HIV causing AIDS, and "dissidents"

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 28 2006 13:28
raw wrote:
Finally, why is there more people in Africa apparently effected with HIV and/or dying of AIDS than in the UK (per capita) is it because blacks have sex more (a racist proposition) than white people in the UK? How come HIV/AIDS has affected more the Gay community in the west than hetrosexuals but effects predominantly all communities in Africa?

I'm finding this thread very weird but I'll leave that aside for the moment.

I've seen a few explanations for the difference in HIV transmission in much of Africa

1. A much higher incidence of other untreated STD's that mean an exchange of blood during sex is much more likely due to the presence of sores etc. In the west due to better access to STD clinics such sores are rare so exchange of blood during sex tends to be restricted to anal sex which can be abrasive. Comparatively gay men are more likey to have anal sex then hetrosexual couples so there is more oppportunity for infection (A bit of googling suggest 42% v 10% although obviously both figures can be disputed.)

2. In parts of Africa, particularly Southern Africa there is a strong reported cultural preference for unprotected 'dry sex' i.e. where the women is not lubricated before penetration. Obviously this leads to more internal abrasive trauma during sex and hence a greater chance of a blood / blood or blood / fluid exchange. Again you can google this, here is a summary of one paper from the Lancet at http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/

3. Although obviously not exclusively a problem in Africa the relative freedom of women to refuse sex unless a condom is used is obviously relevent and has been identified as one reason why 58% of those with HIV infection in Southern Africa are women.
http://www.hrw.org/women/aids.html
The considerable propaganda campaign by religious bodies against condoms in the region has almost certainly also had an effect.

---

All that aside I would have thought the single most effective proof of the HIV / AIDS link is the fact that in the early years due to the greed of clotting factor producing companies a large number of haemophiliacs (1200 in the UK, 10,000 in the USA, 102 (of a pop of 300) in Ireland) were infected many of whom have since died of Aids-related illnesses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3251822.stm

Once the companies were caught out and forced to screen blood for HIV haemophiliacs were no longer infected in such massive proportions.

--

At the end of my googling I found this very useful page
http://avert.org.uk/evidence.htm

---

BTW I find it ironic that some of those who are outraged at RAW or Coffeeemachines viewpoint are the same people pouring scorn on the scientific method on the science thread while refusing to provide an alternative. One thing rather obviously leads to another and just because an argument is abstract does not make it any less irresponsible.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 13:33
JoeBlack2 wrote:
just because an argument is abstract does not make it any less irresponsible.

You think its irresponsible to criticise science! Christ.

I think its fairly irresponsible to seal anything form criticism. Have you not heard of the "science wars"? Thats tons upon tons of terrifyingly dangerous words, right there. Seems unlikely.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 28 2006 13:43
lem wrote:
You think its irresponsible to criticise science! Christ.

Well I can now see why gurrier does not consider you worth bothering to reply to. Address what I wrote or I won't bother to either.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 13:48

Ta. Erm, I *do* believe that HIV causes AIDS. I guess there was a tiny bit at the end which may have been relevent. I guess this is where you say why it is dangerous to criticise science.

I have already said that to seal anthing from criticism is dangerous. Does this not go someway to addressing your point.

Btw, why not take issue on some of the comments I've made on the science thread. I can't remember, but some of them might address the point directly. Choose the ones which challenge your ideas the most (if there is any).

Lol.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 13:49
JoeBlack2 wrote:
lem wrote:
You think its irresponsible to criticise science! Christ.

Well I can now see why gurrier does not consider you worth bothering to reply to. Address what I wrote or I won't bother to either.

Lem and gurrier - keep it to the thread that was about please. Let's let raw deal with people's responses and wait to see if coffeemachine is actually going to try to justify himself.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 28 2006 13:51
revol68 wrote:
Which might be true except no one was arguing against scientific method but rather arguing that such method is socially and historically contingent.

Yeah you see the problem is you make the argument above in philobabble. To people like me who don't speak philobabble this looks like it might be an argument that the method itself is fundamentally flawed. And if that is the case why take it any more seriously than what Gerry was telling me in the pub last night about the faith healer who fixed his gammy leg.

Reading the HIV and vaccine threads this is very obviously what is going on, people have a vague awareness of critiques of science, are aware of some pretty poor medical practises and so throw the whole lot out in favour of personal experience.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 28 2006 13:54
John. wrote:
Lem and gurrier - keep it to the thread that was about please. Let's let raw deal with people's responses and wait to see if coffeemachine is actually going to try to justify himself.

Thats a bit like demanding we stick to a discussion about 'why don't workers get higher wages' without digressing into a discussion of capitalism. That first thread is a cause, this thread is an effect.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 13:56
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Thats a bit like demanding we stick to a discussion about 'why don't workers get higher wages' without digressing into a discussion of capitalism. That first thread is a cause, this thread is an effect.

Yes and I agree but coffeemachine already used a "derailing" excuse to refuse to justify his non-belief, and active efforts at propagandising dangerous AIDS/HIV myths, I certainly don't want to give him the excuse here as well. [Though now I'm doing it... /derail]

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Nov 28 2006 13:59

Wow - this thread has left me stunned. I vaguely remember some discussion about the over-promotion of the risk of HIV from urban but I always presumed that was just anti-pharms company thing. I didn't believe there was actually any controversy over this.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 14:15
nosos wrote:
I didn't believe there was actually any controversy over this.

There's no "controversy". The "debate" is equivalent to the "is climate change real" one, or "does smoking really cause cancer". The only difference is that some "AIDS dissidents" ally themselves with the (usually bizarre/nutty wings of) progressive or radical politics.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 28 2006 14:28

The main trouble is that the injunction ‘don’t trust authority’ if you’re a radical is sometimes taken by people to mean that all progress made under that authority is suspect, all information disseminated is a lie and all mainstream opinion is automatic bullshit. It can become the case that people assume a contradictory pose simply on the grounds they believe someone posing as a whistleblower over and above someone who agrees with mainstream consensus automatically.

It’s the same sort of thing that is fuelling the 9/11 truth movement (that is a comment I stand by regardless of the actual truth of the matter – I’d repeat this even if it turned out that the US actually did it) and afaic is as dangerous if not more so than uncritical cheerleading of the state/capitalist system because it’s a) slowing or reversing progress on otherwise non-contentious issues b) distracting from issues where the state/capital actually is doing its best to disseminate lies.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 14:30
Saii wrote:
The main trouble is that the injunction ‘don’t trust authority’ if you’re a radical is sometimes taken by people to mean that all progress made under that authority is suspect, all information disseminated is a lie and all mainstream opinion is automatic bullshit.

But they still believe in global warming, and smoking being dangerous (apart from gangster and andycrap anyway), etc.

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Nov 28 2006 14:36
ftony, looking out at the carnage before him wrote:
jesus.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 28 2006 14:38
jesus, looking out at the carnage before him wrote:
ftony.

hurrah for sub-situ reversals!

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Nov 28 2006 14:40

i'm pretty flabbergasted by all this, and claim no knowledge of the issues being discussed.

however my girlfriend was for some time a volunteer at a centre for people affected by AIDS and there was some debate over its nature and causes, even there. it is critically important to question orthodoxy, especially in science, but there is a line beyond which things become *extremely* dangerous.

we must all think very hard indeed.

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Nov 28 2006 14:41
Joseph K. wrote:
jesus, looking out at the carnage before him wrote:
ftony.

hurrah for sub-situ reversals!

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 28 2006 14:45
Quote:
But they still believe in global warming, and smoking being dangerous (apart from gangster and andycrap anyway), etc.

Well yeah but in both cases these were exposed by lengthy and exhaustive periods of research against the prevailing orthodoxy. If we’d started from the premise that smoking is bad rather than having to fight tobacco companies every step of the way I’m sure some radicals would have called it bullshit research designed to provide for the quitting industry (and in fact an awful lot of people refused to believe it when the information first came out, understandably so perhaps as in some cases it was them who had introduced their kids/nephews to the damn things in the first place).

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 28 2006 14:56
raw wrote:
John, I'm not here to answer your cunting questions! :-0)

I would say that the "Aids Dissenters" position is a critical one towards the theory of HIV being the cause of AIDS. The research in Africa (and yeah I know I have to find the appropriate sources) suggests a difference in approach to AIDS diagnosis than in the western world.

You’re right there are two separate systems of diagnosis. Guess all those HIV/AIDS activists asking for more resources would help to change that. But your STUPID HURTFUL LIES helps to prevent changing that. Here’s the facts you’re too lazy and ignorant to know:

Two major systems of AIDS diagnosis used today are the World Health Organization system, for use in resource-limited settings (see WHO Disease Staging System for HIV Infection and Disease)[40], and the CDC system used in the USA (see CDC Classification System for HIV Infection).[41] European countries and Canada use a variation of the CDC definition that excludes CD4 counts[citation needed]. Supporters of these definitions point out that AIDS-defining diseases such as KS and PCP (and also very low CD4 counts) are exceedingly rare in people who are HIV-negative, and that it is standard practice in medicine to include a microbial test in disease diagnosis.

raw wrote:
AIDS (as far as I know) is when the immune system collapses, which can be caused by many different factors.

Wrong. Some of the approximately 30 AIDS-defining diseases, including Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP, formerly Pneumocystis carinii), are considered diagnostic of AIDS only when serologic evidence of HIV is present. In the absence of such evidence, these diseases are thought to be related to other immune problems, and are not diagnostic of AIDS.[39

raw wrote:
In fact in some parts of Africa people are diagnosed with AIDS WITHOUT having a HIV test! (Again will dig out relevant resources). The problem I see here is the blanket use of "HIV leads to AIDS" theory masks a fundemental social problem of class, exploitation and poverty. Like I said before it has become a catchall term, which has allowed the funding of clean water systems and sanitation systems to be cut in favour of anti-HIV drugs.

Why then do communities, indeed AFRICAN communities, respond, overall, to antiretroviral drugs with increased survival rates? Secondly why is it a choice between sanitation systems and clean water, and effective HIV treatment? What the hell kind of revolutionary are you? You also act as if HIV/AIDS activists aren’t demanding clean water, sanitation, and drug access. They are. Indeed the movement around HIV has been unique in that it has consistently drawn a connection between fighting the epidemic and economic justice.

raw wrote:
Finally, why is there more people in Africa apparently effected with HIV and/or dying of AIDS than in the UK (per capita) is it because blacks have sex more (a racist proposition) than white people in the UK? How come HIV/AIDS has affected more the Gay community in the west than hetrosexuals but effects predominantly all communities in Africa?

You act these questions like they’re unique. Of course sexual practices, cultural networks, healthcare access, women’s liberation, religious mandates, and kinship networks have affected the spread of the disease. THIS SHOULD BE SELF-APPARENT and COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE TO ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING. DUH.

raw wrote:
And yes there are wide views held by some AIDS dissenters but that shouldn't divert people from enquirying deeper.

“sure some 911 conspiracies ARE anti-semitic, and dangerous in the ability to stir up racial hatred, but that shouldn’t keep us from digging deeper into the conspiracy!” DUDE WHERES YOUR FUCKING TIN FOIL HAT??

-PISSED AS HELL RUGGER.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 15:08

Admin - lem philosophy of science posts split to this thread

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 28 2006 15:13

This comment has been moved here.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 28 2006 16:15
raw wrote:
sovietpop wrote:
lack of affordable available condoms plus higher levels of poverty resulting in higher levels of prostitution - I'm just guessing but these seem plausable explanations to me.

There have been studies in Haiti of prostitutes (and also in the philipines & indonesia) that show that prostitutes had a much lower rate of "HIV" infection/AIDS than the rest of the population. This goes against some current theory on how HIV spreads.Again will dig up the Haiti research paper later.

cheers

Raw

I love this. You just make shit up, then make obscure references to back it up. I'm familiar with that study it showed that a SMALL HANDFUL of haitian prostitutes seemed to have an immunity to HIV.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 28 2006 16:28

The largest immune population actually seem to be North Europeans, 1% of whom carry a mutation conferring virtual immunity
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66198,00.html

Studies into immunity to date tend to confirm HIV as the casual agent for AIDS rather than the reverse so I'm curious as to why it's been brought up

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 16:52
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Studies into immunity to date tend to confirm HIV as the casual agent for AIDS rather than the reverse so I'm curious as to why it's been brought up

I believe it's because the HIV non-believers actually don't have a clue what they're talking about, nor have the ability to accurately assess information or data.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 28 2006 17:39
John. wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Studies into immunity to date tend to confirm HIV as the casual agent for AIDS rather than the reverse so I'm curious as to why it's been brought up

I believe it's because the HIV non-believers actually don't have a clue what they're talking about, nor have the ability to accurately assess information or data.

I must say I really feel like this thread has brought us all together. Normally my thinly veiled Queer Leninism, with a lipservice to anarcho-communism is usually alienating, but now I really feel like I belong. smile

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 29 2006 19:53
revol68 wrote:
Yeah I also reading about a small pocket of prostitutes in subsaharan africa who appeared to be immune.

Pockets of people who have not become infected in spite of massive exposure are quite frequent.

Vaginal sex is much safer, especially if neither have other diseases, the HIV outbreak in the american porn industry was caused when an actor became infected, the women he had vaginal sex with were not infected.

I'm not sure if JB2 is entirely right about europeans, they seem to have a higher resistance in general iirc, but no-one is 'immune'. I read a theory suggesting that this is because the black death was actually a viral disease similar to Ebola.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 30 2006 10:09

So, coffeemachine, where are these answers you promised?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 2 2006 01:53

as these things always tend to be; a jumble of emotive, frustrated, angry voices (as they are entitled to be) throwing weblinks and cutnpastes at the screen (in familiar bulletin board fashion) hoping the force of their conviction will create the necessary proof of their words.

Maybe if we approach this a little differently, if we can try to establish the things we can medically agree on, identify where our thinking diverges and try to understand why medical opinion diverges at that particular point, within that particular context, given the particular information available, maybe we can begin to understand more fully what exactly is going on.

Maybe if we start from the beginning.

If someone could explain just exactly what hiv is, its make- up and mechanism, its relationship with the immune system and how it came into being, we can begin to usefully negotiate our way through a complex set of medical circumstances that does admittedly generate incredibly impassioned responses.

Maybe too when people do explain their viewpoints they could cite their medical sources just so we know where we stand with each other. (Simply repeating information from the internet doesn't actually give us 'evidence' of anything).

If we are going to tackle medical science lets at least use medical science as a starting point.

Agreed?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 2 2006 03:13
revol68 wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
as these things always tend to be; a jumble of emotive, frustrated, angry voices (as they are entitled to be) throwing weblinks and cutnpastes at the screen (in familiar bulletin board fashion) hoping the force of their conviction will create the necessary proof of their words.

Maybe if we approach this a little differently, if we can try to establish the things we can medically agree on, identify where our thinking diverges and try to understand why medical opinion diverges at that particular point, within that particular context, given the particular information available, maybe we can begin to understand more fully what exactly is going on.

Maybe if we start from the beginning.

If someone could explain just exactly what hiv is, its make- up and mechanism, its relationship with the immune system and how it came into being, we can begin to usefully negotiate our way through a complex set of medical circumstances that does admittedly generate incredibly impassioned responses.

Maybe too when people do explain their viewpoints they could cite their medical sources just so we know where we stand with each other. (Simply repeating information from the internet doesn't actually give us 'evidence' of anything).

If we are going to tackle medical science lets at least use medical science as a starting point.

Agreed?

so if we throw ourselves in an amateur discussion society about things that have been hammered out by people alot more knowledgable than us, you might just be able to avoid actualy having to put forward your reasons as to how HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Or how about we start with you telling us your hypothesis considering your the one seeking a paradigm shift.

i could say exactly the same thing.

The starting point is though surely the existence of the thing. Again if you wish to explain what hiv is, its make-up and mechanism, its relationship to the immune system and how it came into being we then have a method in coming to terms with, and defining, what we are talking about.

I am happy to listen to your views.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 2 2006 03:41

you can work on the basic assumption or you can explain from the masses of data available what hiv is, its make up and mechanism, its relationship to the immune system and how it came into being.

Indeed you can if you wish provide the masses of medical data for us to examine and we use that as our start point.

If we are to question a thing we (all of us) must be sure what the thing is we are questioning no?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 2 2006 14:43
revol68 wrote:
I'm asking, are you questioning the existance of HIV or are you questioning it's causing of AIDS?

He doesn't believe in either. And did you help out at an AIDS myth journal CM, actively spreading "the word" about HIV not being infectious or sexually transmitted?

There is ample information available on the nature of HIV and AIDS and how they work, no one is going to post - or benefit from posting - a load of obvious stuff we know already.

Stop wriggling and just answer the questions. Or just admit that you don't have any answers.

Topic locked