Re: HIV (Was Re: Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease)

From: montygram (nazztrader_at_lycos.com)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: 14 Feb 2005 14:11:56 -0800

At least the coolaid you guys are drinking must be very tasty!

In fact, MattLB once quoted a study from decades ago that found that
there were roughly the correct amount of fatty acids to be consistent
with a "lipid bilayer membrane." Now, he is telling us that a study
done in 1995 is unacceptable, which would be true, if anything
important had changed since then. Where is the "HIV vaccine" that your
buddies have been promising since around 1985? He is clearly lacking
in basic critical thinking skills - for example, nobody I know has ever
claimed that no fatty acids are present on the outside interface of
living human cells, so whether a researcher was able to detect some
amount of fatty acids decades ago is completely irrelevant to the
issue. What was that lab's margin of error in 1939? Did they even
try to separate one hypothesis from another in their experiment
apparatus? The answer is no.

The other clown, Mr. Carter, doesn't seem to even realize that HIV
infection does not mean a progressive loss of CD4 T+ cells (nor does it
mean a great immune system battle, as Ho claims, as this would be
easily detectable - which it is not - and would render the infected
person comatose, at best - due to the clinical effects more viral
particles than atoms in the universe being generated each day in each
person's body would produce). This can occur in HIV antibody
positives, but it only occurs in some of these people, not all. And it
also occurs in people who are in "perfect health" and "HIV
negative," as well as those who die of conditions that mirror "AIDS,"
but who were never infected with HIV. This is not the case with the
true killer viruses of the past. Dr. Root-Bernstein makes the point
that AIDS-like conditions have been documented decades before 1980, in
people whose tissues were not infected with HIV, and who were Caucasian
"Westerners." AIDS means an acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and
that can happen to anyone. For those who know a little science, the
question really is, what is happening inside the bodies of these
people? The answer is that a chronic inflammatory condition has led to
massive metabolization of PGE2 (from arachidonic acid), and this is
about as immunosuppressive a condition as one can imagine. HIV does
nothing - if you knew the literature on transposons, for example, you'd
know that there's plenty of junk DNA, and that's all a retrovirus does
- it becomes junk DNA. It can reactive to pass itself on - but it does
no harm unless there is a rare conflict, which occurs in Rous Sarcoma
Virus (one among thousands of retroviruses per species - an order of
magnitude that is beyond concern - to anyone who actually can think for
himself, that is). If a person is about to die, it will reactivate due
to the incredible biochemcial activity going on in that person - this
is the signal it uses to make sure it gets passed on and doesn't go
extinct, but it still does not harm. For more a more "recent"
explanation (as if that somehow confers accuracy, particularly in light
of the recent revelations of all the egregious conflicts in the FDA,
NIH, etc.), anyone can go to the various university web sties, for
exmaple, at Texas Tech's site, you can read:

"Exactly how it [HIV] causes damage is not completely understood.... It
is apparent that some people who are infected with HIV do not get AIDS
and it is possible that other mitigating circumstances are necessary
for AIDS to develop in an HIV infected individual. Since HIV does not
infect germline cells and is transferred inefficiently, it seem
unlikely that HIV will spread throughout the human population... [in
time] HIV would likely become a part of the human genome..."

Your stupidity is ordinary, which is why so many "experts" go around
repeating the dogma, but the evidence is NOT there to support such
claims. I insist on evidence when claims are made. You only need a
textbook to tell you something, and then you decide that basic critical
thinking skills can be abandoned. The evidence that HIV is anything
but a mediocre epidemiological marker is, essentially, non-existent.
Even Gallo has admitted this in his own book. Epidemiology is a
garbage in/garbage out tool, so if you start out with assumptions like
"HIV causes AIDS," "saturated fat causes heart attacks" (which is even
worse because they never even define what "saturated fat" is), or
"polyunsaturated fatty acids are essential," you will be able to
manipulate the statistics to find some sort of "correlation" (while
ignoring any correlation you don't like).

One thing people like you do is to "move the goalposts" when the kicker
is trying to make the field goal. MattLB did this with his "lipid
bilayer" argument. I made the point that textbooks say that this
"membrane" supplies structural support for the cell, while at the same
time claiming that the forces holding this "membrane" together are weak
forces (which has a precise definition in chemistry - that is, they are
non-covalent bonds), and then claiming that the cells must endure
tremendous shearing forces (among other things, like stomach acid).
This is beyond impossible, but then MattLB tried to backtrack, and now
I don't know what his position is on this issue. How about clarifying
this, MattLB? What exactly do the fatty acids at the cellular
interface do that deserves to be called "essential?" Or are they not
essential in this context? No more moving the goalposts - either be
precise or stop trying to inject your brand of glue into the keyholes
of real science!

I'm being precise. Where is the evidence that HIV progressively or
at some point a decade after infection (and for no reason consistent
with science) destroys particular immune cells to such a degree that
so-called opportunistic infections occur? If this were so, the
evidence would be there, but it is not. Some people who have HIV
antibodies die of one of about thirty known diseases at a decade or so
in the future (and this has changed since the mid 1980s, which in
itself is a glaring inconsistency in the claim that a virus is the
cause), and some do not. Some have low levels of a particular immune
cell, and some do not. And on, and on. There is no science here, just
supposition. Science is not a democracy. If most people with HIV
antibodies die of what the powers that be decide is "AIDS" (the
definition has changed a few times in the USA alone, and varies from
one country to another - to this day), what we have is a sociological
phenomenon, not a scientific one. When one can demonstrate that there
is a clear course for the so-called disease, namely, that everyone who
is infected endures the same biochemical/physiological phenomena
(although some may live and some may not, and the symptoms, of course,
can vary in intensity), then we can at least begin to open up a
scientific investigation. This is not the case for the HIV=AIDS
claims. There is no consistency. It passes no tests. There is no way
to even begin to verify the claims, because the claims vary from one
so-called expert to another. There are no goalposts to be moved -
they simply don't exist. The Carter types will not even acknowledge
the undeniable fact that not everyone who is HIV+ and dies of AIDs has
low CD4 T+ cell counts, which can vary dramatically, even in the course
of a day, and even in healthy, HIV antibody negative people. One
simply cannot talk in scientific terms with such people. They have
boarded their flight to la la land, and they insist that we join them.

Once again, I ask, where is the evidence? Texas Tech professors cannot
find it. Even the HIV=AIDS people admit Ho was wrong now (as any
mathematician who is aware of the implications of the formulae used
could tell you). I do not care about HIV one way or the other. It is
meaningless to me. I just want to see the evidence. MattLB cites a
study that alludes to "recent insights." I have plenty of insights
on a daily basis, but only some of them are scientific, and most are
not supported by evidence. I often tell people to go to the WHO
database so that they can see the evidence - namely, that people on
coconut or palm kernel diets have incredibly low levels of cancer,
compared to Westerners (including those from Mediterranean countries),
even though they have poor health care systems. Mostly, I point out
that one should not assume that textbooks are correct. In a massive
nutrition textbook I own - considered one of, if not the best of its
kind - the only reference for the essential fatty acid claim is the
totally flawed Burr and Burr rat experiment from 1930. If you want to
go against the WHO database and instead follow those who think the Burr
experiment actually means one should consume more than trace amounts of
polyunsaturated fatty acids in particular (unsaturated in general),
then go ahead, but you must admit what the evidence is if you want to
possess a shred of intellectual credibility. MattLB, Carter, Hoover,
and the like do not care about intellectual credibility. If one does,
one must examine critically the evidence that supports and contradicts
a claim. They are only willing to defend textbook dogma, even when it
violates basic common sense and appears absurd. They are the reason
why so-called chronic disease is so rampant in Western nations and so
rare in most third world ones.

Relevant Pages