To everyone concerned about AIDS
Ram Samudrala
>re...@pandora.enet.net (Ann Renee Kist) wrote:
>>jr9...@albnyvms.bitnet wrote:
>>: In article <3cmqfo$a...@umd5.umd.edu>, r...@mbisgi.umd.edu
>>:(Ram Samudrala) writes:
>>: >I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here. I love this.
>>
>>Ram, you've already shown your colors as a homophobe in other threads.
>>Why should we believe a word of this crap?
>[stuff deleted]
>>No, only to insinuate it, to forward your anti-buttfucking agenda.
>[more stuff deleted]
>>Which group, Ramit? Care to get your prejudices out in the open,
>>instead of hiding behind some pseudo-scientific facade?
>[more stuff deleted]
>>Please this guy posts anti-gay propaganda all the time, Only you would
>>try to make him out to be a scientist of any reputation, Homophobe.
>[more stuff deleted]
>>: >Duesberg.
>>
>>Homophobic idiot.
This cracked me up! Thanks. To be honest, I am really ignorant of
this bias towards homosexuals with regards to HIV infection and AIDS.
Sure, anal sex has the highest risk, but as it was pointed out in my
seminar, it's because of the "stress" involved. But anal sex isn't
something intrinsic to homosexuals. The only reason, IMO, people link
HIV to homosexuals because that's where it began (or so some people
think---I think I know where it began and it certainly wasn't in this
country---I am simply not convinced however HIV leads to AIDS). I
personally think it has nothing to do with it. But, I am NOT
interested in the humanitarian aspects. Call me inhuman, but I am a
misanthrope. I am including my original post here, since I was
accused of being a "homophobe". Please find specific instances of my
post where I make comments that are homophobic.
How do you explain that in people dying of AIDS, HIV is still in its
lysogenic stage (i.e., it's "sleeping")? Even in those cases, you
only see antibody and not the virus itself? Surely, if you take
herpses viruses like herpes simplex virus (HSV1), during the disease
stage, you find thousands of these particles. I know because I've
looked at monkey kidney cells infected with HSV. Now do the same with
HIV. Nothing. A number of lab animals have been injected with HIV
but don't end up with AIDS at all.
And Duesberg does say to the homosexuals "it's okay to have
unprotected anal sex as long as you lay off drugs". This is why he's
under so much flak, but why does this make him a homophobe?
C'mon, there are so many holes that it's not even funny. Again, I'm
talking about causality, not about correlation. Condoms, clean
needles, etc., all help, I'm sure.
And I'm a fool for spending time on this group when I should be doing
something productive.
--Ram
--
From: r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala)
Subject: Re: To everyone concerned about AIDS.
Date: 14 Dec 1994 13:03:52 GMT
I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here. I love this.
Ann Renee Kist (re...@pandora.enet.net) wrote:
>Gee, that guy I delivered a Xmas basket to yesterday said he was straight,
>but had laid every bimbo he could, so he wasn't sure which one gave it to
>him. Actually looked like the all American quarterback, minus 75lbs.
Yeh, but this is the problem---it hides the raw statistics (not to say
they're completely true) which does show the high risk groups have a
/really/ high risk and those who don't belong to that group have a
really low risk. And then there's the demographic variance in the
diseases and its rate of potency in various nations. As an undergrad,
I was conditioned (and still am, though I suppose all this is for the
good) to be extremely cautious (did quite a bit of research on the
virus itself). But various discussions I've had with people whose
intelligence I respect (i.e., Nobel Prize winning category :) lead to
the conclusion that the chances of being in a non-risk group and getting
it is very small.
Of course, when this person first posted, I was tempted to ask if it
was Peter Duesberg posting anonymously. He's the guy who's famous for
his work on retroviruses and disputes the fact that HIV causes AIDS
and advances a theory similar to our anonymous friend here. Kary
Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for PCR, is also another person who
believes AIDS is caused by your behaviour and not by HIV. And there
are some very scientific arguments to support this, but I think they
both take it to the other extreme (there is a lot of truth to what
they say too). This is just so you know that everything's not clear
cut and there is a LOT of validity to questioning the indoctrination
of HIV/AIDS activists.
One statistic I am absolutely sure of is that the chances of you
getting hit by a car and dying is more than the chances of you
developing AIDS (ref: Division of Vital Statistics, National Centre
for Health Statistics, CDC; final data for 1980-1990).
The problem in your one example above, of course, is "every bimbo".
Again, how many people do have sex with "every bimbo"? I'd say few,
according to yet another statistic (now I forget where I read this)
that surveyed the frequency with which Americans had sex.
>Only because, unlike the rest of us, you're too gross to get laid.
I think this has little to do with ending up with AIDS.
>: Why do I say so? Simple, it's all a matter of BEHAVIOR.
Duesberg.
>It's all a matter of a virus. The virus spreads by blood and
>semen. While as a supposedly male, it is tougher for you to contract
>HIV from a female partner, but all it takes is a pimple on your dick
>or her teeth to be a little too sharp, and you're HIV positive, boyo.
Hmm, this isn't true---you do need a certain concentration of the
virus for infection. It's not just blood and semen---it's any body
fluid according to conventional theory. This is why HIV doesn't spread
through kissing---but there is a 21% of you getting HIV from another
HIV individual through kissing (again, a statistic from a couple of
years ago from the CDC).
Of course, this assumes HIV causes AIDS, which hasn't been proven in
ANY form. Over a million HIV+ Americans (over a third of the total
HIV+ people) have not developed AIDS.
>Anal Sex, Vaginal Sex, Sharing Needles when using drugs,
>Blood or scat SM games, Any other contact with blood or semen
>without latex protection.
No doubt, but one important point: you could be on a island full of
HIV free people and do whatever you want and you won't end up with HIV
unless it naturally evolves (which won't be in your lifetime). This
is true whoever is correct. But, you could still die of AIDS (but,
funnily enough, AIDS is defined so if you have HIV, you have
AIDS---this is scientifically WRONG; the thought of this makes me
really angry).
>Abstinence (this is 99296's only option,) Know your partner and get tested
>together twice, once at the beginning of your relationship, and again after
>6 months of monogamy, till then-> Using a Latex condom with nonoxinyl 9
>spermicide and a water based lube for anal, vaginal and penal/oral sex, BDSM
>without an exchange of bodily fluids, Use only bleach sterilized needles for
>any activity that's necessary, refrain, if possible, Latex gloves and finger
>caps are recommended for any penetration of a vaginal or anal area, and dental
>dams for vaginal/oral sex or rimming.
Again, Duesberg would argue that all this doesn't mean a thing. He
argues that drugs/chemicals are what cause AIDS (I think he's a bit
off on this one myself). Like cancer---when it was first discovered
30 or so years ago, people searched long and hard for a virus.
>These are just the basics, but if you use this information wisely,
>staying HIV negative is the goal.
No doubt. Or, the way I look at it, staying free of behaviours that
would result in HIV "positiveness" is the goal.
In any case, there are quite a few articles out there (I've written
one myself) disputing the validity of HIV--> AIDS theory. One can use
their own judgement based on the evidence.
The point of my post is not to say AIDS is behavioural. I do not know
what it is. All I am interested in doing is finding out how AIDS is
caused. There's a strong (100% by definition) correlation between HIV
and AIDS, but as every good scientist knows, the worst pitfall is to
avoid thinking that a correlation implies causalty. HIV
concentrations, as it stands, CANNOT explain the destruction of T
cells seen in AIDS patients. I am not convinced HIV causes AIDS, and
this is after a lot of study (my field of research is something more
basic than all this) into the pathogenicity of AIDS.
--Ram
P.S: Here's the junk I wrote a couple of months ago:
Does HIV really cause AIDS?
About 10 years have gone by since HIV was first discovered and
isolated, and there has been a lot of debate recently about whether
HIV really causes AIDS. The chief instigator of this has been Peter
Duesberg, one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses, and
another is Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel prize in Chemistry for
PCR, a technique that is used greatly in AIDS research to enhance
copies of DNA infected with HIV (which is normally extremely hard to
detect) for analysis, and therein lies the main problem. Claims and
counter-claims, made by the various parties involved in this field,
are abound and I'll attempt to address some of them in this missive,
and examine the validity of each claim.
HIV alone cannot be responsible for the depletion of the T-cell
count that we see in AIDS patients: This is the strongest claim that
can be made toward the argument that HIV does not cause AIDS. Both
sides of this issue agree to this; Gallo and Montagnier (the two
founders of HIV), in the October 1988 Scientific American (an issue
worth checking out simply because it was entirely devoted to AIDS and
demonstrates how far we have come from that time), try very hard to
convince us that HIV does indeed cause AIDS by providing tons of
circumstantial evidence in this regard. But they do acknowledge, in
the end, that even hough HIV kills T4 cells, the direct killing is not
adequate to explain the massive eradication of the immune system.
HIV is very hard to find in AIDS patients: This was once an extremely
valid claim since Gallo and Montagnier had an extremely difficult time
isolating it, and it is still valid, but not as much. A couple of
papers published back-to-back in the May 1993 of Nature purports to
explain this phenonmenon. The papers essentially claim that HIV is
present in great amounts in the lymph nodes (even though the papers
disagree on the time during which this happens as HIV infection
progresses), than in the blood, and these particles are carried to
other HIV target cells. But it is also true that <i>some</i> people
diagnosed with having AIDS have latent or inactive HIV. And even a
single exception to any hypothesis should be adequate to question it,
following a philosophy of science in the Popperian vein.
<p>
99% of people with AIDS have HIV: Here we run into slightly muddy
waters. It is true that almost anyone who is diagnosed as having AIDS
produce antibodies to HIV. The 1% discrepancy is explained
away as errors due to testing techniques, and this is probably true.
But the definition of when someone has AIDS is the one that is
suspect. Many AIDS-like cases have been reported but are not
diagnosed as AIDS simply because of an absence of an immune response
to HIV. This is the medical profession failing to be
self-critical---and this in itself says something about the whole
nature of this controversy. It becomes an issue in semantics and thus
when appropriately defined, all AIDS patients end up having been
exposed to the virus.
The sad fact is that the diagnosis for AIDS has become whether the
patient has an HIV immune response or not (especially since there is
demographic variance in the symptoms of the AIDS disease, which is not
seen in any other disease known), and this should never be the case
for any disease where the causative agent is not established and the
mechanism of pathogenicity is unknown. Another problem is the fact
that an antibody response indicates that the immune system has won
against the invader, not given into it, but this argument has another
side: HIV almost always enters into the lysogenic cycle at the
beginning of each infection (this is when it remains in the DNA
inactive while the cells keep reproducing). But I think most agree
that the Koch's postulate which states that every person with the
disease has the believed causative agent has been fulfilled
adequately, at least as adequately as any other disease we know. But
what of his next postulate?
A lot of people with HIV do not have AIDS: About a third of the HIV+
people, over a million Americans, to be precise. And this is a
violation of Koch's second postulate. Of course, excuses in the form
that Koch's postulates are outdated or too rigourous are abundant; a
reason given for this fact is that everyone with HIV will eventually
develop AIDS. This "eventually" has changed from 1-2 years (the
number initially given) now to 5-10 years. Again, this is an example
of non-rigourness that is at the heart of this argument. A million
Americans alone with HIV with normal T-cell counts. Six million
Africans supposedly. One should answer this discrepancy in a robust
manner.
AIDS is not an infectious disease and caused by various toxins,
including AZT itself: this is dependent on the definition of an
infectious disease, wherein the distribution of AIDS is equal among
all members of a population. If HIV were the causative agent, it
should not care about whether you are male or female or heterosexual
or homosexual, but statistics show it seems to. But this is
nitpicking, because the mode of infection can be different and doesn't
necessarily have to be the same and doesn't necessarily have to be
distributed. This is like saying any other STD isn't an infectious
disease (even though most STDs are distributed pretty equally among
the population). But this is where I think Duesberg and others are
wrong in their viewpoint. The problem is that he is forced to answer
the question "so what causes it if isn't HIV?" Instead of following
his own advice, he comes up with an hypothesis that even less
justifiable than the HIV one. The fact that we have to question the
HIV hypothesis is indicative of the shaky ground we're on, but
Duesberg doesn't do his position any good by coming up with
unsubstantiated theories.
Related viruses to HIV cause AIDS-like infection in other animals:
this is true, especially in the case of the Visna (which is the
Icelandic word for "wasting") virus that killed hundreds of sheep in
Iceland. Similarly, the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) causes a
full blown AIDS-like disease in Asian Macaque monkeys, but not in
certain other species. Everything I've said so far has been about
HIV-1, there is another less virulent strain, HIV-2, endemic to
certain populations in West Africa. All this represents pieces of a
fascinating jigsaw puzzle that we do not know how to put together
yet.
HIV causes AIDS: We do not know and we could be wrong about this.
There is no gene in HIV that has been determined to be harmful, and
the mechanism of pathogenicity is completely a mystery, yet people
spend billions of dollars on basic research devising up various ways to
combat HIV. Huge egos are at stake and Duesberg is the constant
target of attack by Nature editor John Maddox (who interestingly
doesn't let Duesberg respond to his barbs). The fact remains,
however, that we are really no closer to finding a cure for AIDS than
we were 10 years ago.
The social issues do not concern me, however; more people dying means
a reduction of the population. What I am interested in is simply the
basic truth as to what really happens with AIDS and whether effort
should be spent on combating HIV when it is clear that there is at
least some doubt. It simply means we should spend more of our time on
the intellectual challenge that is AIDS pathogenesis. This also
doesn't mean we should disregard all the caution that we use to make
sure we don't become HIV+, since there is an enormous correlation
between AIDS and HIV. Even if HIV is along for the free ride, it
suggests that you might end up with AIDS if you engage in behaviour
that leads to HIV+. But every student of logic knows that correlation
does not imply causality; unfortunately this is the path which we have
chosen to take.
All my sources are from Nature, Scientific American, and an Interview
with Duesberg in the East Bay Review. I was firmly convinced at one
point that HIV causes AIDS and spent a lot time working on HIV and its
evolutionary relationship to other retroviruses. But basic research
on how HIV causes AIDS has not turned up anything. Perhaps it is
time to admit that we could be wrong and look in another direction.
r...@elan1.carb.nist.gov The suburbs are when they cut down all the
trees and then name the streets after them!
---Alfred E Neuman
r...@elan1.carb.nist.gov The suburbs are when they cut down all the
trees and then name the streets after them!
---Alfred E Neuman
Ram Samudrala
>No, but when people go around spreading false data as facts, when they
>endanger lives with their pseudo-scientific theories, when they hide, as
>Ram and you are doing, homophobia behind a mask of rationality, I will
>always call them as I see them.
Just name calling without substance. You don't offer a single logical
response all the arguments I made against the HIV-->AIDS theory. And
people ask me why I'm a misanthrope---it's because of narrow minded
people like you that make me weep for humanity's sake (corny, but I
really feel that way). And how does "my drug theory" (which isn't
mine) imply ANY homophobia? I am dismissing sexuality completely.
>get AIDS" bullshit, now Ram's drug theory.
It's not mine. I don't even think it is as valid as the HIV-->AIDS
theory. I have pointed this out repeatedly (read my original post) and
I point this out again. My main interest is to ask questions about
the HIV--> AIDS theory---I don't think it's convincing at all. You do
not do science. Try to find a piece of HIV DNA in T cells, or try to
see how other retroviruses infect cells and compare it to
HIV---doesn't make sense.
>so let me make this clear: YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE, #99296. You are afraid
>to give gays the right to marry,
Gays have the right to marry, if they want to. Marriage is the
dumbest insitution ever, but if someone wants to do it, go ahead.
Just to bring up another issue: I think this whole gays in the
military bit is wrong too---"don't ask don't tell"? I think
homosexuals should talk about people of the similar sex like they like
just like heterosexuals can.
--Ram
r...@elan1.carb.nist.gov The difference between a 10 page and a
12 page paper is the type size.
Master Harper Gaellon
>We aren't sure why, or how, only know that if an infant is HIV+ at birth,
>there's a 50% chance they'll shake it off by 2 years of age.
Actually, Renee, this is fairly easy in part. HIV+ means that antibodies to
HIV are present. Antibodies cross the placenta; the child of an HIV+ mother
will ALWAYS test positive at birth. It takes four to six months for the
maternal antibodies to degrade. The question is how children who are positive
at six months (not at birth) manage to shake it off.
The other question is why the VIRUS is incompletely transmitted across the
placenta. The vertical transmission rate is only 30-40%; no one is quite sure
why.
<applause> Kudos to you for your powerful words, Renee. Never apologize for
personalizing; it is the personal touch that makes your words so strong. Keep
fighting!
--- ART20-2-174343
RandyTag + There are more dead than living and they are increasing.
**********************************************************************
********* *
* * Randy Goldberg * Lesbian Gay and Bisexual
* * New York Medical College * Medical Students of
* * Class of 1997 * New York
* *
**********************************************************************
Ann Renee Kist
<reposting of only a few out of context lines deleted>
: >>Homophobic idiot.
: This cracked me up! Thanks. To be honest, I am really ignorant of
: this bias towards homosexuals with regards to HIV infection and AIDS.
You are a LIAR. And to prove your homophobia, one needs look no further
than this very post. Or, if there's any doubt, take a look at another
thread in this group called "Prejudice NO, Bigotry NO, etc.." My
reader cuts the rest of the title, but you all can find it if you look.
: Sure, anal sex has the highest risk, but as it was pointed out in my
: seminar, it's because of the "stress" involved. But anal sex isn't
: something intrinsic to homosexuals. The only reason, IMO, people link
: HIV to homosexuals because that's where it began
And you just claimed to be unaware of this exact attitude. You are a
LIAR.
:(or so some people think---I think I know where it began and it
: certainly wasn't in this country---
A good liar always litters his lies with truth, and this is one of the few
you've spouted so far in this thread. And note how you seperated this bit
of truth from what you'd like us to believe, by using paranthesis.
: I am simply not convinced however HIV leads to AIDS).
How about that streetwalker, Rambait? Too chicken to disprove your own
hypotheisis?
:I personally think it has nothing to do with it.
Since when? That's not what you said in your own article, which
unfortunately, got dumped by my system, before I could respond to that
piece of crap. But I'll do so at the end of this one. You are
intellectually and morally bankrupt.
: But, I am NOT interested in the humanitarian aspects. Call me inhuman,
: but I am a misanthrope. I am including my original post here, since I was
: accused of being a "homophobe". Please find specific instances of my
: post where I make comments that are homophobic.
I already did and since we've seen your responses on other gay related
topics, such as splitting alt.personals and others, your streak has only
gotten wider, though you throw the coat of science on your back to cover
it, most of us know better.
: How do you explain that in people dying of AIDS, HIV is still in its
: lysogenic stage (i.e., it's "sleeping")?
How do you know it's dormant? Do you KNOW if the damage of earlier infection
could be directly related to other manifestations? Bet you don't, because
nobody's certian about anything yet, including your so-called "famous"
scientist.
: Even in those cases, you only see antibody and not the virus itself?
Nobody, to my knowledge, has seen the HIV virus, for certain. If they have,
please post documentation, with references, I promise I will follow up.
: Surely, if you take herpses viruses like herpes simplex virus (HSV1),
: during the disease stage, you find thousands of these particles.
Herpes lies dormant for years at a time. During these periods it is, for
all practical purposes, undetectable.
: I know because I've looked at monkey kidney cells infected with HSV.
And this makes us believe that you've put aside your externalized
homophobia, to spread the good news to all sexual humans. Fuck off, liar.
I'm starting to doubt that you're in the science field, except for maybe
as a bottle scrubber gone mad.
: Now do the same with HIV. Nothing. A number of lab animals have
: been injected with HIV but don't end up with AIDS at all.
Golly, just because it doesn't have the same effect on animals, doesn't
mean that isn't how it works in humans. There are differences, you know?
Is there an anti-vivisectionist in the house? Wasn't there a major goof
with a viral drug that worked on animals, but hurt people a few years back?
Can anyone quote references on this one? I read about it in a PETA handout
at a coffeehouse. Not claiming it's true, just questioning Rambait's
scientific accumen.
: And Duesberg does say to the homosexuals "it's okay to have
: unprotected anal sex as long as you lay off drugs". This is why he's
: under so much flak, but why does this make him a homophobe?
You're quoting him, you're a KNOWN homophobe, and you're spreading a
message that COULD VERY LIKELY LEAD TO DEATH for gays. I'd
say the logical evidence would point in the general direction.
: C'mon, there are so many holes that it's not even funny.
What has the biggest holes is your screwed up method of disinformation.
: Again, I'm talking about causality, not about correlation.
I'm talking real life, not some pseudo-scientific mastrabatory fantasy.
: Condoms, clean needles, etc., all help, I'm sure.
Then why are you advocating that we not use them? Why don't you admit your
agenda, or shut the fuck up?
: And I'm a fool for spending time on this group when I should be doing
: something productive.
Then please leave. We don't need you and your lies, Jackal.
I deleted all of Ramit's post that I answered the other night, but
I've included the article that was missing from my system
: P.S: Here's the junk I wrote a couple of months ago:
Junk is right.
: Does HIV really cause AIDS?
: About 10 years have gone by since HIV was first discovered and
: isolated, and there has been a lot of debate recently about whether
: HIV really causes AIDS.
No, it's been about 10 years since we could test for the antibodies for
a virus we couldn't even see, who's type was predominantly theory until
the 80s. As for the debate, a bit is more like it.
: The chief instigator of this has been Peter Duesberg, one of the world's
: leading experts on retroviruses, and
Is former leading the truth? Wasn't he one of the retrovirus scientists
that ignored AIDS at first and could it be now that he will resort to any
measure to get funding?
: another is Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel prize in Chemistry for
: PCR,
An odd duck in any book. The surfer scientist. Not the most disiplined
scientific mind, by peer accounts.
: a technique that is used greatly in AIDS research to enhance
: copies of DNA infected with HIV (which is normally extremely hard to
: detect) for analysis, and therein lies the main problem.
The use of PCR in AIDS research has given us a glimmer, not a picture. The
ability to rapidly copy DNA is more applicable to the gene therapies that
it was designed for.
: Claims and counter-claims, made by the various parties involved in this
: field, are abound and I'll attempt to address some of them in this missive,
: and examine the validity of each claim.
And you're promoting the most far-fetched. Typical.
: HIV alone cannot be responsible for the depletion of the T-cell
: count that we see in AIDS patients:
We don't KNOW this yet. We're not completely sure how many viruses work.
In case you haven't notice, the common cold still is, influenza still
kills a few people each year and herpes is still forever.
: This is the strongest claim that
: can be made toward the argument that HIV does not cause AIDS.
If this is your strongest claim, your proof is weak, indeed.
: Both sides of this issue agree to this;
I find this assertion to be dubious, considering our still woeful lack
of knowledge about viruses in general.
: Gallo and Montagnier (the two founders of HIV),
Got a kick out of your wording here, as if they'd founded an organization
instead of discovering a virus.
: in the October 1988 Scientific American (an issue
: worth checking out simply because it was entirely devoted to AIDS and
: demonstrates how far we have come from that time),
This is the first reference you've made, and I will check it out, so
that I might quote directly.
: try very hard to convince us that HIV does indeed cause AIDS by
: providing tons of circumstantial evidence in this regard.
Tons. That's a lot. Smoke/Fire? Without being able to study the virus
directly, what other kind of evidence could they gather? I'd like to
also see a more current article used for such references.
Sorry, I have to sign off for right now. If my glitchy new system
doesn't eat this post, I'll finish it tomorrow. If it does, I'll ask
for a repost. Doubt Ram will risk it, but we'll see.
Renee
DO NOT EMAIL ME. SYSTEM UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS.
Besides, if you can't say it here, I probably don't want to hear it.
Ram Samudrala
still hasn't been shown why I'm a homophobe. Not a single logical
argument was put forward by Renee.
Ann Renee Kist (re...@pandora.enet.net) wrote:
>You are a LIAR.
Why?
>And to prove your homophobia, one needs look no further than this
>very post.
And one will find there's no sign of that anywhere.
>Or, if there's any doubt, take a look at another thread in this group
>called "Prejudice NO, Bigotry NO, etc.."
I have. What is the statement there that makes me homophobic? That I
would never go out with another male? This is because I feel no
attaction to them. I've tried this out, as I've said, in a warped
fashion. How does this make me homophobic?
>: something intrinsic to homosexuals. The only reason, IMO, people link
>: HIV to homosexuals because that's where it began
>And you just claimed to be unaware of this exact attitude.
You twisted my sentences for your own perverted needs. I said "or so
some people think". But I am still ignorant of why this should be a
bias! Let me restate precisely: so HIV "began with homosexuals"
(whatever that means). What the hell does that have do with the
science? This is what I am saying.
>A good liar always litters his lies with truth, and this is one of
>the few you've spouted so far in this thread. And note how you
>seperated this bit of truth from what you'd like us to believe, by
>using paranthesis.
You are a paranoid moron. You crack me up.
>: I am simply not convinced however HIV leads to AIDS).
>How about that streetwalker, Rambait? Too chicken to disprove your
>own hypotheisis?
Man, you need a lesson in logic. I have a friend sitting next to me
reading this and she wants to know why I waste my time arguing with
fools. I'm a fool for doing this. In any case: (i) I say I'm not
convinced, but I never deny the correlation, (ii) by having sex with
someone HIV+, I could end up with hundreds of other viruses or
microbes, one of which might really be the cause of AIDS, and (iii) I
am not into random sex. If, like I said before, I really like someone
who is HIV+, I'll have sex with them.
Hey, my friend just tells me that some dude in Florida at an AIDS
conference jabbed himself with a syringe full of HIV... but she
forgets where she read this. Anyone care to comment??
>Since when?
Since I realise that it has been around since life began (we're
talking about sex).
>I already did and since we've seen your responses on other gay
>related topics, such as splitting alt.personals and others,
I think you have me confused with someone else. I have not posted a
single message about splitting alt.personals. Again, prove it!
>How do you know it's dormant?
Because there are no lytic particles around. The number of particles
of HIV seen (and you can see them) is about 1:100. Again, Gallo,
Scientific American, 1988. Only the Nature paper I cite below shows
results to the contrary. But I don't believe it completely yet.
>Nobody, to my knowledge, has seen the HIV virus, for certain. If they
>have, please post documentation, with references, I promise I will
>follow up.
Here, this is a paper that is the most convincing to date (so this is
detrimental to my argument), that does show to some degree that HIV
does cause AIDS (and it was only released last year), but it's not
convincing enough:
Nature, 362, 155; 1993. See the other article about HIV, and the news
and views section on this.
The virus has been sequenced! Heck, I can pull up a structure of the
reverse transcriptase enzyme for you!
>Herpes lies dormant for years at a time. During these periods it is, for
>all practical purposes, undetectable.
Bullshit. I've identified dormant HSV from monkey kidney cells, rather
easily I'd had. One of the first things I learnt in a wet lab.
>I'm starting to doubt that you're in the science field, except for maybe
>as a bottle scrubber gone mad.
Check out the November 4th issue of Science, p893. You'll see whether
I'm in the Science field or not.
>Golly, just because it doesn't have the same effect on animals,
>doesn't mean that isn't how it works in humans. There are differences,
>you know?
Yep, but it doesn't do much to support your theory. Other viruses do
have similar effects on other animals and on humans.
>with a viral drug that worked on animals, but hurt people a few years
>back?
Again, logical fallacy (even if it were true). This basically shows
that even HIV infects animals, it is support in the Popperian vein of
the hypothesis. But if it doesn't work, it's not a good thing, but
/could/ still be true.
>message that COULD VERY LIKELY LEAD TO DEATH for gays.
And heterosexuals and humans. I'm a misanthrope.
>What has the biggest holes is your screwed up method of
>disinformation.
Brilliant logic.
>I'm talking real life, not some pseudo-scientific mastrabatory
>fantasy.
The latter is all I indulge in. Real life means nothing to me. If
you don't like it, too bad. But my "fantasies" do help the common
person and so they are rewarded, but my motivation is just one:
intellectual orgasms. But this in no way makes me
>Then why are you advocating that we not use them? Why don't you admit
>your agenda, or shut the fuck up?
My only agenda is the truth. When did I advocate not using them?
You're the liar.
>Then please leave. We don't need you and your lies, Jackal.
Yes, if you stop responding, I'll stop. I'm too stubborn and childish
to give up. You're the one who's lying, but you're so self-deluded.
>Junk is right.
But yet you respond. Good. I write to provoke and I'm glad it works.
>: About 10 years have gone by since HIV was first discovered and
>: isolated, and there has been a lot of debate recently about whether
>: HIV really causes AIDS.
>No, it's been about 10 years since we could test for the antibodies for
>a virus we couldn't even see, who's type was predominantly theory until
>the 80s.
I said the virus was isolated 10 years ago. It was. See the paper on
this (Science Vol 220, 4599, pp 868-871). They had the DNA for the
virus at this time! That's all you need.
>Is former leading the truth? Wasn't he one of the retrovirus scientists
>that ignored AIDS at first and could it be now that he will resort to any
>measure to get funding?
Do you know that he HAD funding---he had just received $500,000 from
NIH---and they took it away AFTER he said what he did? He committed
academic suicide by saying what he did. Do you think saying "AIDS is
cause by drugs" will get you funding? Think before you write, will
you?
>scientific mind, by peer accounts.
Nope. I think he's a dork.
>: HIV alone cannot be responsible for the depletion of the T-cell
>: count that we see in AIDS patients:
>We don't KNOW this yet.
We do too. See Gallo, October 1988 Scientific American.
>I find this assertion to be dubious, considering our still woeful lack
>of knowledge about viruses in general.
Then why believe that HIV causes AIDS?
>Got a kick out of your wording here, as if they'd founded an
>organization instead of discovering a virus.
They did!! An industry---a 3 billion dollar one. (:
>Tons. That's a lot. Smoke/Fire? Without being able to study the virus
>directly, what other kind of evidence could they gather?
They did isolate the virus. Please, you can't be this ignorant and
still want to argue about this topic. Again, read the original
paper. It's called Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a
Patient at Risk for Acquire Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
>for a repost. Doubt Ram will risk it, but we'll see.
I'll gladly repost. My article has actually been well received by
open-minded people.