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

From: GMCarter (fiar_at_verizon.net)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:15:35 GMT

On 14 Feb 2005 14:11:56 -0800, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:

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

Don't like coolaid or Kool Aid or any of that crap, thank you!

>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.

Lots has changed.

>Where is the "HIV vaccine" that your
>buddies have been promising since around 1985?

Where is the malaria vaccine?

Oh! There isn't one! Mosquitos don't exist!! Malaria parasites are a
big whompin' CONSPIRACY!!

snip

>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.

Ah--try the majority like over 90% of infected people develop AIDS in
a time span ranging from 6 months to 18 years. Average, 8, depending
on geographic locatioon in part.

That is caused by both persistent viral replication as well as
secondary effects of HIV infection, such as inflammatory responses,
oxidative stress, etc.

LOTS of disease pathogens that people are exposed to do not result in
disease in 100% of people. What makes HIV horrible is how high the
percentage is. Even Ebola infections only cause mortality in about
40%.

>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.

Some who dies is NOT in perfect health. The numbers of people with ICL
or other non-HIV-related immune depletion are small and it appears to
be idiopathic, not infectious, in etiology. Little is known but it's
EASY to distinguish.

>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.

Yep. Anyone can get HIV. By the way, I've just been having an
interesting email exchange with Root-Bernstein.

He believe HIV exists and causes AIDS. He believes that HIV is
NECESSARY for AIDS. However, he still believes it is not sufficient
and that a co-factor is necessary.

I think he is wrong. I think HIV is necessary and sufficient. However,
cofactors such as malnutrition can certainly accelerate HIV disease
progression.

CMV is a better example. CMV is necessary for retinitis to develop but
not sufficient. HIV disease provides immune suppression that permits
disease to manifest.

>For those who know a little science, the
>question really is, what is happening inside the bodies of these
>people?

Indeed.

>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.

PGE2 and inflammatory responses, as I've noted here before, are indeed
a part of AIDS pathogenesis.

>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.

Interesting theory. What happens when a retrovirus is first introduced
into a population before it is absorbed into the genome? I am aware
that there are retroviral HERVs etc. in the body. HIV genes are quite
distinct from them.

What do retroviral infections do in animal models? EIAV? CAEV? FIV?
SIV?

> 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).

LOL. The MAJORITY of bacteria and fungi are HARMLESS to humans.
Therefore, they are all harmless.

God. Do they even teach logic any more?

>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.

Wow--you just wombled off into la-la land. Young people in their
teens, 20s, 40s...about to die. Hmmm...

>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..."

Written when and by whom? A URL might be nice. But regardless, there
are PLENTY of other literature to refute this glib dithering.

>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.

It most certainly does. And the evidence is there. Immunological,
virological, epidemiological, neurological, endocrinological, etc.

snip...
>
>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.

It is there in myriad forms. You're not being precise, you're being
vague.

One could ask where is the evidence that adenoviral infection causes
ANY symptoms whatsoever? Or Hepatitis C virus causes cirrhosis some
years after infection?

It seems like a precise question but there are a host of areas from
which to reply.

>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.

Well, honey, if you'd pull your head out of the *** of the denialist
websites and actually REVIEW the data--and if you actually worked with
people living with HIV as I have done for over 15 years, you'd know
there are some common and unpleasant themes to HIV infection.

There are clinical data. There are commonalities--most particular of
which is CD4 count. The majority of people are OK til that level drops
below 200. I have known a few people to develop say Pneumocystis
jirovecii with higher T cell counts, but that's the exception. I never
knew anyone to develop CMV retinitis, PML or toxo with a high CD4
count.

> This is not the case for the HIV=AIDS
>claims. There is no consistency. It passes no tests.

Oh bull***. So say you while having just spewed a few of the common
run-of-the-mill and long-refuted claims of denialists. Like denialist
David Pasquarelli. He urged people to forget about safer sex. No
worry! HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Or some such.

He died of AIDS.

 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.

Right! That's a denialist argument for you.

>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. \

The monty types don't know what it means to live with a CD4 count of
40. Yes, diurnal variation exists. No one I know denies that. No one I
know denies that some people have died with a higher CD4 count. Duh.

But the reality is that over time, CD4 counts stay pretty consistent
in MOST people with HIV. If it's 50, it doesn't swing to 700 in a day.

>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.

Ha! Pot. Kettle...etc.

>Once again, I ask, where is the evidence? Texas Tech professors cannot
>find it.

Who? Which ones? LOL.

> 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).

Oh, hell, I thought Ho's "tap and drain" model was grossly inadequate
when he first proposed it. It had a therapeutic implication that was
absurd.

>I do not care about HIV one way or the other. It is
>meaningless to me. ...

Now the truth is out. But you want evidence, here are a few URLs to
review.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm
http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/hiv_and_sti/hiv/hiv_causes_aids.htm

And if you really want to dig in (which monty apparently doesn't), you
can check out Medline and look up CD4 turnover rates, activation
versus quiescent, the role of dendritic cells, CD8 control,
specificity of humoral and cell-mediated responses, the roles of
various cytokines related to the differentiation of putative Th1 and
Th2 lineages (e.g., IL2, IL6, IL8, IL10, IL12, etc.).

There is a LOT of science going on. One of the most fascinating
presentation at recent retrovirus conferences has been the fluorescent
tagging of HIV gag or other proteins and watching little movies
showing HIV collecting to the site of an immunological synapse.

HIV exists. And sadly, it causes AIDS.

That you don't believe that renders the rest of your wacky dithering
about cellular membranes significantly less believable. I've reviewed
some of your gurus paper and I think he makes some interesting points,
but essentially, the implications that you suggest in terms of dietary
modification are loopy.

                George M. Carter

Quantcast