AIDS debate - Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard - page 2

I thought this was fascinating and wondered if anyone here had read it? Here is an excerpt:... Read More

  1. by   James Huffman
    JasmineTea, thanks for a good article.

    I could appreciate the so-called "debunkers" a bit more if they would interact with some of the researchers who've worked for years on the anomalies around the AIDS/HIV theories. Specifically, Duesburg, but also Robert Root-Bernstein in his book Re-Thinking AIDS. Instead, there seems to be a whole group of people who think they are rebutting alternative AIDS theories by laughing at researchers who raise serious questions about the HIV theory. The questioners may be wrong; that's part of scientific research, but asking questions, refusing to prematurely settle on an answer: those are serious parts of research as well.

    Jim Huffman, RN
  2. by   Balder_LPN
    Quote from JasmineTea
    They may have a point. Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, according to CDC statistics through the year 2000.

    Hold up on that one batman, That is a very misleading statement. That is NO WAY to correalate AZT usage to the death rate of AIDS pt's. simply stating that "this" followed "that" does not establish a relationship between "this" and "that".

    Did you realize that 90% percent of all deaths in the last decade have occured within 30 days of eating carrots? but I dont think that eating carrots caused the deaths. That is not the scientific method, that's first year of any science education (associate or bachelor)

    I would correalate the fact that Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, more with the fact that aids takes many years to show in HIV infected persons, and many more years to die. HIV/Aids was "discovered" in the very early 80's, so 94% of deaths after the intro of azt (1988?) I would expect that 94% of death occured in this time, even if AZT lengthens life this would still be true (depending on average length). do the math.

    Also what percent of aids dx's where made after the intro of AZT, not mentioned of course.

    there is far more literature that supports azt helping than not. its easy to find (google). I dont think that this article outweighs the bulk of the published literature.

    this would seem like taking healthcare info from Good housekeeping (or star, cosmo, us or anyother mass market mag)
  3. by   papawjohn
    Hey Y'all

    Yer ol' Papaw was a Nurse before there was a disease called AIDS. I have lived with the disease about as much as anyone can who's not either studying it or suffering from it. This thread lead me to google the topic: "infectious disease hiv aids skeptics". It was a trip down memory lane.

    The three diagnostic labels that lead to the original suspicion that a new immune-deficiency was loose in the world have become familiar: Kaposi's Sarcoma, PCP and Disseminated Mycobacterian Avian Complex. It's important to remember that these were amazingly RARE, almost unheard of, before 1980. Kaposi's was only known in Mediterranean old men and a few immune-suppressed unfortunates. After 10yrs (roughly '84 to '95), it had increased OVER 2,000% among unmarried young men in SanFrancisco.

    Pneumocystius Pneumonia is a very widespead organism. Virtually anyone can be exposed. But prior to '67 only 107 cases had EVER been diagnosed in the USA. By '94, that number was 127,000.

    Disseminated Mycobacteria Avian Complex is also a common bug. But prior to '81 there were only 32 documented cases in the US ever. By '94 that number was about 30,000.

    When I was in school and was myself a baby nurse, there was a group of Pt's that were common in hospitals. Hemophiliacs would come in with bleeding disorders and receive 'clotting factors'. Has anyone seen a hemophiliac lately?

    AIDS changed everything in the hospital like the terrorist attacks of 11 Sept 01 did for the military.

    By following demographics, it was quickly determined that the causative agent followed the same pathway that Hepatitis B did--blood-borne, sexual contact and Mother-Infant. Research quickly turned to retroviruses. It didn't take long for likely contagious viruses to turn up--first there were several names and confusion. We had HTLV and ARV and a couple of others.
    Then in '86 a big global conference combined three viruses that had been shown to kill the T-Lymphocyte "CD4 +" and the label HIV was hung on them.

    Archives of old blood specimens were canvassed and it showed that HIV first appeared in blood in the US in the mid '70's. It was found in clotting factor VIII in '78, for instance. So we nurses were giving our hemophiliac pts the HIV virus unknowingly for almost 10 years before we had a test to discover it. How about that, boys and girls?

    But some HIV + people seemed NEVER to get AIDs. How's that happening? They were naturally studied thoroughly. There were two things that seemed to be going on: They did not drop their CD4 + levels and they did not increase their VIRAL LOAD. There proved to be a direct relationship between these two factors and the development of AIDs symptoms.

    There is a golden rule of medical/biological researchers called "Koch's Postulates". Basically, before a microorganism can be proven to cause a disease 4 standards of proof have to exist: 1) It is found in every case of the disease. 2) It can be isolated and grown in pure cultures. 3) When given to an uninfected host, it causes the same disease. And 4) it can then be found in the 2d host.

    The horrible truth is that WE NURSES (and lab techs) have proven Koch's postulates apply to HIV. We got exposed to the virus thru needle sticks, grew the virus, developed AIDS and supplied blood showing that HIV was the difference between previous good health and post exposure AIDS.

    Now AIDS/HIV skeptics infiltrate the internet like second-hand smoke. They assert that bad behavior leads to AIDs--not a preventable infection. They focus on drug users for instance. But CD4 counts of HIV-Negative IV drug abusers have been shown to NOT GO DOWN. And in Pts with HIV related CD4CD4 suppression, no difference could be found between IV drug abusers and Non-IV druggies. The deniers also blame sexual promescuity, as though THAT never existed before 1980!!! But there is no record of AIDs in (for instance) prostitutes before HIV.

    Dr Duesburg is revered by the deniers, I've learned. A quote I found: "...we always knew...about retroviruses--that they don't kill cells."

    Now anyone is welcome to an opinion. But no one is welcome to ignore evidence. And when Dr Duesburg with his academic background addresses a College aged group and tells them (the most sexually active demographic) that AIDS is NOT and infectous disease....well, some people think there is a Judge we will all meet someday, and I would not want to be in Dr Duesburg's shoes on THAT day.

    Thanx for your attention
    Papaw John
  4. by   BBFRN
    Quote from SFCardiacRN
    There is a group in San Francisco (ACT UP)that promotes the view that HIV and AIDS are not related. They convince people not to take the medications saying it's the meds causing the illness. They are also dying off at an alarming rate. Before the meds came out the death rate in SF was staggering. Now that many therapies are available, the death rate is falling. Viral loads are becomming undetectable. People are getting back to work. I've seen first hand how effective viral therapy is. Don't let some quack article fool you into dismissing valid scientific studies.
    Great post.
  5. by   Jessy_RN
    Very interesting article indeed.
  6. by   beochicken
    Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?
  7. by   P_RN
    Quote from beochicken
    Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?
    No I would not read it that way. This is a board dedicated to Nursing for and by Nurses.

    I would hope that just like anything else read on the internet someone coming across this board would read all sides and form their own opinions. Why do you think it would be otherwise?
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from papawjohn
    Hey Y'all

    Yer ol' Papaw was a Nurse before there was a disease called AIDS. I have lived with the disease about as much as anyone can who's not either studying it or suffering from it. This thread lead me to google the topic: "infectious disease hiv aids skeptics". It was a trip down memory lane.

    The three diagnostic labels that lead to the original suspicion that a new immune-deficiency was loose in the world have become familiar: Kaposi's Sarcoma, PCP and Disseminated Mycobacterian Avian Complex. It's important to remember that these were amazingly RARE, almost unheard of, before 1980. Kaposi's was only known in Mediterranean old men and a few immune-suppressed unfortunates. After 10yrs (roughly '84 to '95), it had increased OVER 2,000% among unmarried young men in SanFrancisco.

    Pneumocystius Pneumonia is a very widespead organism. Virtually anyone can be exposed. But prior to '67 only 107 cases had EVER been diagnosed in the USA. By '94, that number was 127,000.

    Disseminated Mycobacteria Avian Complex is also a common bug. But prior to '81 there were only 32 documented cases in the US ever. By '94 that number was about 30,000.

    When I was in school and was myself a baby nurse, there was a group of Pt's that were common in hospitals. Hemophiliacs would come in with bleeding disorders and receive 'clotting factors'. Has anyone seen a hemophiliac lately?

    AIDS changed everything in the hospital like the terrorist attacks of 11 Sept 01 did for the military.

    By following demographics, it was quickly determined that the causative agent followed the same pathway that Hepatitis B did--blood-borne, sexual contact and Mother-Infant. Research quickly turned to retroviruses. It didn't take long for likely contagious viruses to turn up--first there were several names and confusion. We had HTLV and ARV and a couple of others.
    Then in '86 a big global conference combined three viruses that had been shown to kill the T-Lymphocyte "CD4 +" and the label HIV was hung on them.

    Archives of old blood specimens were canvassed and it showed that HIV first appeared in blood in the US in the mid '70's. It was found in clotting factor VIII in '78, for instance. So we nurses were giving our hemophiliac pts the HIV virus unknowingly for almost 10 years before we had a test to discover it. How about that, boys and girls?

    But some HIV + people seemed NEVER to get AIDs. How's that happening? They were naturally studied thoroughly. There were two things that seemed to be going on: They did not drop their CD4 + levels and they did not increase their VIRAL LOAD. There proved to be a direct relationship between these two factors and the development of AIDs symptoms.

    There is a golden rule of medical/biological researchers called "Koch's Postulates". Basically, before a microorganism can be proven to cause a disease 4 standards of proof have to exist: 1) It is found in every case of the disease. 2) It can be isolated and grown in pure cultures. 3) When given to an uninfected host, it causes the same disease. And 4) it can then be found in the 2d host.

    The horrible truth is that WE NURSES (and lab techs) have proven Koch's postulates apply to HIV. We got exposed to the virus thru needle sticks, grew the virus, developed AIDS and supplied blood showing that HIV was the difference between previous good health and post exposure AIDS.

    Now AIDS/HIV skeptics infiltrate the internet like second-hand smoke. They assert that bad behavior leads to AIDs--not a preventable infection. They focus on drug users for instance. But CD4 counts of HIV-Negative IV drug abusers have been shown to NOT GO DOWN. And in Pts with HIV related CD4CD4 suppression, no difference could be found between IV drug abusers and Non-IV druggies. The deniers also blame sexual promescuity, as though THAT never existed before 1980!!! But there is no record of AIDs in (for instance) prostitutes before HIV.

    Dr Duesburg is revered by the deniers, I've learned. A quote I found: "...we always knew...about retroviruses--that they don't kill cells."

    Now anyone is welcome to an opinion. But no one is welcome to ignore evidence. And when Dr Duesburg with his academic background addresses a College aged group and tells them (the most sexually active demographic) that AIDS is NOT and infectous disease....well, some people think there is a Judge we will all meet someday, and I would not want to be in Dr Duesburg's shoes on THAT day.

    Thanx for your attention
    Papaw John
    Very educated and illuminating.

    Thanks Papaw.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   James Huffman
    Quote from beochicken
    Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?
    Most of the AIDS/HIV skeptics -- while not seeing a connection between the HIV virus and the syndrome -- see a large connection between the syndrome and unsafe sexual practices. This is especially true with Robert Root-Bernstein, who deals with that aspect at length in his book Re-Thinking AIDS

    And as far as not taking their "coctail" [sic], we would do well to remind ourselves that science doesn't advance without people asking questions, and making changes in treatments: including their own. Anyone who takes any treatment -- of whatever variety -- without thinking through the issue is doing themselves a disservice.

    Jim Huffman, RN
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from James Huffman
    Most of the AIDS/HIV skeptics -- while not seeing a connection between the HIV virus and the syndrome -- see a large connection between the syndrome and unsafe sexual practices. This is especially true with Robert Root-Bernstein, who deals with that aspect at length in his book Re-Thinking AIDS

    And as far as not taking their "coctail" [sic], we would do well to remind ourselves that science doesn't advance without people asking questions, and making changes in treatments: including their own. Anyone who takes any treatment -- of whatever variety -- without thinking through the issue is doing themselves a disservice.

    Jim Huffman, RN
    Since the advent of the cocktails, the number of AIDS pts I take care of have fallen off dramatically.

    And the ones I do tend to take care of these days - I do so for the other multi-system failures that plague humanity (such as renal failure) as much as for ARC.

    I'd call that compelling.

    If I was diagnosed w/ HIV today, I'd be taking the cocktail tomorrow. . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  11. by   canoehead
    Quote from nuberianne
    there never has been any research that supports the notion that HIV causes AIDS or that AIDS is even a disease. .
    That's why no one calls it a disease- it's a syndrome. A group of symptoms that happen to occur together.(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
  12. by   caroladybelle
    First, this is just one of the many quack AIDs theories out there. It has been around and is hardly controversial nor is it new or never heard, nor validated by reasonable medical authorities. Many of us have read the like.

    The so-called science that it is based on, is on par with that discredited Trudeau of the late night infomercials/medical theories.

    But the Informercial-like header, "The Most Controversial AIDs Story That You Have Never Heard" does not help. The vast majority of fraud/quack debunkers will tell you that a header like that, chances are that the information is faulty.
  13. by   BBFRN
    Quote from caroladybelle
    The so-called science that it is based on, is on par with that discredited Trudeau of the late night infomercials/medical theories.

    .
    I can't STAND that guy.

close