from its dormant state. It it by drug abuse or something else? We just don't know. The scientific community isn't all that keen to know either. There are those who have decided already that HIV is the only culprit and by erasing it would cure people from AIDS. Those people are among others the editor of Nature and other prominent members of the American science elite.

Here is an interesting quote from the FAQ section of the website:

Q16:__The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.


A16:__I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:


1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.


2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.


3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!

Here he is pointing out how little interest there is to examine HIV/AIDS from an alternative POV. I'm curious. I'd like to see the results of studies Dr. Duesberg is suggesting. There is no harm in it. There just isn't any money in it either

[boots]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
You make a point about how there could be different causes for the same observation.

Small groups who court and mate together are prone to spread disease within.

A community of 500 homosexuals in a city, are most likely going to have sexual relations WITHIN the group. Hence there will not be a great risk to spreading outside of this community.

Same within race, as religions and society often make interracial relations impossible.

Hence the observation that only Homosexuals and people of African American decent can contract HIV.


It's a commonly accepted belief of many.

It's also commonly accepted (Despite the HIV virus being found in semen and vaginal secretions) that it can't be contacted sexually. Remember both the skin of the penis, and vagina tear ever so slightly every time sexual intercorse takes pleace. Just because you don't see blood doesn't mean your skin is torn.

Skin itself is a very good barrier against AIDS. It's cuts that allow it to get through. Doesn't need to be large enough to bleed, just enough for fluids to get through.



My question is:

How do you get people, who have been told for 20 years they are immune from the diease, that they could contract it? it is possible as a white heterosexual to get HIV, despite the common belief among many that it isn't.


This theory also doesn't explain many other issues. Mainly: If it's spread by lifestyle, how do so many who don't have the means for such a lifestyle contract it?

Are there really muli-million misdiagnoses? Is it really falsely detected millions of times in each country every year like this article implies?

You've completely missed my point. It was not about one thing "causing" HIV/AIDS. It was that there seem to be (at least) three correlating factors.

There are lots of opportunities for those who don't subscribe to a given "lifestyle" to be infected. Someone in their circle, for example. Let's not kid ourselves that we are a strictly monogamous culture and that in those rare instances of weakness we do so safely.

As I said. Lifestyle correlates...it doesn't explain.

[boots]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There just isn't any money in it either

Ding ding ding.

Welcome to the political world of science. Check your ego at the door and prepare to be disillusioned for then next 40 years.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by theolein:
There are many problems with this line of thought. The main one is that, if accepted, there are many who would use this as a reason to abandon both research and aid to the ill.

In my country, South Africa, the AIDS rate is the highest in the world. Some 5 million South Africans are HIV positive. There is a big problem in that the SA government under Nelson Mandela fought hard in court to be able to legally produce cheap generic AIDS medicine and they won, only for the next president Thabo Mbeki, to be of very much the same opinion as this Dr. Duesberg, which was nice for Mbeki, since that allowed him to cop out and avoid helping the millions of sick South Africans so that he could restock SA's military.

The argument that it comes through malnutrition is laughable. For one, South Africa is not a country where starvation is prevalent- there are a lot of very poor, but almost none starving - and for two, it would mean that the AIDS rate in places where there is starving, like Ethiopia and Sudan, would be much higher.

The doctor sounds like an idiot, to put it simply.

Keep in mind that Dr. Duesberg is just suggesting things. He collects other peoples' research, both because he's an epidemiologist and he's been unsuccessful in getting grants to study his ideas. Science is very much about proving things wrong rather than proving them right (since stumbling on the correct answer in a study isn't always very likely).

But to disillusion you, it doesn't matter at all if people with HIV or AIDS are given the antiretroviral drugs that are available today anyway. In 10 years time (+/-) they'll be dead. Drugs or no. '

There aren't any numbers from Ethiopa until 2001 and no data at all for most countries in N-Africa. Research is quite frankly in the dump in Africa. Perhaps it is the good in SA but in the North and NW-Africa it is crap. Also AIDS in most countries in Africa that are studied, people are NEVER tested for HIV. Most HIV+ numbers are therefore estimations.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by boots:
You've completely missed my point. It was not about one thing "causing" HIV/AIDS. It was that there seem to be (at least) three correlating factors.

There are lots of opportunities for those who don't subscribe to a given "lifestyle" to be infected. Someone in their circle, for example. Let's not kid ourselves that we are a strictly monogamous culture and that in those rare instances of weakness we do so safely.

As I said. Lifestyle correlates...it doesn't explain.

No I didn't miss the point.

My point was the correlation is normally misleading, and shouldn't be pushed as explanation.

(to geek this up):
Windows Coorelates with Secure Business Workstations in most companies... is it?

Coorelation can be skewed intentionally, yet still accurate.

It's impossible to view the entire group, so we pick a sample. What the "sample" is... is completely debatable.

I can do an income survey in a Beverly Hills, and Bronx, NY. I'd most likely come to the conclusion that living in California increases your chances on being rich.

Accurate? Yes, absolutely. Based on the data. Scientifically sound? based on the data at hand, absolutely.

Is it correct? No.

I could do another survey in a farmtown in California, and some off-wall street appartments. And find the complete inverse.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by boots:
Ding ding ding.

Welcome to the political world of science. Check your ego at the door and prepare to be disillusioned for then next 40 years.

yah I know but I'm young and full of expectations, hopes, dreams and other things that indicate immaturity

[boots]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
No I didn't miss the point.

My point was the correlation is normally misleading, and shouldn't be pushed as explanation.

And that was my point also. So when you seem to have to point this out to me (by asking me questions that I've already said are bogus), it seems as though you missed my point.

could be :

1) I didn't make myself clear

2) you skimmed and made assumption to fill in the holes

3) who cares.

[voodoo]

I'm glad we've had this discussion. It's been fun!

Just the other day I thought that AIDS was something all scientists agreed upon and worked in unison to find a cure for it. Then I learn about the money thing and realize that finding a culprit virus created an industry overnight. People didn't know what to do with this between '81 and '83. Then money entered the equation. A lot of money. When a lot of money begins moving I automatically become wary and look into things more. Follow the money. Works almost every time.

[boots]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'm glad we've had this discussion. It's been fun!

[snip]

Works almost every time.

Yep on both counts. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this has a lot more similarity that difference with cancer....once it's all figured out.

In cancer, you need a transformer and a promoter.

I've often wondered if with AIDS, HIV was the transformer and some external factor triggered the promotion. We know too little about genetic switches (which may prove to be the key here).

I guess after the discussion, my original comment of trying to change the definition for funding reasons makes more sense.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by boots:
And that was my point also. So when you seem to have to point this out to me (by asking me questions that I've already said are bogus), it seems as though you missed my point.

could be :

1) I didn't make myself clear

2) you skimmed and made assumption to fill in the holes

3) who cares.

Call it a misunderstanding and move on. No beef, we are on the same page.

[boots]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Call it a misunderstanding and move on. No beef, we are on the same page.

NP.

[voodoo]

NO BEEF??

[Eug]

But to disillusion you, it doesn't matter at all if people with HIV or AIDS are given the antiretroviral drugs that are available today anyway. In 10 years time (+/-) they'll be dead. Drugs or no. '

Incorrect.

HIV positive patients can live a LONG time without drugs, that is true. However, once they develop AIDS, they'll die a lot quicker on average without the drugs. Studies show that patients on proper antiretroviral drug regimens have dramatically increased lifespans, as opposed to those who are not.

[macvillage.net]

Healthy people, who take their medication properly, and visit a doctor on schedule can live indefinately with HIV.

Problems arise when medical coverage stops paying, or they get lazy and don't keep up with their doctor.

There are people on the drugs for 15 years and are no worse than they day they contracted HIV. They are "positive", that's all.

They can live another 30 years, with no ill effects, provided they keep with their doctor, and keep a close eye on their body, and treat problems before they become critical.

HIV effects the body's ability to fight/recover. If you prevent the problem, your in good shape.


The key is for medication *early*, and regular. As well as a doctor keeping a close eye on your health. With that, there's no reason why a person can't live a normal life (with proper precausions not to spread, or put themselves at risk).

Flu shots become necessary, as largescale infections can sometimes trigger the AIDS.

Then again... you should try to keep healthy regardless of having AIDS or not. Getting a physical is always a good idea.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Eug:
Incorrect.

HIV positive patients can live a LONG time without drugs, that is true. However, once they develop AIDS, they'll die a lot quicker on average without the drugs. Studies show that patients on proper antiretroviral drug regimens have dramatically increased lifespans, as opposed to those who are not.

All anti viral treatments today are fundamentally anti cell treatments because the cell carries out all viral biochemical functions. So you'll feel sick like hell while you're on them. However your point is true to a degree. The anti-HIV drugs have the unintended benefits of functioning as true 'anti-biotic' because of their general toxicity to all living things. That fends off much of the opportunistic infections normally caused by AIDS while killing infected and uninfected t-cells assisting the inevitable. The total destruction of the immune system. I've not seen the researches you speak of but regardless today's antiviral drugs are so hardcore that your quality of life is nonexistent while on them. It's a catch 22 thing. You may live longer while on the drugs but you'll suffer more and longer and then you die or you don't do these drugs suffer and die. What would you choose? Nobody has ever been cured by those drugs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by voodoo:
All anti viral treatments today are fundamentally anti cell treatments because the cell carries out all viral biochemical functions. So you'll feel sick like hell while you're on them. However your point is true to a degree. The anti-HIV drugs have the unintended benefits of functioning as true 'anti-biotic' because of their general toxicity to all living things. That fends off much of the opportunistic infections normally caused by AIDS while killing infected and uninfected t-cells assisting the inevitable. The total destruction of the immune system. I've not seen the researches you speak of but regardless today's antiviral drugs are so hardcore that your quality of life is nonexistent while on them. It's a catch 22 thing. You may live longer while on the drugs but you'll suffer more and longer and then you die or you don't do these drugs suffer and die. What would you choose? Nobody has ever been cured by those drugs.

There a ton of people on these drugs that you'd never know were taking them.

So it's not universal Quality of life.

[boots]

Originally posted by voodoo:
All anti viral treatments today are fundamentally anti cell treatments because the cell carries out all viral biochemical functions. So you'll feel sick like hell while you're on them. However your point is true to a degree. The anti-HIV drugs have the unintended benefits of functioning as true 'anti-biotic' because of their general toxicity to all living things. That fends off much of the opportunistic infections normally caused by AIDS while killing infected and uninfected t-cells assisting the inevitable. The total destruction of the immune system. I've not seen the researches you speak of but regardless today's antiviral drugs are so hardcore that your quality of life is nonexistent while on them. It's a catch 22 thing. You may live longer while on the drugs but you'll suffer more and longer and then you die or you don't do these drugs suffer and die. What would you choose? Nobody has ever been cured by those drugs.

Nor will they ever be. These drugs are designed for what they call "steady state." They don't actively seek out the virus and "kill" it (not that you really can) but rather disrupt one of the key processes.

The Drugs that interfere with DNA transcription are cytotoxic, but the reverse transcriptase drugs are not. This simply interferes with a key protien, not the entire cell machinery. The protein it inhibits is not endogenous. It won't kill the cell. So you are wrong on that particular count.

The side effects are not nearly what you seem to be making them into. They aren't nearly as bad as oncology drugs. some are worse than others, true. But you are paroting the article ... which makes a mountain out of this particular mole hill.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by nchaimov:
Science Magazine has made freely available several articles about this particular debate.

all ye spouting off: read these articles.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.shl

forum pontificating is no substitute for valid scientific research, and it has been done.

a key quote:

And death from AIDS was associated with
HIV status but not with drug use alone.
Among HIV-positives, there were 25 deaths,
10 attributable to AIDS; among HIV-negatives
there were eight deaths, none due to
AIDS-defining diseases.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
From your original post I assumed that you had only read the abstract from these comments you made:

- I find it hard to take seriously someone termed a "rogue molecular biologist". I hope that was your adjective, Voodoo, and not Dr. Duesberg's.

- But simply as a thinking individual, reading this fellow's abstracts, he's got "black helicopter-itis" written all over him.

and

- This paper is nothing new, just a re-iteration of old ideas

Those comments pretty much showed that you hadn't read the article but rather deduced your biased opinion from reading the abstract. Now as you have a degree in this field I expect better comments from you than the ones you've made. I'm getting my B.Sc. in this field next year myself and I find it rather shallow and (unintentionally perhaps) insulting how you commented.

OK, you assumed correctly, but that doesn't excuse your assumption. And if you find my comments shallow or insulting, I suggest you thicken your skin before you leave school. You will have people slag your ideas left and right in much worse terms than I have. May not be pretty, but that's life. I apologise for being curt with you. No sleep makes Josh something something...

Not Polite?

Yes. Sorry

I'm of course playing the devil's advocate here. I think this is a very interesting discussion and if you don't agree I respect that. If you would read the article though I'm sure you'd enjoy it. It is written in an unusually clear way for a scientific article. As such it is also up for criticism by Dr Duesenberg's peers. That is us you know. But we have to read it first now don't we

I know I didn't read it. I didn't realise J. Biosci allowed free d/l of articles. It's on its way down as we speak. I'll weigh in after I've read it.

AZT was licensed by the FDA as a HIV drug in 1987. Plenty of time. 3 years. HIV+ does not equal AIDS. AIDS comes later and quite frankly AZT alone is a horrible drug and so unspecialized it is sad. I don't think anyone claims that AZT alone helped anyone in combating AIDS. Unless you'd like to put your neck forward...

Ryan was diagnosed with AIDS in 1984. Not HIV positive, he had AIDS. So I don't understand your AZT arguement, since he couldn't have been taking it in 1984.

That MJ thing was just tit for tat. One boy doesn't prove anything. This is science not religion.

Yes, this is science. You put forward a hypothesis (not yours, true) and I counter with evidence to the contrary. A hypthesis is constructed on a bed of evidence, but it remains a valid hypothesis only if other, contradictory evidence doesn't point out flaws. That's what the scientific method is all about, right? You can't just go 'oh, tit for tat' and brush away evidence that contradicts your position. How is that good science?

--J

[boots]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
all ye spouting off: read these articles.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.shl

forum pontificating is no substitute for valid scientific research, and it has been done.

a key quote:

Some of us have...and have moved on to some of the gaps. Maybe you should read some of the discussion.

[voodoo]

After reading this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/da...5191-1642a.pdf
article I find myself in the group of people that doesn't support all of Duesberg's claims or hypotheses but support his right to be against the mainstream. I think it is unfair that he's denied grants and so does the editor in chief of Science among others.

I fear he himself has become his own worst enemy. He seems to be stubborn to no end. But I still think he should be allowed to get grants. His opinions may be unfashionable but he is a good, published scientist. He should get grants.

boots: I'm not parroting the Duesberg article when I say AZT treatment severely degrades people's quality of life. It is a chemo drug and the dosage of it has to be increased in tempo with the escalation of AIDS. That would make one feel bad. Not chemo bad, but certainly bad.

[Eug]

Originally posted by voodoo:
All anti viral treatments today are fundamentally anti cell treatments because the cell carries out all viral biochemical functions. So you'll feel sick like hell while you're on them. However your point is true to a degree. The anti-HIV drugs have the unintended benefits of functioning as true 'anti-biotic' because of their general toxicity to all living things. That fends off much of the opportunistic infections normally caused by AIDS while killing infected and uninfected t-cells assisting the inevitable. The total destruction of the immune system. I've not seen the researches you speak of but regardless today's antiviral drugs are so hardcore that your quality of life is nonexistent while on them. It's a catch 22 thing. You may live longer while on the drugs but you'll suffer more and longer and then you die or you don't do these drugs suffer and die. What would you choose? Nobody has ever been cured by those drugs.

Sorry, but that is again incorrect. While it's true that some drugs have nasty side effects, other drugs are much milder. Also, some specific drugs are nasty to some specific people and not so much for others.

Taking antiretrovirals is not necessarily a walk in the park, but it's certainly not worse than death for most people.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "true antibiotic". All drugs have side effects. Indeed, many of the currently used drugs hit their intended targets better than more classical antibiotics.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Eug:
And I'm not sure what you mean by "true antibiotic". All drugs have side effects. Indeed, many of the currently used drugs hit their intended targets better than more classical antibiotics.

My guess is that he means they are "true anti-biotics" in the way that they kill all/most cells it comes in touch with. OK, not all but you get the point. That is not a very effective drug at all and would also severely deplete the immune system. That could cause some of the diseases that are the symptoms of AIDS. I might be incorrect but Voodoo can clear that up

The goal for all medicines the last years is to get more and more specific, because the more specific they are the less side-effects you will see. The best examples that I can think of are the drugs now used in reumotology.

That is something that must be fixed in the treatment of AIDS/HIV patients.

[Kenneth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.White:
Power-hungry Asshole. [/QUOTE

Thanks for your FP since Nov 2003.

[voyageur]

I would agree that Duesberg deserves to be heard, but as others have stated his evidence is just some correlations, and for all the work he's done, he suggests no proposed mechanism for how drugs like cocaine, heroin, and amyl nitrate might cause AIDS. And why does he exclude nicotine from the list? Nicotine has more in common with cocaine's effects on inflammatory cytokines and the stress hormone response than heroin.

Since he is relying on epidemiological evidence, I wonder how he would explain the lack of AIDS reports back at the turn of the 20th century, when cocaine was heavily used, promoted and sold as a cure-all by such luminaries as Sigmund Freud. Back then, you could even buy cocaine at Harrod's.

[theolein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
...

I fear he himself has become his own worst enemy. He seems to be stubborn to no end.
...

Now where have I seen this before?*












*No offense, Voodoo, but it did strike me earlier on that this is in line with your favourite stance.

[boots]

Originally posted by Logic:
The goal for all medicines the last years is to get more and more specific, because the more specific they are the less side-effects you will see. The best examples that I can think of are the drugs now used in reumotology.

That is something that must be fixed in the treatment of AIDS/HIV patients.

The reverse transcriptase drugs are the weird ones in there. Yes, as we have gained more insight into the biological mechanisms, we've focused on more specific targets for drugs....but the problem with the reverse-transcriptase inhibitors is in the diversity of the protein itself. Yeah, we want a drug that is highly specific for RT, but it can't be too specific or it won't hit all of the RT mutants. And that would lead quickly to new strains that are drug resistant. Big problem. Not easy to fix. I think you'll see a lot more research into other mechanisms we can interupt. This one is just too fickle.

[boots]

Voodoo. I would be the last one to discourage anyone from a chosen field, but take note: Epidemiolgy is the whipping-boy of the experimental sciences. Proceed with caution. It's a bumpy, political ride.

Very important that we have people doing this, but you'll get less respect than Rodney Dangerfield.

[voodoo]

Thanks for the warning boots

Actually I hope to be counting goldfish on a cozy Carribean island one day as a scientific project.

Drink rum and chase the local ladies.

[popstand]

When I was a student at Berkeley, I saw Duesberg speak on this subject. In line with the "his own worst enemy" theme, he's offered to inject himself with HIV in exchange for a grant. This offer has naturally had the opposite of its intended effect, since he is now considered crazy, suicidal, or both by the research community. It's kind of sad, he's basically been relegated to a closet space on campus, when he used to be one of California's most respected scientists. It doesn't help that many of his supporters fall into the same category. Kary Mullis, father of the polymerase chain reaction (for which he won the nobel prize), is also one of his crusaders. He's a bit of a circus act. Anybody remember him from the OJ trial? Anyway, as has been pointed out here, they do have one very valid point. There is no scientific paper on record that definitively links HIV infection as the cause of AIDS. As boots pointed out, the only evidence is epidemiological, which is not concrete proof. It's important to remain objective, since a massive quantity of money has been narrowly earmarked for research based on the HIV-AIDS mechanism, when there may be other factors at work.

[Daemon2]

I think the post makes more sense if you look at it this way...

In 1981 a new epidemic of about two-dozen heterogeneous diseases began to strike non-randomly growing numbers of male homosexuals and mostly male intravenous drug users in the US and Europe. Assuming immunodeficiency as the common denominator the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) termed the epidemic, AIDS, for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. From 1981�4 leading researchers including those from the CDC proposed that recreational drug use was the cause of AIDS, because of exact correlations and of drugspecific diseases. However, in 1984 US government researchers proposed that a virus, now termed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), is the cause of the non-random epidemics of the US and Europe but also of a new, sexually random epidemic in Africa. The virus-AIDS hypothesis was instantly accepted, but it is burdened with numerous paradoxes, none of which could be resolved by 2003: Why is there no HIV in most AIDS patients, only antibodies against it? Why would HIV take 10 years from infection to AIDS? Why is AIDS not self-limiting via antiviral immunity? Why is there no vaccine against AIDS? Why is AIDS in the US and Europe not random like other viral epidemics? Why did AIDS not rise and then decline exponentially owing to antiviral immunity like all other viral epidemics? Why is AIDS not contagious? Why would only HIV carriers get AIDS who use either recreational or anti-HIV drugs or are subject to malnutrition? Why is the mortality of HIV-antibody-positives treated with anti-HIV drugs 7� but that of all (mostly untreated) HIV-positives globally is only 1?4%? Here we propose that AIDS is a collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition. According to this hypothesis AIDS is not contagious, not immunogenic, not treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and HIV is just a passenger virus. The hypothesis explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug- and malnutrition-specific diseases, and why they are not self-limiting via anti-viral immunity. The hypothesis predicts AIDS prevention by adequate nutrition and abstaining from drugs, and even cures by treating AIDS diseases with proven medications.

That said, the fact that it's a hypothesis means that there's little scientific backing at this point. Also notice that the man is a PhD not an MD. Are you going to listen to a molecular biologist on the subject of medicine?

[voodoo]

Nice to see an old topic revived

Shame it was for such a silly comment. An analogy: Who'd you trust better to say if the engines on a 747 are screwed up, the pilot or the engineer?

Duh.

Just for kicks: did you know most nobel prices in *medicine* go to biologists?

[Daemon2]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Nice to see an old topic revived

Shame it was for such a silly comment. An analogy: Who'd you trust better to say if the engines on a 747 are screwed up, the pilot or the engineer?

Duh.

Just for kicks: did you know most nobel prices in *medicine* go to biologists?

Wow, we all know that jet engines and the human body are just like each other.

/sarcasm

But fine, ignoring that, the point of my previous post was that this was a hypothesis with little backing and there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that this is the case yet.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by D�mon:
Wow, we all know that jet engines and the human body are just like each other.

/sarcasm

But fine, ignoring that, the point of my previous post was that this was a hypothesis with little backing and there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that this is the case yet.

Nah but the analogy still applies. Biologists are the people educated, trained and schooled in the human body, animal bodies, plant bodies... life itself. They are the scientists, they make the hypothesis that will be tested, they create the methods, applications and solutions for medical doctors to work with.

A medical doctor is a skilled worker, but a poor scientist.

Which is precisely why MDs hardly ever receive any awards in medicine. They simply don't study the science of medicine. They apply it.

Regardless, yes the whole point is that this is a hypothesis that should be tested if for no other reason than to make the effort against AIDS more co-ordinated and efficient. Needless to say this is the work of scientists (you know the guys with the PhDs) and not the guys working in hospitals dealing out drugs by the manual (you know the MDs).

[Daemon2]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Nah but the analogy still applies. Biologists are the people educated, trained and schooled in the human body, animal bodies, plant bodies... life itself. They are the scientists, they make the hypothesis that will be tested, they create the methods, applications and solutions for medical doctors to work with.

A medical doctor is a skilled worker, but a poor scientist.

Which is precisely why MDs hardly ever receive any awards in medicine. They simply don't study the science of medicine. They apply it.

Regardless, yes the whole point is that this is a hypothesis that should be tested if for no other reason than to make the effort against AIDS more co-ordinated and efficient. Needless to say this is the work of scientists (you know the guys with the PhDs) and not the guys working in hospitals dealing out drugs by the manual (you know the MDs).

I agree, the hypothesis should be tested. That way we know if this guy's a genius or a flipping idiot.