BS: What causes AIDS?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM

Well, Dr. Mark, the most common chemical that compromises people's immune systems is alcohol--many AIDS sufferers had alcohol abuse problems, and I have heard a number of long term AIDS survivors discuss this--

As far as anti-retrovirals, I don't know enough about them to argue with you, so I ask that, if you can, you post links to anything you might know of--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:33 AM

One major characteristic of a good biological weapon is that it kills the other guys, not your own people. It can be quick and disappear when the people who have it die or just disspipate. It has to be containable, though, either because it is short-term and confined to a specific area or because your guys have a vaccine or something that will cure it. Somebody who intends to wipe out a poplulation won't use a biological agent that goes undetected in a handful of people for years and can travel around the world and spread, infecting more small numbers of people, until the numbers aren't so small anymore. Not unless they, and their children and grandchildren, can be protected.

I think the modern belief in the cause of all disease being an 'unhealthy lifestyle' is the equivalent of the older belief in 'bad spirits'. Not taking care of your body in DOES cause problems, but not all of them. These beliefs allow us to feel somewhat immune, though. All we have to do is maintain a healthy lifestyle, and we won't get sick and die like they do.

When you're trying to figure out if a weakened immune system is a result or a cause of AIDS, do consider people that were healthy until they contracted the virus.
Consider that the virus reproduces in T-cells which are the body's first line of defense, the 'general purpose" immune cells. It destroys those cells in the process.
Consider that a low level of T-cells is one of the factors needed for a diagnosis of AIDS.
Now, explain why those cells started out at a normal level and then dropped to the point where the individual was susceptible to opportunistic infections.

Most people are used to hearing about those who get sick and then are diagnosed with AIDS. They're used to hearing about injectable drug users, the sexually promiscuous, and people who otherwise probably aren't tested when they're healthy. What I've seen are the healthy ones who've been found to be HIV positive on tests, and subsequently, I've seen their bodies slowly and horribly give up on them, despite all they tried to do to prevent it. You're saying they could have done more, that they should have done more. You're saying it was their fault they got AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:09 AM

Unless the chemicals happen to be antiretroviral medications, in which case they get better.

Don't get me wrong, M.Ted. My kids don't eat artificial color (well, that's mostly my ex-wife's doing, but I agree with her), I used to own an organic orchard, and I think the alliance of Dow and Monsanto with the American "food" industry is nothing short of criminal. But any "theory" that says that HIV is "created in the body when the immune system has been severely compromised" is based on as much research as a "theory" that red blood cells are actually tiny red M&M's.

Little Hawk, I do believe that Roger and those other patients recovered from AIDS with a treatment regimen that included healthy living and avoiding artificial chemicals. But that does NOT mean that AIDS is caused by unhealthy living and artificial chemicals. As Mr. Spock would say, that is not logical.

You are correct that drug abusers don't take care of their bodies, and that there is a high incidence of AIDS among drug users. However, the incidence of AIDS is high only among intravenous drug users, not all drug users, and it is lower in areas where there are free needle exchange programs...even when the drug users don't take any better care of themselves. Why? Because they don't get the virus from being malnourished, they get it from injecting it into themselves with HIV-contaminated needles.

Try this: We all know that if you don't have an up-to-date antivirus program on your computer, you're running a big risk of being infected by a virus, worm, Trojan, or other nastyware. But do you know that you can run your computer 24 hours a day with NO firewalls and NO antivirus software, and yet have ZERO risk of ever having a computer virus? It's easy: just don't connect it to the Internet, don't connect to any other computer via modem, and don't put any disks into your drive unless they've been certified that day as virus-free. Same idea.

OK, I'm done.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:25 AM

There is also a theory that HIV is actually created in the body when the immune system has been severely compromised--Whatever HIV turns out to be, though, the most important point is that, for whatever reason, people who suffer from AIDS do get better when they get the chemicals out of their bodies, and they get worse and die when they put more chemicals in their bodies--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:13 AM

That's an amusing comment, Amergin. :-) I'm not sure I exactly go with your drift or your implication, but I did get a laugh out of it at least.

You know, you can just as well starve yourself to death by pigging out all your life on processed food and junk food and gross materialism as by not eating enough, Jeri. People here don't eat enough real food, they just eat something they think looks real and it seems to briefly fill up their spiritual emptiness. It reminds me of that Dylan song, "Too Much of Nothing". Everybody in this culture is stuffed full of too much of nothing and it makes them sick.

Those people in Africa, that's a very different situation. I wouldn't say that I know much about it, cos I don't. I only hear distant rumours.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:25 AM

Something the normally smart/observant people on the cat are missing is this: We like to think that bio-weapons have to kill RIGHT NOW in order to be effective. No, they don't. If the game plan is to depopulate a group of people, country or continent, than doing it in slo-mo (as is happening in Africa with HIV/AIDS) is 'ideal'. You people just ain't sick enough to see that long-term, low-intensity warfare works just fine. If that's what ya want. And if that's the game plan.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Amergin
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM

Come on, Mark, we all know you're just trying to further the systematic hatred of those poor Africans. We know you just want to contribute in the corporate take over of the whole world! You doctors are all evil! We should burn you all on the stake!

Pretty soon you will come up with the radical notion that malnutrition is NOT caused by lack of food, but by picking your nose too much! We all know that is naught but a wicked lie!

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 11:55 PM

Yeah. I've heard all that before. I don't necessarily buy it. If you get a chance, read the book "Roger's Recovery From Aids", written by an M.D. who treated another M.D. who had Aids. Just read it. If you can find it anywhere.

It might raise some new questions in your mind, and add to your clearly large and erudite body of knowledge on the subject of Aids (I am not being sarcastic when I say that).

God doesn't punish anyone, in my opinion. People damage themselves, usually in an unaware fashion, by the way they eat, drink, emote, think, live, behave, and all the rest of it. What happens to them is not punishment, it is simple cause and effect. There are a great many causes for a disease like that, not just one.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 11:46 PM

Little Hawk, the immune system fails BECAUSE of the virus, not the other way around, although an already weakened immune system will likely speed the devastation of HIV. Viruses aren't symptoms. A person's body doesn't create them as a reaction to something else.

There have been too many people who were healthy when they became sick and the HIV virus who later became sick and died. That 'unhealthy lifestyle' general-purpose theory, whether it's because of people's choices or was imposed by society, is based on belief, not evidence. It makes about as much sense (and is starting to sound very similar to me) as saying "God is punishing them," and yes, I've had enough of beating my fists against a brick wall by talking to them, too. They, and you, can't explain the babies, the medical people who've accidentally been stuck with infected needles, the athletes, other than "well, I'm sure it must have been something!" Trying to make the evidence you have (or don't have) fit your theories rather than basing your theories on facts just doesn't make any sense at all, and blaming a disease, caused by a virus, on an unhealthy lifestyle or poverty, is just another kind of bigotry. On one hand, people say "all of those people fuck like bunnies." On the other hand, you say "all of those people are starving and don't take care of themselves." Neither one of those things applies to AIDS victims everywhere. Not only that, but how do you explain the loads of poor, unhealthy people who don't have AIDS.

The disease doesn't give a rat's ass what your politial beliefs are. You may be sick of 'right-wing mantras'. What I'm sick of is people who have to see millions of people dying as a political issue. I don't suppose it makes much of a difference to those people, unless it affects funding for prevention programs or drugs. But they don't need those things, do they Bobert? You and all those other people who see this as a political or a moral issue have agendas which have nearly nothing to do with science or medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 11:35 PM

I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 11:28 PM

Uh, Bobert...did you read any of my "right wing mantra"? I wrote it just for you, buddy.

LH, you read it, but you missed my point. The AIDS virus doesn't magically appear in someone's body as a "symptom" of malnutrition, or drug poisoning, or evil living. It is introduced into the body, usually by sexual contact, or by a contaminated needle, or by transfer from mother to baby via the placenta or breast milk. There's no question that someone with malnutrition will be more susceptible to the virus, and there's no question that the virus works by damaging the immune system. But all the handwaving in the world won't change the fact that it's the virus that infects and damages the T lymphocytes and causes the severe and often fatal immunodeficiency syndrome called AIDS. No virus, no AIDS.

Bearded Bruce, your statement "You are assuming that it's the virus that kills them" suggests that you may have misunderstood me. If you want to be picky about it, nobody dies of AIDS. People with AIDS die of pneumocystis pneumonia, or cryptococcal meningitis, or disseminated toxoplasmosis, or one of a dozen other opportunistic infections. (Yes, I know about HIV-related encephalopathy and wasting syndrome. Those possible exceptions don't invalidate the fundamental point.)

The AIDS virus does not kill people directly, like plague, or Ebola, or smallpox. (Which, by the way, Harpgirl, is one reason it would be a lousy choice as a biological weapon, despite what your Nobel prizewinner says.) It kills indirectly: by damaging the immune system so that it cannot respond to agents that normally do not affect healthy people.

Sure, malnutrition damages the immune system, too.   But the point some of you are missing is that HIV causes a specific injury to the immune system, which results in susceptibility to specific infections and tumors. Doctors around the world have been taking care of malnourished people for years and years, but they didn't see pneumocystis pneumonia in young people, even malnourished young people, until AIDS. Malnutrition alone does not specifically decrease your CD4+ T-cell population, and does not lead to increased susceptibility to the particular infections seen in such high numbers in patients with AIDS.

Just so you dont' think I'm making all this up, this is from Cecil's Textbook of Medicine (a venerable medical text):

The clinical consequences of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are due to the ability of this retrovirus to disarm the host immune system, a process that occurs by virtue of the fact that the primary target for the virus is the helper-inducer subset of lymphocytes. This lymphocyte subset, defined by its surface expression of the CD4 molecule, acts as the pivotal orchestrator of a myriad of immune functions. HIV-1 infection can therefore be considered a disease of the immune system, characterized by the progressive loss of CD4-positive (CD4+) lymphocytes (Table 407-1) , with ultimately fatal consequences for the infected host.

Despite this immunosuppression induced by HIV, a number of specific immunologic defenses against the virus are generated in infected individuals and may contribute to the long, asymptomatic phase that follows infection by keeping the virus at least partially contained.

My point remains: saying that HIV causes AIDS and that it is spread by sexual contact is not "racist propaganda," but biological fact. Arguing against that fact merely gives ammunition to those who want to put an end to public health efforts to limit this epidemic--including the racists who think it's "God's will" that so many Africans are dying. (Whaddya say to that, Bobert?)

Oh, and LH, there is no question that "alternative" treatments can often produce documented cures of many diseases. That doesn't mean that the diseases have "alternative" causes. It simply (and profoundly) means that there are many ways of helping the body to heal itself. At least, that's the view of this "integrative" MD.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 09:20 PM

You're welcome, Bobert. I am now wondering just how hard it would be to get another copy of that book on the Internet. It's not very easy to find. Guess why...

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 09:09 PM

Well, thankee, LH, fir steppin' in... Lots of folks got the "The niggas screw like bunnies and therefore they are diein'" company line down pat...

Sure is convient for a nation that makes up 5% of the world's population and consumes 35% of the resources...

"Yep, Ralph yer right. Them folks deserve to die 'cause they'll screw anything anything that moves...(spit). They sure do..."

I'm so sick of this crap, like I said earlier, I could probably test positive for something from just hearing this right wing mantra...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:55 PM

Well, I don't think so, based on what I've read. I think, rather, that it is the onset of a weak immune system that invites the virus to establish itself...and the further deterioration of the immune system that causes the patient to die. The virus complicates the issue, all right, but I think it's one a number of symptoms, not a cause.

The causes are: bad diet, drugs poisoining the body, alchohol and caffiene poisoning the body, malnutrition, lack of sleep, lack of exercise and sunlight, electromagnetic pollution of the nervous system, stress causing further toxic buildup in the body, failure of the eliminative systems causing further toxic buildup in the body, and so on. Modern lifestyle, to put it briefly.

It's a multi-dimensional problem. Aids tends to be high among drug abusers, because drug abusers are constantly battering their own immune system.

You really would have to read the book "Roger's Recovery From Aids", and then we could have a useful discussion about this. Otherwise, we are just blowing bubbles and wearing out our fingers on the keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:44 PM

I agree that you do not think it a valid example- but could you explain to my why I should not consider it one?


Is it not the effect of the virus that causes those with weak immune systems to die?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:41 PM

Sorry, I don't think that's a valid example. Try another or read the book I mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM

LH,

And in a heart attack, it is not the heart stopping that kills anyone- it is the lack of oxygen in the vital organs.

So I guess heart attacks don't kill anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

You are assuming it is the virus that kills them, Mark. That may be a mistaken assumption. The virus may accompany that which kills them...e.g...a failed immune system. The virus may be a symptom of illness, not an original cause of illness. And the original causes may well kill you regardless of whether or not the virus is present.

I'm not saying I KNOW that is so, I'm saying it's possible that it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 07:45 PM

Bobert, my friend, as much as I like you and enjoy your posts and generally agree with your positions, I'm afraid you're developing a bad case of rectocephaly on this one.

Yes, malnutrition is a terrible problem in Africa, and yes, it is one that is largely ignored by "western" society. And yes, people infected with the AIDS virus are much more likely to die if they start out malnourished. But that does NOT mean that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It is.

Look at tuberculosis. Most people who are infected with the tuberculosis bacillus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, do not develop active TB, or even get sick at all.   People who are malnourished, however, are much more likely to develop active TB when they are exposed to the TB bacillus. Does that mean "the TB bacillus does not cause TB, malnutrition does"? Not on your life. It means that tuberculosis, like nearly every infection we know, is caused by an interaction between the infecting organism and the host. Whether that interaction causes illness depends on many factors, of which nutritional status is just one.

Think of how many times you cut your finger while working outside and didn't bother to wash the cut right away. How many of those times did the bacteria that entered your body cause an infection? Not many, I'll bet...your host defenses were strong enough to prevent it.

So, yes, people who are malnourished are more likely to die of AIDS if they are infected with the HIV virus. And, quite likely, people who are well-nourished may be able to fight off the virus if it enters their bodies, and never become infected at all. But the friends I knew in Seattle in the 80s who had, and died of, AIDS were generally in excellent physical condition and not malnourished...at least, not until they became sick.

Yes, it would be good if corrupt government officials worldwide made efforts to feed their people instead of lining their own pockets and encouraging mass murder. Yes, if that happened, the death rate from AIDS -- among other problems -- would likely go down.

But if the virus never enters your body, your chance of dying of AIDS is zero, because your chance of getting AIDS is zero. And there are ways of preventing the virus from entering people's bodies. There are successful efforts underway to decrease the spread of HIV, for example, through sex education and wide distribution of condoms. People who spread the rumor that "AIDS is not caused by HIV" tend to undermine those efforts.

Bobert, you are correct that many people in western countries have strong prejudices against Africa and Africans. But for heaven's sake, don't aid their cause by what amounts to speaking out against a major public health campaign being waged by Africans for Africans against this terrible scourge. Also, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS/HIV, AIDS is a growing problem in Eastern Europe and Asia, not just in Africa. And let's not forget congenital AIDS: it's hard to blame the victim on that one.

Oh, and another point, regarding so-called false positive AIDS tests:    The fact that you can find people who test positive for HIV but do not have symptoms of AIDS does NOT mean those people have "false positive" results due to some other medical condition they happen to have.

Let me repeat that, because it's very important. If you test positive for HIV, but you don't have symptoms of AIDS, that is NOT automatically a false positive test. All it means is that you have probably been exposed to the virus. As I mentioned above, whether you become infected, and then whether you become ill, depends on the result of a long and complex process. That long list of "causes" of false positive AIDS tests is worthless unless you know more about the individuals who were included in the list, especially about what happened to their lymphocytes, and their general health, over the following months and years. In other words, how many of them eventually went on to develop AIDS, despite having no symptoms at the time the test was done?

Harpgirl, I don't have time or space to discuss those two statements you linked to, but both of them have some glaring weaknesses, despite the credentials of the authors.

By the way, Bobert, I'm not a member of the AMA. And my credentials include a B.A. from an Ivy League University, an M.D. from a school that is a little less prestigious than the Ivy League (but has a hell of a football team, with a legendary coach!), and a strong belief that corporations are fixing to take over the world--which belief dates back to before George W. Bush stole his first election.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:29 PM

Read "Roger's Recovery From Aids" for a very interesting alternative viewpoint that will not give comfort to the AMA. It was written BY an M.D. about his cure of a fellow M.D.'s Aids illness, which was rapidly becoming terminal. The illness was cured completely over about a year by methods which included ceasing the intake of any and all drugs, fasting, cleansing the digestive tract, getting more fresh air and sunlight, eliminating harmful foods and drinks (such as coffee and alcohol, among many others), a daily exercise regimen, elimination of sources of stress, and so on...major lifestyle changes, in other words.

The patient was completely cured by those methods. He had tested positive for Aids virus prior to that in hospitals (and no doubt about it), he tested negative for the Aids virus afterward in those same hospitals, confouding the administrators. These two M.D.'s subsequently used these same methods to cure other apparently terminal Aids patients. The virus disappeared from the body when the immune sytem fully recovered...because the immune system would then throw out the virus.

Most people are far too lazy and set in their ways to make the variety of major lifestyle changes necessary, and they are not going to do it, nor is the AMA going to encourage them to. It would interfere with the sale of drugs, junk food, alcohol, coffee, and a ton of other lucrative and everyday stuff.

The M.D.'s conclusion was this: The virus does not cause Aids, it finds a host with a broken down immune system (due to bad lifestyle problems) and attaches itself to the host as a symptom of that broken down immune system. The host dies because OF the broken down immune system and the presence of the virus is a symptom...just as flies and bacteria appear quickly on a decaying piece of meat and help to break it down.

Wherever you find general lifestyle conditions which break down the immune system you will find a fertile ground to host the Aids virus, but the virus is not the original cause of the illness, it's a symptom of it.

Most people nowadays are already living in a fashion which is somewhat inviting to the virus, they just have to push it to the point where their immune system starts to break down badly enough to allow the virus in, and it certainly helps in that case if they are exposed to the virus in some way.

And I know that most of you won't believe that for a minute, cos your minds are already made up. You'd rather believe in the boogeyman, the unstoppable virus killer. Fine. Go ahead. DON'T read the book, cos you might have to alter your medical-religious dogma and maybe even your customarily unhealthy lifestyle if you did...

Needless to say, the conditions in much of Africa are absolutely ideal for bringing about broken-down immune systems.

The two M.D.'s also came to the conclusion that the number 1 factor in breaking down most people's immune systems in our society was...DRUGS...legal ones and illegal ones both. So, go take some more expensive prescription drugs for what ails you. Give your immune system a real kick in the chops. Confuse the hell out of it, and see if it goes on strike. I dare you.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 11:39 PM

Well, gol danged, harpgirl, where were ya' when I needed ya'? Awww, jus funnin'....

My contention is somewhat different in that in Africa, where hots of folks test positive for HIV, its real easy to say that it is a behavioral result of sexual activity. But other factors, such as malaria, can also give a positive for HIV.

When I suggested that the poor water, lack of food and environmental conditions were lousy in Africa and these could scew the tests, most everyone jumped on me because those stories are so neat and convient. Plus, those stories let those of us in affluent countries off the hook.

"Yep, them niggas in Africa screw anything that moves. Everyone knows that. That's why they is sick. And they deserve to be sick..."

I'm so sick of hearing this lie that I'd prolly test positive for HIV from just listening to this right wing mantra...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 08:45 PM

Here's a physical anthropologist that believes chronic benzene poisoning plays a major role:Benzene poisoning

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 08:34 PM

A recent Nobel Peace Prize Winner shares Bobert's conspiracy theory:Conspiracy Theory

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 04:14 PM

HIV can be transmitted through ANY type of sexual activity that involves the exchanging of bodily fluids. That means oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse. You don't have to be homosexual to give or receive it, nor do you have to promiscuous- i think that's an important point. You can get HIV just as easily by sleeping with one partner as by sleeping with a hundred, and it's not a good idea to trust to luck. Although condoms are not infallible, they are, next to abstaining from sexual activity, the best way of preventing infection from HIV and STIs availiable. Incidentally, i am absolutely appalled that i wasn't taught this in school and i believe inadequate sex education is one contributing factor to the continuing spread of HIV, and an indicator of both the stigma attached to the virus and its victims and of the embarresment felt by many about discussing sexual matters frankly and openly.

It is undeniably damaging to politicise medicine, and wholly unfair to stigmatise HIV victims. Let's not discuss where it came from but, how to stop it, eh? Does it really matter whether they are gay or straight, black or white? They're human beings, and desperately in need of treatment.   Reverting to mindless homophobia does nothing to help sufferers, many of whom are not gay, or drug addicts, but are just plain unlucky, and not to mention too poor to afford treatment.
What's needed is an international, inter-political effort to provide education and treatment to everyone who needs it. Since when was compassion conditional? There but for the grace of God go i- say that to yourself quietly sometimes...:)

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:46 PM

AIDS was caused by a french bloke shagging a monkey, this is true, i know this because my mate called Dodgy Dave told me.
[he knows about stuff like this, he saw it on telly].

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:41 PM

It is amusing to analog the authorized-queer-moderaters of this board.

Sincerely, Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:39 PM

UK has condom machines.

USA has breath-mint machines in their Cinema Lavatories....

Guess which population has the greatest incidence of Anally, Injected, Death, Serum?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

Is that your final answer, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 10:29 PM

FUCKIN'

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:58 PM

I still firmly believe that, in time, many of the arguments that I put forth a couple months ago will find their time to take center stage... It's real convient to pin AIDS on sex or drugs. Wonder why they left out rock n' roll???

I don't need to rehash those arguments other than to say: one day those who have gleefully sung the company fight song and have said I am wrong may be sitting before a heeping portion of crow pie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:12 PM

reading the MANY sites with info on this, it seems that there is much dispute on whether condoms are really safe or not, but it is certainly clear that they are safer than doing without.

Confusing rubber glove tests with condom tests, along with the # of dippings in latex makes it hard to sort out the truth..


this page includes the following:

"...electron microscopy of condom latex has shown that there are NO pores (sources include The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions. Family Health International, 1998, pg 9, book distributed by WHO as part of the Male Latex Condom Manual) – this in effect also answers Dr B Z Avah's question (3/30/2004) in that (a) there are no pores, their supposed existence is a dangerous myth or, worse, deliberate misinformation and (b) male latex condoms are extremely efficient barriers to HIV infection – on this last point, pls see also WHO/UNAIDS Information Note, Geneva, 16 August 2001- Effectiveness of Latex Condoms,
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html"

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:10 PM

I don't see why that is any more a reliable source than any others that I've read that say differently....

Myabe The Mythbusters (my favorite source of late) will tackle the question!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:58 PM

Clinton...do more research Straight Dope

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:53 PM

It's not like A-sex is the only way to transmit the virus MG...

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:35 PM

Forget those pores.

It's more about the anal pore.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:27 PM

The microscopic pores in a condom are one micron across... the virus that causes HIV and AIDS is half a micron in size....

So what's all this bullplop about 'safer sex'???

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST,gorgon m.
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:01 PM

we can not be really talking about the cause of AIDS now when we know the real causer.Ask who it is.IT IS THE WHITE MAN.

Subject: RE: BS: death due by aids
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 07:00 PM

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 08:09 AM

Bobert,

a personal remark first. Much more often than not I'm in agreement with your basic sentiment on many things. However, your way of arguing and your disregard for accuracy often put me against you. And as for your often shown inability or unwillingness to admit clear errors unequivocally and not mixed with new attacks (not to your friends but to the people you feel to be on the opposite site), look at your friend Teribus for a good example how to admit an error with style.

The Israeli professor may have had a sinister agenda in his speech, but that particular fact he cited was correct. You could have attacked his motives, but you have attacked his data and you are wrong. Period.

Dubious data from 1996 (a term paper???) do not help here. False positives are very rare.

People on the left have learned it in their sociology courses and in history and and and that usually the individuum is not to blame but society and in particular the Western governments if something is wrong. Quite often this mantra is true. But sometimes it isn't. It is the easy way for governments to tell their citizens that someone else (outside of the country) is to blame for an evil and that there is no need to change their own behaviour. Everybody loves to hear that, for changing behaviour isn't what most people like to do.

That's why for instance the post apartheid South African government was well liked for following a discredited minority position and for telling their citizens that the source of AIDS lies outside of the behaviour of the citizens and that someone else, not their own government, was responsible. That was the easy way and the wrong way. In order not to be misunderstood, the responsibility for unequal distribution of wealth between the continents and the reponsibility for still keeping the prices for AIDS medication much too high lies still with, broadly speaking, the Western world.

But by not telling their citizens what behaviour changes might lower the incidence of AIDS and by not making more propaganda for condoms and all that the present South African governments and other governments are responsible for thousands of deaths. I have criticised the apartheid government for being reponsible for deaths and mistreatment. I criticise the post apartheid government for being responsible for a similar number of deaths in a quite short time, not by scheme and evil will this time, like the old government, but by negligence and failure to react with responsibility.

Blame the West. Often it's true, but not always.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 08:05 AM

Oh, here we go...

I wasn't going to reply to nuthin more on this thread but since harpy has now pulled my covers I guess I'lll just have to own up to this one...

Yup, remember back when Bill Clinton was trying to get elected and the pot issue came up and he said he didn't inhale? Well, that semed funny to a lot of people but not me. Made me mad as Hell. I mean wasting good pot! Geeze...

So, me and few friends got together and formed the CIA, you know the "Cannibus Inhalers Association" and proud to say we're still going strong to this very day with bulging membership and a waiting list ti join... Of course a few folks in the wait line have forgotten what they're in line for but, hey, we'll just toke 'um on up when it's their turn, teach 'em the secret handshake and send 'um back into the world with our simple message...........
























Inhale!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:33 PM

Jeri, Bobert's entire rap can be explained by the fact that he is ex-CIA!!! Didn't you know that already??????? harpster

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Amergin
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:11 PM

read And the Band Played On.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 10:51 PM

Bobert, if you'd posted that in the beginning, my own participation would have been a lot shorter. Thank you for the detailed response.

I still don't think misdiagnoses are a major factor. I think there are all the things you named, food, water [plus other poverty-related causes] and, on top of all these things, AIDS. This difference in opinions is not a big deal though. As you indicated, time will tell.

I also don't think the AMA has as much to do with this as you do. It's the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that come up with the 'model' and publish guidelines for prevention and treatment in the US. I don't know who's responsible for this within the Word Health Organization.

Blaming people for what's done is wrong. Overcoming the stigma of talking about sensitive issues such as sex, without judgement, is something health professionals absolutely HAVE to do to prevent further infections. Addressing the issue isn't the same thing as laying blame.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 09:23 PM

Timeline: A Brief History of AIDS/HIV. ÆGIS

AIDS

The history of AIDS Up to 1986


Google the above.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 09:12 PM

This isn't a Bush thing other than the program that he announced during the State of the Union Address last year, which at the time sounded real good which is poorly funded and mismanaged... Like you said, Jeri, you can't understand how a mis-diagnosis would further nayones political careeer, so I am very much *not* making these suggestions for political reasons... Heck, I'm a Green Party person so I'm not too wild about John Kerry, who BTW, also isn't talking about this...

But folks are talking about this. It just doesn't make the news and won't...

I'm not trying to politicize medicine at all but suggesting that for various reasons the AMA folks are stickin' to their story like agood ol' boy network. Why won't they answer the questions that raise the doubts. Many of the questions have come from medical people in addition to Gary Null. What so you think (Dr.) Null just decided to make this up? Waht do you think he doesn't know, ahhhh, real doctors and read, ahhhh, real medical books? Heck, he's a lot smarter feller than a lot of MD's that I know. He is an avid reader and researcher in the field of medicine and alternative medicine...

I mean if you could point to some clear advantage that some politican that I support could get out my attempts to pass on some underlying concerns of some of the medical community then I'd just throw up my arms and say, "Ya got me!", but you can't because I have no other motive than to get some folks to think beyond what the AMA company line. And other than this, I don't have any particular beef with the AMA so again: no motive...

What I do know is that Africans have been and continue to be some of the most exploited people in the world and tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to benefiting from either their labor or resources. So if your going to find the big Bibert conspiracy theory maybe this is where it lies? Maybe, just maybe, we're seeing business as usual in Africa and if so, it's wrong. Notice I said "if" and that "if" is not inconsistent with what I have been saying all along. No squirrel in the road here and none need to be invented...

Now, "if" this is business as usual then, yeah, there is a conspiracy. No, not one that folks who are part of even realize because after centuries of exploitation, racism and streotypical thinking of the colonial powers (us and our frienda) that we have perhaps developed a a culture of thinking that cahnges the way we process information about Africans... I said "culture" here so again I'm not trying to politcize this because "culture" tends to transcend political parties....

And then we look at the Western world and culture that really doesn't understand the African too well, nor wants to for that matter, and doesn't have a clue, or so they claim, how to get Robert Mugabe to distribute the donated food to hungry Zimbabweans or how to prevent the starvation of upwards of a million of Sudanese people...

Well, I'm suggesting that the colonial cultural thinking of the West doesn't have a clue when it come to Africa and perhaps somewhere in this culture is the West's motivation to find easy answers in Africa. If there were as many sick folks in Europe would we be taking the same approach? I think not. But its not in Europe and so lets just keep it easy...

Problem is that when it comes down the molecular level, there are a lot of very sick Africans who are not being treated, nor fed, nor have clean places to live, nor have clean water to drink and bath in and should we one day look back at this chapter of Earth and find that because of cultural factors we chose to take the easy way out by blaming the victims fir their situation fir *** having sex*** (whether or not they actually did, or had AIDS as a result...) this will be a very sad chapter indeed...

There are medical people who are saying that we may have this one wrong. This ain't about politics or the United States or really any soveign nation but about a human tradegy that we, who have the resources, are collectively mishandling.

Even if every person who the AMA model says has AIDS, has AIDS, this is still a major tradegy...

I'm not going to post any more to this thread since I have said all I know to say but I will close with one thought. At least the medical folks who are raising the questions, no mater who is right or wrong, in raising them they are at least rattling a culture that needs to be rattled and maybe in doing so people will get beyond, "Oh, they are just a bunch of Africans..."

The end of the Bobert's participation on this thread unless I have new scientific inforamtion which I think will provide helpful. I am absolutely *spent* in trying to get folks out of the business-as-usual-for-Africans mindsets...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 08:13 PM

Bobert, basing an opinion on what experts say, testing results, and the known nature of HIV infection and AIDS in well-to-do OR indigent populations, makes more sense than listening to one guy with an agenda that happens to further conspiracy theories, or any other point of view.

Knee-jerk reactions aren't exclusive to reactionaries, and it's my impression that's what you're doing. You keep saying you believe this guy, but you don't say WHY what he says makes sense medically. My guess is it's because you don't really know, but if it's anti-the-Powers-That-Be, it must be right. You're arguing politics, not medicine, although I can't see how misdiagnosis would further anyone's cause, or how or why each and every one of all the folks from every country who is involved in helping the patients would not happen to notice, choose to try to cover it up, or be hushed. Some of those folks risk quite a bit to be there, and I can't imagine not one of them would speak up.

As much as you'd like to believe this is Bush and the AMA's baby, it's not. I also try to gather as much information as I can and then make a decision, which may change based on what other information becomes available. I do not make decisions about what I believe is right based on what people on 'my side' are likely to say. I think that's what you're doing, or you'd be talking about more than just politics.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: mooman
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 07:19 PM

Well Bobert, a good friend of mine is a doctor in Zimbabwe and she says the HIV-positive incidence where she works is at least one in four, if not higher. If that doesn't signal an epidemic of some scale I don't know what does.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 04:11 PM

Jeri;

You been reading the Bush folks campaign strategey fir attacking Mr. Kerry with the changing "faster than a squirrel" comment... You might want to sent that one to them, if they ain't got it...

I ain't changed anything. I never said there weren't no AIDS in Africa. I have said over an over and over, unlike Rocky the Squirrel, that I beleive that if the so-called AIDS epedemic in Africa were to better researched and studied by *impartial* pexperts after the *supposed AIDS population* had been feed, provided fresh water and decet medical attention that there is a strong possibility that, given the many other health related problems that test positive for AIDS, that we might very well quit this "AIDS one-size-fits-all Epedemic" thinking. And if that were to occur, maybe, just maybe we could save a lot of lives thru proper diagnosis...

Now I don't know how many more time can can write this saying exactly the same thing fir you not to see this one simple concept as a squirrel darting accross the road in front of you...

The only thing squirrely around here is the kneejerk reactionary thinking that says "Well, gol danged, the TV says there's an AIDS epedemic in Africa so there must be one!" Now that is about as squirrely as it comes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 04:02 PM

Ellenpoly - cookies!! Yippee!! Make mine a Garibaldi!

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: mooman
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM

I believe Amergin is right concerning the Danish woman and this dates from around about 1979 I think. If my memory serves me well, I believe the HIV virus was also subsequently found during the re-testing in the 1990s of stored frozen blood or tissue in a London teaching hospitalof one unusual (i.e. at the time cause of death not fully established) case from the 1940s . I think the story was reported in the New Scientist at the time. Again, if my memory serves me well, this man was possibly in the merchant navy and was a frequent traveller around the world including Africa. If so, this firmly nails the lid on the coffin of a lab conspiracy theory.

Peace

moo