My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Sunday of Orthodoxy | Main | More bloodshed to come »

Comments

mickmac

Andrei
So what's a insalubrious lifestyle anyway?

Why aren't we allowed to pre-test refugees for long term disease?

It seems stupid to me to bring someone over here who you then have to spend lots of dosh on to make them workable in our society.
(to give them a chance)

Then find any tax they'll pay is over shadowed by 10X+ the treatment costs of the disease they already carry.

It doesn't make sense does it?

That's not allowing for those who commit crime.
I'd love to know % figures for the 750 refugees a year and their relative crime rates?

Also how many other people do they bring in on family repatriation in the 10yrs after they come here?

That's different reporting category from the 750 a yr refugee one isn't it?

It makes you think that Mr Howard's monies to little Nauru weren't such a good idea economically.

mickmac

oops
bad idea.

david w

Andrei,

You really do spout some anti-scientific rubbish sometimes. I don't think any Nobel laureates are crazy enough to be HIV deniers.

There are two types (as in two related lineages of virus) of HIV, HIV-2 is largely contained in West Africa (and is considerably less infective) but it doesn't only 'pick on' Africans and once AIDs has developed it's indistinguishable from type 1 infection.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out the so called "treatments" for those who are HIV positive are worse than the disease.

Hmm, someone diagnosed with HIV in the 80s years ago could look forward to developing AIDS within 10 years of their exposure and die within 2 years after that. Now people for live for years and years on anti-retrovirals and never develop AIDS. There are all sorts of nasty side effects associated with treatment for sure but I think given the chance nearly everyone that is HIV positive would take them.

Jim

Andre

David is right, there is no reputable scientist who thinks HIV does not cause AIDS. However, the actual presentation of AIDS is multifactorial as it does depend a lots on what diseases you are exposed to.

David says:
HIV-2 is largely contained in West Africa (and is considerably less infective) but it doesn't only 'pick on' Africans and once AIDs has developed it's indistinguishable from type 1 infection.

While HIV-2's immunosuppression is identical to HIV-1, the expression of AIDS in Africa is very different from the West. This illustrates what I said above.
Most Africans are infected with TB. In most of the population, this lies dormant their whole lives. HIV causes the dormant TB to flare up and need treatment. Typically Africans take their TB treatment until they feel better and then stop. Thus AIDS in Africa is characterized by multiple severe flares of TB with the patient becoming critically ill and then recovering almost completely. It's a very different disease that the Western version.

This is also where Anti-retrovirals don't help. They may help to prevent the development of AIDS, but once AIDS is fully established in a person, they make little difference. (this is true of Africans, They are still helpful in Westerners as their chances of having active TB are much, much lower.

andrei

You really do spout some anti-scientific rubbish sometimes. I don't think any Nobel laureates are crazy enough to be HIV deniers.

Kary Mullis

Who funnily enough devised the PCR technique now used to measure the "viral load" of those deemed to be HIV positive

andrei

Hmm, someone diagnosed with HIV in the 80s years ago could look forward to developing AIDS within 10 years of their exposure and die within 2 years after that. Now people for live for years and years on anti-retrovirals and never develop AIDS.

Here's something to think about

A subset of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 long-term non-progressors is characterized by the unique presence of ancestral sequences in the viral population

andrei

The point it was only possible to test for HIV+ status after 1985 and during the eighties it was generally only done after someone had become ill.

So how do you know that someone who was HIV+ in the nineteen eighties had a life expectancy of 12 years or less?

I do believe at the time the claim was a life expectancy of 3 years for the HIV+.

In fact there are plenty of people who are known to be HIV+ and have not been treated who have remained healthy for more than twenty years. As the linked paper above shows.

david w

Ok, so goggle failed me (my whole worldview will have to change) and their is one kook with a nobel who thinks there is no link with HIV and AIDS. Sorry about that.

You should be careful posting papers that use evolutionary (phylogenetic) trees as evidence here, Ian doesn't believe in that stuff. Even that paper is talking about 5-10% of infected people not developing AIDS. That's interesting but it's not evidence that the vast majority of people will be better of without antivirals.

andrei

David;

As a scientist you should be skeptical.

I don't know the truth about this but I do know - and you can check this out for yourself - that Robert Gallo announced to the world that he had discovered the cause of AIDS, the HIV virus two weeks before the paper was actually published and that he had patented a test for the HIV Virus.

Since then it has been accepted wisdom that being infected with HIV ==> eventually developing AIDS ==> DEATH.

Suppose you are told you are HIV+ under these assumptions, is it not likely that you will accept the drugs on offer? A few refuse to and these are the only ones who can possibly be identified as non progressors hence your 5% figure. How many potential non progressors are not defined that way because they take the drugs - drugs that make you unwell incidentally.

There are also many documented cases of people exposed to the HIV virus repeatedly who steadfastly remain HIV-

Resistance to HIV-1 infection among African sex workers is associated with global hyporesponsiveness in interleukin 4 production

The trouble is once something becomes conventional wisdom any scientist who disagrees or questions it becomes a "kook" or non mainstream.

AIDS has become a huge industry and so there a vested interests in ensuring that those who question the assumptions behind it are marginalized.

And yet questioning assumptions is exactly what a good scientist should be doing because that is how progress in science is made.

And there are plenty of reasons to question the assumptions that being HIV+ leads to AIDS.

I have presented two - the non progressors and the people who are exposed and at high risk who do not become HIV+.

There are others and other reputable scientists who have questioned this, but the mere act of questioning it makes them no longer reputable but "kooks".

Me I am highly skeptical of the whole business - I became so when there was a great deal of hyperbole in 1998 about a sharp rise in hetrosexual AIDS in NZ and what was not said at the time was that this had been found amongst immigrants who had become HIV+ before coming here - instead the impression was given that it was suddenly appearing amongst native kiwis across the land.

david w

Andrei,

I really don't want to get bogged down in the details, I'm not a virologist or an epidemiologist but that 5% figure is apparently taken from cohort studies - ie 5% of those that weren't treated (some of these study populations probably predate antiretrovirals) didn't show disease progression. The rest started losing their T-Cells.


Of course everyone, and perhaps even especially scientists should be sceptical about scientific sounding claims. But there is also a point where you have to say there is 20 years of evidence that has lead to consensus of opinion amongst those that ought to know that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS (or Natural selection is the road to adaptation or fire really can melt steel or injections have nothing to do with autism or...)

of course, consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees on every detail, just that we can all accept some basic things are true and get on with arguing about the details. It doesn't mean dogmatic adherence to a theory that isn't supported, or science becoming religion, or whatever the anti-global-warming or creationist crowd say these days. You should question assumptions but only when their is evidence that they need questioning.

Acid Comments

"It doesn't mean dogmatic adherence to a theory that isn't supported, or science becoming religion, or whatever the anti-global-warming or creationist crowd say these days. You should question assumptions but only when their is evidence that they need questioning."

Problem is a percentage of doctors, dentists, scientists, etc who spout the 'general consesus' on supported evidence in their fields. Off the record admit what they've been saying on the record has been a lie only to keep their jobs and the consesus on these accepted practices on a number of these issues is really a total load of rubbish or dangerous practices, etc.

david w

Ahh, the conspiracy theory of science. Probably should have brought that up too...

andrei

You should question assumptions but only when their is evidence that they need questioning.

Isn't that what I am suggesting to you David?

That the assumptions underlying the HIV/AIDS hypothesis need questioning.

There is no conspiracy theory here - just reality.

Is anyone interested in African TB? Or funding it?

AIDS is far more exciting and gets the press and funding dollars - although to be fair under pressure from South Africa, money donated for AIDS in Africa is now earmarked for AIDS, TB and Malaria. It is just that the last two diseases are generally left off reports of the grants.

Anyway David is there an AIDS epidemic in New Zealand or is that pure hyperbole given the numbers of HIV+ people and the deaths recorded as being from AIDS in this country?

david w

But there is no evidence that those assumptions need to be readdressed.

I agree that focusing almost purely on AIDS is a bad idea. Both in africa where TB and malaria are equally horrific and in NZ other STIs are so much more prevelant and damaging. But the answer to that problem is not to throw out 20 years of good science.

You might think that Richard Dawkins uses evolutionary biology to advance a his athiest world view, that doesn't mean evolutionary biology isn't true. Some people are ridiculously shrill about the short term effects of climate change but again the answer is no to through out physics and climatology to suit your own political views.

andrei

If you think announcing that you have found the cause of a disease at a press conference before the paper that justifies your claims has even been published and reviewed by independent scientists is good science then you have a lot to learn.

That is called public relations and marketing which is exactly what it was.

Robert Gallo was marketing his HIV test and it made him a millionaire though it didn't win him a Nobel prize which is telling in itself.

The HIV/AIDS Hypothesis may be right but it is based on some very dodgy science and poor practice.

Anyway the consensus of medical science was that a germ caused pellagra until a maverick showed that it was really caused by a dietary deficiency.

Whereupon it a simple cure was found.

AIDS is far trickier since there are about thirty different diseases which are considered to be symptoms of AIDS.

Oswald Bastable

"Andrei
So what's a insalubrious lifestyle anyway?"

Being a dirty "I will stick it into anything born of woman" type."

Queers and coons fit this group in spades, non-PC be that fact.

towaka

Funny thing is that I have just had this very same discussion with an American doctor while in Thailand in the last few days.

Anyway in a nutshell he said that the drugs that they use to treat HIV will for sure kill you and that he has a patient that has been HIV positive for 15 years and is still fit and well.

His view was it was all to do with money..big Pharma tied a dubious connection between HIV and Aids and hey presto they can gorge themselves on some massive profits.

Acid Comments

"His view was it was all to do with money..big Pharma tied a dubious connection between HIV and Aids and hey presto they can gorge themselves on some massive profits."


Of interest.

----------------------------

Study Finds Selenium Suppresses Viral Load and Boosts Immune System Cells

Researchers from the University of Miami conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of selenium supplements in 262 patients with HIV. Patients were randomly divided into two groups to take either a daily capsule containing 200 micrograms of high-selenium yeast or a daily sugar pill.

Nine months later, each patient underwent a comprehensive physical exam, and researchers realized that the selenium pills had made a real difference in the health of the HIV patients who had taken them.

Patients taking daily selenium supplements had lower levels of the virus in their bloodstream and increased immune cell counts compared to patients who took a placebo pill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=2813945&page=1


david w

I'll take you word for it that Gallo partook in science by press release and has profited from his discovery.

That doesn't invalidate the massive body of evidence, in peer reviewed journals and repeated in many subsequent studies, that HIV is what causes AIDS and that antiretrovirals do more good that harm when applied to HIV+ people.

Similarly, the fact "Big Pharma" are frequently evil might be an argument against laissez fair capitalism but it doesn't mean medical science is a grand conspiracy to defraud westerners and leave the rest of the world to die.

(BTW, I wonder if we might get Oswald's contribution deleted or otherwise censored)

The comments to this entry are closed.