nobel prize winner challenges the myths about aids

[BellaBellucci]

Don't listen to me and certainly don't listen to Bella. Talk to your doctors.

I've already said that I'm not dispensing medical advice and that my arguments are just an intellectual exercise.

~BB~

[feneman]

I can't believe this to be my first message on the site (I'm mostly a "lurker" on many sites just cuz i like to read ppls opinions but I have little to contribute to the discussion ... btw, I'm feneman, nice to meet you all.)

I have to side with Damian on this one,

leaving the "treatment medicine" vs "prevention medicine" aside (I do believe preventive medicine should be the #1 priority, specially with increasing medical costs.)

The argument that HIV does not cause AIDS is a very dangerous one.
As a healthcare professional I have no qualms with personal beliefs that influence just that one person who believes it (because even if they might be wrong they are entitled to "refusal of treatment"), but when it starts to affect other people who do not share those views, then it stops being a matter of personal beliefs and it becomes a matter of public health (oops, i guess i will touch preventive medicine after all :P.)

If a person really doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS ... why would he be inclined to wear a rubber ? Why would he tell his sex partner ? hell, he might even decide to give blood, why not ?

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, some people believe prayer will cure cancer, others believe global warming to be a hoax, some ppl even want "creationism" to be taught as hard science and off course, some ppl believe AIDS is actually a fake phenomenon/disease created in order to make even more money.
And as it is their believes, I will let them make their own choices accordingly ... as long as it doesn't affect other ppl.
(I believe my future kids should have the right to learn about real science and know the difference between science and pseudoscience, I believe living in a clean world should be a priority and a legacy handed down to future generations,
And I believe it is my responsibility to offer the best advice and the most information about diseases and treatments to ppl, although it i THEIR choice ultimately

As a side note,
I will not lie, pharmaceuticals is big business, but if I recall correctly HIV medication is not the industries biggest cash cow, I do believe cancer medication and widespread common meds (tylenol, pantoloc, lipitor, asaphen,etc...) are actually the biggest money makers (I could very well be wrong in this though.)

[daman232323]

You do recall correctly feneman about HIV meds not being a cash cow. HIV and AIDS disproportionally effects people in countries like Africa where sexual education and large pharmaceutical industries aren't very prevalent. More people in countries where pharmaceuticals can be sold for a lot of money (i.e. USA/Canada/Europe) are affected by things like cancers and thus that is where the bulk of the research dollars go.

I'm you as well feneman about the dangers of these thoughts because of their effects on others. Studies have estimated that during the pro-AIDS denial era of South Africa over 340,000 additional people and 35,000 babies were infected with disease.

Bella it is clear that you understand very little about science if you say malnutrition may cause AIDS. Certainly malnutrition can compromise your immune system, but malnutrition to that extreme will kill you long before your immune system is compromised enough to kill you. Again, I'm fine with skepticism and keeping an open mind but not at the cost of lives and trying to control a pandemic. Your view point is not only contrarian, but irresponsible. I am well aware of pharmaceutical companies as I deal with on a daily basis as a healthcare professional. In the future I'd love to partake in more of your intellectual exercises, just not when it could lead to the harm of others. Primum non nocere.

[BellaBellucci]

Your view point is not only contrarian, but irresponsible. I am well aware of pharmaceutical companies as I deal with on a daily basis as a healthcare professional. In the future I'd love to partake in more of your intellectual exercises, just not when it could lead to the harm of others. Primum non nocere.

Irresponsible? Who am I? Dr. Oz? I'm a former political analyst and activist, not a scientist. Anybody who would take medical advice from me deserves whatever they get. I've been quite clear about my intentions since my first post in this thread.

~BB~

[feneman]

Primum non nocere.

LOL, holy crap, I see someone has taken their Hippocratic oath... :P

glad to see I am not the only one awake at these hours.

BTW, Bella, I hope you understand I am not saying anything against you, I am just saying that as a mental exercise it's cool and all but to do such exercise one must hold all the pieces.
I would never discuss American politics beyond superficial chit-chat without being fully aware of each player's positions on certain issues (and their argument, etc...), because it would just be misinformed guesswork on my behalf to do so (you mentioned you were a political analyst :P), just as I would not play chess without all the pieces.

Also, you are a "little" wrong about (notice how I said a little :P) what you said:
"Irresponsible? Who am I? Dr. Oz? I'm a former political analyst and activist, not a scientist. Anybody who would take medical advice from me deserves whatever they get."

it's true that you are not a scientist, it does not mean you cannot read about it or make sure what has been brought forth to you is accurate.
My family loves to talk politics, and although none of us are in that field, we do make an effort to read and educate ourselves on the issues that interests us (healthcare, education, foreign policy.)

Also, unfortunately/fortunately when you (ppl in general) talk, others will listen, no matter if you don't know much about what you talk about or even if you put disclaimers stating you have little knowledge (exhibit "A": glenn beck .)
Ppl will always listen / ask advice to others they know (and aren't necessarily in that field) , when you've had a headache, has a Physician actually told you to take a tylenol or was it more of a family member / friend / TV ad ? and yet you followed these other ppls advice. Haven't you ever had a nephew (younger family member) ask you how this or that works etc ?

You cannot claim that just because you are not a scientist that you can dig out an obscure "contrarian" theory without at least researching what the general consensus on it is, while telling ppl that that particular theory should be entertained and considered. You simply cannot for you are only putting forth a theory as a "radical new concept" for ppl to think about without doing yourself the legwork of what is the actual standing of this theory and why / how it has been refuted / debunked.
It's like saying "birthers" have a valid point without actually looking or wanting to look at obama's birth certificate.
And yes ppl will listen, and maybe they shouldn't but nobody should suffer from an easily preventable disease.

N.B.
No matter how high up the chain you are, no-one is exempt from mistakes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...rs-394898.html

(Dr. Watson [yes, i know :P] is highly regarded as one of the fathers of modern biology ... to the level of Dr Cricks, Dr. Pasteur, etc..., yet he still managed to make quite a bonehead comment)

[BellaBellucci]

Ppl will always listen / ask advice to others they know

I know you mean well, and I know this will come off rudely, but I hope you'll forgive me: that's other peoples' problem, not mine. Just because people believe everything they read, it doesn't make the authors responsible if they are admitting to speculation, particularly when there are those out there who would intentionally lie without remorse. Breaking the pattern of people taking 'knowledge' for granted is precisely what my argument is all about.

By your logic, we should never air any programs that require a disclaimer. No Beavis and Butt-Head, no Jackass, no Real Sex, no Glenn Beck, no War of the Worlds. We shouldn't have the freedom to make atheist statements, art, or music, because to do so might lead others to eternal damnation, whatever that hell that means.

You cannot claim that just because you are not a scientist that you can dig out an obscure "contrarian" theory without at least researching what the general consensus on it is.

I think I, like everybody else who grew up in the 80's, knows what the general consensus is. I hardly think that's in dispute. I'm not asking anybody to outright disbelieve it, and I specifically told people to continue to protect themselves in the orthodox manner (condoms); I'm simply asking them to question that orthodoxy because it might be found to be wrong. Or it might not. Again, what if the allegations are true? Then what?! We'll be sorry that we didn't follow another line of research since the beginning. That's all I'm saying; I'm not telling people to have risky sex and share needles!

And yes ppl will listen, and maybe they shouldn't but nobody should suffer from an easily preventable disease.

People listen to me? Here?! When the hell did this happen?

N.B.
No matter how high up the chain you are, no-one is exempt from mistakes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...rs-394898.html

(Dr. Watson [yes, i know :P] is highly regarded as one of the fathers of modern biology ... to the level of Dr Cricks, Dr. Pasteur, etc..., yet he still managed to make quite a bonehead comment)

Sometimes smart people do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb. And I'll bet he had tenure. Stupid theory or not, people earn that for a reason, right?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because I never budge from a position of desiring further exploration until I'm convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt. On HIV/AIDS, I'm not, but I'll still take all current necessary precautions because you can never be too careful.

~BB~

[feneman]

I know you mean well, and I know this will come off rudely, but I hope you'll forgive me: that's other peoples' problem, not mine. Just because people believe everything they read, it doesn't make the authors responsible if they are admitting to speculation, particularly when there are those out there who would intentionally lie without remorse. Breaking the pattern of people taking 'knowledge' for granted is precisely what my argument is all about.

Hum... how rude !! :P just kidding
I get where you come from, and no-one should EVER take everything at face value, when I wanna get some news I'll check out reuters, deutchwelle, TV5, clarin, le monde diplomatique and even the english version of al-jazeera to at least try to get a semblance of an idea of what is going on;
but not everyone is "gifted" by natural curiosity or a will to see things from different points of views.
My main argument is that, all of this is fine and well to say that "it's their own fault" when it effects them, and them alone; but we unfortunately live in a community and things affect others.
Nowadays, it is unfortunate to say, but education is more of a privilege than a right, and not everyone has the necessary tools to know any better or to further dig for the truth.
I was fortunate enough to have educated parents, to go to university for free, and to have some knowledge in a particular field; and I feel it is part of my duty to try to educate others who weren't as lucky.

I don't know if it is a good analogy but:
Some experts say that gays/Tgirls/lesbians etc... should not be aloud to adopt kids because it would screw up the kids mental maturation (I think they are basing themselves on Freud's theories mostly.)
I say BS, you say BS, but a lot of ppl will say: "well, the ppl talking about this have a lot of capital letters after their names, they must know what they are talking about". In the end, this will hurt a lot more ppl than those who actually believe it.
Did you know that homosexuality was considered a mental disease until 1974
(if I am not mistaken it was reviewed in the DSM-II) ? Now these were renowned psychiatrist who one would normally trust in knowing what they are talking about and yet... Fortunately, those that believe such things were ridiculed into oblivion.

By your logic, we should never air any programs that require a disclaimer. No Beavis and Butt-Head, no Jackass, no Real Sex, no Glenn Beck, no War of the Worlds. We shouldn't have the freedom to make atheist statements, art, or music, because to do so might lead others to eternal damnation, whatever that hell that means.

wait what ?!?!?!? real sex has a disclaimer ?? :P
holly hyperbole batman !!! LOL
I don't see how music, art or atheist statements would need disclaimers.
Atheists base their views on science, art (music being... was an art-form :P) is an opinion / social-political commentary and is never presented as fact. Beavis and butt-head / jackass are presented as entertainment.
I have qualms when things are presented as FACT when it has no backing whatsoever and these facts will HURT many people ... see it as a part of "preventive medicine".

I think I, like everybody else who grew up in the 80's, knows what the general consensus is. I hardly think that's in dispute. I'm not asking anybody to outright disbelieve it, and I specifically told people to continue to protect themselves in the orthodox manner (condoms); I'm simply asking them to question that orthodoxy because it might be found to be wrong. Or it might not. Again, what if the allegations are true? Then what?! We'll be sorry that we didn't follow another line of research since the beginning. That's all I'm saying; I'm not telling people to have risky sex and share needles!

Two things.... first, the orthodox manner would be abstinence, the liberal manner would be condoms :P (oh come on !!! THAT was funny :P)

anyways, I have no problems with you presenting the video and asking ppl to question everything, I have qualms with the fact that you presented JUST that video (which is dated btw) you haven't presented other views or have presented any comment/article/ etc... proving/disproving such claims backing it up with hard science. You are presenting it as a plausible and serious alternative; which (again) I would have no troubles with if ppl weren't dying and the evidence wasn't so overwhelming.

And trust me, other venues have been explored:
A very simple way of explaining how research works, is that it is ALL about the glory and recognition. Not only do you want to publish a lot, but you want to publish a lot in journals like "science" "nature" "lancet" "new england journal of medicine" because you will be revered as a god (and will get TONS of research money) if you do so. Now, imagine if you are THAT guy that proves that HIV was actually never a threat ? Yeah ... you've got that Nobel prize GUARANTEED and you will be that LIVING GOD scientist pray to at night when their experiments don't work :P

People listen to me? Here?! When the hell did this happen?

I think it happened in that short laps between the nutella bread and the cheese fondue ... I know, nutella makes ppl do crazy things :P

Sometimes smart people do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb. And I'll bet he had tenure. Stupid theory or not, people earn that for a reason, right?

You'd be surprised... depending on where you are tenure is more or less difficult to obtain, the hard part is to get the initial "foot in" (junior researcher position), to get tenure you really only need two things, publications and research money. Once you get tenure, yeah... you can drop the charade, you're almost untouchable :P.
Oh, and trust me, research money and publications are SOMETIMES reasonably easy to get (used to be, at least, now it's getting tougher):

-BJU Int. 2002 Oct;90(6):586-7. Can shoe size predict penile length?

-BMJ. 2008 Dec 17;337:a2825. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2825.
Head and neck injury risks in heavy metal: head bangers stuck between rock and a hard bass.

-BMJ. 2006 Dec 23;333(7582):1291-3.
Phenotypic differences between male physicians, surgeons, and film stars: comparative study.

- BMJ. 2000 Dec 23-30;321(7276):1554-6.
Streptokinase versus alteplase and other treatments for acute and delayed thrombolysis of blood stains in clothing.

- BMJ. 1999 Dec 18-25;319(7225):1600-2.
Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis.
(I loved the conclusion in this one: "007's profound state of health may be due, at least in part, to compliant bartenders."

- BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61.
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
(also with an amazing conclusion: "As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.")


(and they aren't even the wacky ones nor even the case studies ... those are REALLY hilarious)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because I never budge from a position of desiring further exploration until I'm convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt. On HIV/AIDS, I'm not, but I'll still take all current necessary precautions because you can never be too careful.

~BB~

Of course, I agree to disagree, but I am having fun nonetheless:P
And you may never budge but I do hope you don't take that video too seriously and take precautions accordingly.
Besides, you may not budge, but I know I'm right as being of Italian descent I know that speaking the loudest makes me right, and NO-ONE USES CAP LOCKS LIKE I DO :P LOL

[addicted]

Well, to start with, that video was made in 1994 -- oh, to hell with it -- here's some places to start reading:

http://www.aidstruth.org/NIAIDEvidenceThatHIVCausesAIDS

This site, unlike anything I've seen from Gary Null, Kari Mullis or Peter Duesenberg actually cites studies and information. Mullis and Duesenberg still claim that the HIV virus has never been isolated or photographed. Both are totally incorrect.

Here's some fun about Gary Null --

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

Don't listen to me and certainly don't listen to Bella. Talk to your doctors.

all false info dont listen to this idiot.

[addicted]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS. Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended. I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing. Bella, I have nothing against skepticism, but you post about science and reason when addicted's post and linked video have neither of. So the only thing I'm skeptical of is the OP.

All facts your mainstream medicine beliefs are all lies and you have been brainwashed like the rest of the idiot american sheep.

[addicted]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS. Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended. I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing. Bella, I have nothing against skepticism, but you post about science and reason when addicted's post and linked video have neither of. So the only thing I'm skeptical of is the OP.

9/11 has nothing to do with this, Its meaningless to compare science to an incident or occurance. Hiv does not cause aids is 100 percent fact sorry you have been brainwashed like a sheep. goodbye enjoy your life sheep