tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post3791254327684604416..comments2022-02-25T11:27:04.214-07:00Comments on In Vivo: AIDS Denialism: Deadly Ignorance Part IC.W.G.Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16339226788815840900noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-5942964525016504372011-06-06T11:41:16.942-06:002011-06-06T11:41:16.942-06:00@nath99
What evidence do you have that ARVs dont ...@nath99<br /><br />What evidence do you have that ARVs dont work? Claiming that ARVs actually keep HIV active is a pretty bold statement, so I hope you have some scientific evidence to back it up.<br /><br />Also, the page you linked me to does not work. This "Merkaba Technique", though, seems to me to be nothing but mysticism, Again, it comes down to evidence. What evidence is there that Merkaba actually works?C.W.G.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339226788815840900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-83059353112046116882011-06-06T10:43:29.019-06:002011-06-06T10:43:29.019-06:00ARV drugs do not cure people of the HIV virus or A...ARV drugs do not cure people of the HIV virus or AIDS, they only make people sick. Most people do not realize that ARV drugs actually feed the HIV virus so that the virus doesn’t go into full blown AIDS and consume the entire body. Thus, ARV drugs keep one alive but at the expense of immense pain and suffering, feeding the virus their happiness and energy. Listen to the audios to see how Aids is being cured without drugs.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.merkaba.org/audio/aids.html/" rel="nofollow"> http://www.merkaba.org/audio/aids.html/</a>nath99https://www.blogger.com/profile/00019280763885570200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-38389423229141085092011-02-18T23:33:09.199-07:002011-02-18T23:33:09.199-07:00Joyce, a "disease" is a distinct abnorma...Joyce, a "disease" is a distinct abnormal physiological state causing distress and/or dysfunction. A "syndrome" is a collective noun for a group of phenomena that tend to occur together. In medicine, the word "syndrome" implies a common pathophysiological aetiology - that is, a single underlying disease state.<br /><br />You seem to be implying that "syndromes" and "diseases" are mutually exclusive categories. They are not. All diseases have their own characteristic syndrome, and in practice the term "syndrome" is often used interchangeably with the term "disease".<br /><br />The disease "AIDS" refers to the abnormal state of immunological function (the signified) rather than to the opportunistic diseases or haematological tests that are used to define that state (the signifiers).<br /><br />You are also confusing an epidemiological surveillance case definition with a diagnosis made in clinical practice to guide treatment. They are used for completely different purposes. The so-called "Bangui definition" is a very early and now outdated example of the former, used to provide very rough (and perhaps questionable) AIDS prevalence estimates where HIV testing was unavailable and diagnostic methods for AIDS-defining illnesses were rudimentary, but has never been used to guide an individual's clinical treatment.<br /><br />To reverse the HIV to AIDS causation, you need to find a significant series of people who developed AIDS-defining clinical conditions such as PCP or cerebral toxoplasmosis or end-organ CMV disease <i>prior</i> to seroconverting for HIV. Where HIV status is known before the onset of these diseases, seroconversion always precedes them, not follows them. Although such opportunistic diseases can occasionally occur in HIV negative people with other causes of severe cell-mediated immunosuppression, this is rarely, if ever, followed by HIV seroconversion.<br /><br />And yes, there are still thousands of Americans each year whose HIV is first diagnosed when they present to hospital with life-threatening AIDS-defining opportunistic diseases. This is very unfortunate, because such diseases are now largely preventable with timely diagnosis of HIV and antiretroviral treatment.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-54462532485617854532011-02-13T14:19:07.134-07:002011-02-13T14:19:07.134-07:00Snout, AIDS is not a single disease of the immune ...Snout, AIDS is not a single disease of the immune system. It is an immune deficiency SYNDROME marked by the presence of several symptoms, diseases, and conditions, out of a wide variety of possible ones. Which ones are expressed in a particular AIDS patient largely depends upon the geographical region and risk group. Here is a 2009 CDC list of opportunistic infections and other conditions that are "AIDS-defining" - www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/treatment/MMP/pdf/MMP_2009_MRA_SPIF_v400_Jan5_2009.pdf (see page 4) <br /><br />Every single one of these is its own illness or condition that can and does occur apart from HIV infection, and has treatment protocols that differ from HIV/AIDS. The problem is, AIDS can't even be properly defined - many different definitions are in use, and the WHO official case/clinical definitions are not used much in developing countries, e.g., parts of Africa still rely on the old Bangui definition to diagnose people. If AIDS can't be properly defined, it means it can't be properly diagnosed either. Except with an HIV test of course, but HIV itself (and the reliability of tests and what they are actually measuring) are the main bone of contention for the "denialists."<br /><br />Regarding the reversal of cause and effect, I want to think about that some more, but it seems to me that there's a basic circularity built into the definition of HIV/AIDS, making your cause-and-effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being HIV positive has been made a necessary condition for AIDS, so by definition, unless the presumed "cause" is detected, there is deemed to be no "effect". But people can have symptoms that look just like AIDS and not be HIV positive, so they would not be diagnosed with AIDS (e.g., idiopathic cd4 lymphocytopenia, but it could just be a bad case of the flu). Conversely, many people have remained HIV positive and healthy for 15-30 years or more without drugs, so where is the effect for them? (long-term non-progressors). <br /><br />Further, I often see claims that large numbers of people are HIV positive but don't know it (e.g., 1 in 5 in the US, roughly 200,000 people: http://news.change.org/stories/one-in-five-people-living-with-hiv-dont-know-it). But if HIV invariably leads to AIDS, this would mean that 1000's of Americans would be developing full-blown AIDS every year, before ever having had an HIV test. Which would make it difficult if not impossible to distinguish cause from effect - if you don't simply "assume" the HIV has been there awhile. (If you do, you're just self-fulfilling the prophecy of "HIV causes AIDS".) By the way, where ARE all those full-blown AIDS patients with no prior HIV test? They must make up at least 20% of all new AIDS cases - maybe up to a third in developing countries.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-6244335887054275982011-02-08T17:48:03.180-07:002011-02-08T17:48:03.180-07:00"Dr. Fiala's other contention {is} that A...<i>"Dr. Fiala's other contention {is} that AIDS is a collection of previous diseases, relabelled AIDS."</i><br /><br />Dr Fiala is simply wrong. AIDS is a single disease (of the immune system). The "collection of previous diseases" are AIDS-<i>indicating</i>. They are signifiers, not the thing that is signified. This is Semiotics 101, and is not that difficult.<br /><br /><i>"...so ill people would tend to test positive if HIV is an effect, rather than a cause, of a compromised immune system."</i><br /><br />"Ill people" do not tend to test test HIV positive, unless they have the underlying immunodeficiency characteristic of HIV/AIDS. If you are trying to reverse the cause-effect relationship between HIV and AIDS then you have to address the the most basic rule of cause and effect - that causes always precede their effects. HIV negative people do not develop the illnesses that would be AIDS-defining in the absence of a positive HIV test, and then <i>subsequently</i> seroconvert for HIV: the sequence is always the other way around.<br /><br /><i>"Also, I'm a bit surprised that many of the studies you gave me (first batch) show long-term survival in a significant number of HIV positives without the use of ARVs. I thought HIV was a death sentence, and an especially quick one without drugs?"</i><br /><br />The median "latency" between HIV infection and AIDS of about ten years has been known since the late 1980s, and essentially replicated in literally dozens of large natural history studies. Median means that half of people take longer than 10 years to develop AIDS. Why is this news to you more than 20 years after it was first established?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-54854017969881273042011-02-08T16:07:06.592-07:002011-02-08T16:07:06.592-07:00rj, none of your links (your 12:40pm post Feb 6) a...rj, none of your links (your 12:40pm post Feb 6) address Dr. Fiala's other contention that AIDS is a collection of previous diseases, relabelled AIDS. Of course people are dying in Africa, but he believes it's from the same old causes as before - malnutrition, diarrhea, TB, parasites, malaria, etc. These all affect the immune system, so ill people would tend to test positive if HIV is an effect, rather than a cause, of a compromised immune system. I've noticed that the majority of HIV research, including your long list of links on sexual transmission (your 1:08pm post), simply assumes HIV is the cause of AIDS, rather than a symptom of a weakened immune system, or just one contributing cause among others. It seems to me that much of the data out there could be interpreted to support either of the latter hypotheses, and I don't see data showing that correlation definitely equals causation in the case of HIV and AIDS, or that HIV is definitely the only cause of AIDS. <br /><br />Also, I'm a bit surprised that many of the studies you gave me (first batch) show long-term survival in a significant number of HIV positives without the use of ARVs. I thought HIV was a death sentence, and an especially quick one without drugs? I couldn't see that any of these studies adjusted for other factors, such as better healthcare or nutrition, presence of other diseases, etc., which would also affect peoples' survival rate. (Some found increasing mortality with age, but we don't need a study to prove that!) With a healthy environment and lifestyle, people can even clear HIV infection naturally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4. Where are the studies showing that ARVs work better at prolonging life than a healthy lifestyle? <br /><br />As for the 2nd batch of studies on sexual transmission, since sero-conversion between discordant couples seems relatively uncommon and difficult, how can the researchers know for sure that sero-conversions were actually the result of unprotected sex and not due to other factors? E.g., how do they know that consistent condom use reduces the risk of AIDS, when the type of people willing and able to use condoms consistently might differ significantly in other ways from those who can't? (I.e., lack of self-discipline probably correlates to poorer health, which would increase the risk of immune dysfunction and HIV positivity.) <br /><br />Also, many of the studies you provide talk about other factors that influence transmission, including viral load, stage of HIV infection, presence of other STDs, genital ulceration, menstruation, "genetic variation at the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) loci", "variability in infectivity of the index case", and "susceptibility of the contact." I don't understand how the alleged causal factor of unprotected sex can be teased out from the multitude of other factors in a meaningful way that would allow one to conclude that HIV is primarily sexually transmitted in Africa.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-88645241880456125392011-02-08T16:03:23.749-07:002011-02-08T16:03:23.749-07:00rj says: "But syphilis is treatable and prote...rj says: "But syphilis is treatable and protective immunity leads to fluctuations in prevalence (e.g. see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7024/full/nature03072.html)." <br /><br />I don't understand what your point is. HIV is considered treatable too, people's susceptibility varies, and there are lots of fluctuations in HIV prevalence. The estimated numbers vary from place to place and from time to time. Your link talks about a rare endogenous factor in syphilis transmission, but doesn't dispute that syphilis is sexually transmitted. <br /><br />rj says: "And look at table 3 here, from which Fiala carefully selected the 2000 data for the purposes of his specious propaganda: http://www.unwembi.co.za/doh/aids/syph-f.html Then look at the fluctuations in syphilis prevalence both by region and time."<br /><br />The table at that source shows a steady overall decline in syphilis prevalence, just as Dr. Fiala said. Of course there are some regional fluctuations - just like with HIV infection. Also, newer data from South Africa continue to show the same overall pattern - a continued decline of syphilis in recent years, although much decreased compared to the 90s. There are some small fluctuations in the most recent years, but HIV rates have gone up and down a bit too, while remaining high and relatively stable. http://www.unaids.org/fr/dataanalysis/epidemiology/countryestimationreports/file,29278,fr..pdf <br /><br />So the data still show a strong inverse correlation between HIV infection and syphilis infection. Dr. Fiala showed the same thing happened in Thailand, which you don't address.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-2366905726775456252011-02-08T16:00:42.942-07:002011-02-08T16:00:42.942-07:00You're all complaining that Dr. Fiala's ci...You're all complaining that Dr. Fiala's citations (http://www.altheal.org/statistics/fiala.htm) come from the 1990s. But the link I provided was to an older version of his presentation, from around 2003, and he uses the most recent data from 2000-01. Further, if you're dismissing his work based on the age of his citations, this obviously means that newer data must exist to refute his older data, but inexplicably, none of you provided it! In my view, this means that you've engaged in yet another obfuscating tactic to avoid having to deal with the evidence (who are the "denialists"?), and second, that newer data probably don't even exist and therefore Dr. Fiala's theory stands unrefuted. Thanks for confirming that for me. <br /><br />Here's an updated version of Dr. Fiala's presentation given in 2009 at the RA conference (video): http://ra2009.org/media/qtdownload/RA_6_Fiala.mov <br /><br />(Btw, I note that Kalichman appears to be the master of obfuscation here, as he claims that Fiala and "denialists" only cite work from BEFORE 1990 - a demonstrably false statement that reveals Kalichman's fundamental dishonesty in his attacks against "denialists".)choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-30452509896567919162011-02-08T13:42:07.117-07:002011-02-08T13:42:07.117-07:00Besides, the transmission of HIV from a homosexual...Besides, the transmission of HIV from a homosexual to a heterosexual population does not necessarily have to have been by blood transfusion only. I don't believe that the shudders between the homo- and heterosexual populations need be so watertight as is assumed by attributing it solely to blood transfusion, I mean, Homosexuals CAN have sex with heterosexuals and vice versa - and they do I am sure. This may not be the primary reason for the spread from the former group to the latter, but I think it has taken place and could added to it nevertheless.Hopswatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293296966613439244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-72783467387892747082011-02-06T13:29:19.050-07:002011-02-06T13:29:19.050-07:00"Reality is that which, when you stop believi..."Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dickrjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-29543860812399063232011-02-06T13:18:02.425-07:002011-02-06T13:18:02.425-07:00Good point...AIDS Denialists can only cite work fr...Good point...AIDS Denialists can only cite work from before 1990. They are stuck in the 80's. It is sad that anyone would believe people like Duesberg and Fiala. <br />Choice...It is not that Fiala has changed his tune. He has consistently been a nut case. His words speak for themselves. <br />Seth Kalichman<br />http://denyingaids.blogspot.comSeth Kalichmanhttp://denyingaids.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-15844269987613475802011-02-06T13:08:47.790-07:002011-02-06T13:08:47.790-07:00Here are just s few of the published studies on he...Here are just s few of the published studies on heterosexual HIV transmission, see Pubmed for more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez<br /><br />http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/6/341 <br /><br />A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. <br />N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 11;331(6):341-6.<br /><br />http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/342/13/921 <br /><br />Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. <br />N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 30;342(13):921-9.<br /><br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v181n4/991196/991196.html <br /><br />Virus load and risk of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus by men with hemophilia. <br />J Infect Dis. 2000 Apr;181(4):1475-8. <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748905/<br /><br />Virologic and immunologic determinants of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in Africa.<br />AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2001 Jul 1;17(10):901-10.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11323041<br /><br />Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda.<br />Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1149-53.<br /><br />http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/188/10/1492.long<br /><br />Human immunodeficiency virus acquisition associated with genital ulcer disease and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection: a nested case-control study in Rakai, Uganda.<br />J Infect Dis. 2003 Nov 15;188(10):1492-7. Epub 2003 Oct 28.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2502150<br /><br />Transmission of HIV to heterosexual partners of infected men and women.<br />AIDS. 1989 Jun;3(6):367-72.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1835678/<br /><br />Risk factors for male to female transmission of HIV. European Study Group.<br />BMJ. 1989 Feb 18;298(6671):411-5.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1881972/<br /><br />Effect of serotesting with counselling on condom use and seroconversion among HIV discordant couples in Africa.<br />BMJ. 1992 Jun 20;304(6842):1605-9.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1881672/<br /><br />Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV.<br />BMJ. 1992 Mar 28;304(6830):809-13.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8097789<br /><br />Man-to-woman sexual transmission of HIV: longitudinal study of 343 steady partners of infected men.<br />J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993 May;6(5):497-502.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7744488<br /><br />Male-to-female transmission of HIV in a cohort of hemophiliacs--frequency, risk factors and effect of sexual counseling.<br />Infection. 1995 Jan-Feb;23(1):29-32.<br /><br />http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/4/324<br /><br />Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Haiti.<br />Ann Intern Med. 1996 Aug 15;125(4):324-30.<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1997/09000/Biological_correlates_of_HIV_1_heterosexual.2.aspx<br /><br />Biological correlates of HIV-1 heterosexual transmission.<br />AIDS. 1997 Jul 15;11(9):1089-94.<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/06180/Rates_of_HIV_1_transmission_within_marriage_in.12.aspx<br /><br />Rates of HIV-1 transmission within marriage in rural Uganda in relation to the HIV sero-status of the partners.<br />AIDS. 1999 Jun 18;13(9):1083-9.<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/1999/06010/Heterosexual_Transmission_of_HIV_1_Is_Associated.7.aspx<br /><br />Heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 is associated with high plasma viral load levels and a positive viral isolation in the infected partner.<br />J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999 Jun 1;21(2):120-5.<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2001/07010/Mismatched_Human_Leukocyte_Antigen_Alleles_Protect.10.aspx<br /><br />Mismatched human leukocyte antigen alleles protect against heterosexual HIV transmission.<br />J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001 Jul 1;27(3):277-80.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC135722/<br /><br />Molecular epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission in a heterosexual cohort of discordant couples in Zambia.<br />J Virol. 2002 Jan;76(1):397-405.rjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-76779011273653733672011-02-06T12:48:43.742-07:002011-02-06T12:48:43.742-07:00rj:
OBVIOUSLY this is just a big scientific consp...rj:<br /><br />OBVIOUSLY this is just a big scientific conspiracy. I mean, clearly all of those studies are mere fabrications in order to make Fiala and other HIV denialists looks crazy because scientists have nothing better to do. <br /><br />Seriously though I was going over Ms. Joyce's sources... it's interesting how most of it comes from 1990 or earlier... biiig surprise. <br /><br />Also a note to the anonymous person who tried to make it out as if I was fudging information: I'm sorry you have difficult listening but when I said "let's assume correlation equals causation" I was actually referring to the "observational studies" which deemed the correlation between HIV infection rate and circumcision to be good evidence that circumcision prevents HIV infection. None of the information in that video is my opinion. I got it from peer-reviewed scientific literature which is sourced in the description bar... though I'm not surprised you couldn't be bothered to check it out. Good work. :Psofiarunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909176669427658541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-70089284929596514292011-02-06T12:40:10.647-07:002011-02-06T12:40:10.647-07:00How many references does Fiala make to the publish...How many references does Fiala make to the published scientific literature in that document? I count one cite, to a study in JID. The rest is woeful extrapolation and speculation about Newsweek articles and surveillance reports. And it is apparently on this basis that he offers the blithely stated lie that "there is no indicator for a negative impact on the health status and survival."<br /><br />See here for many studies of the impact of untreated HIV infection on mortality: <br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/toc/2007/11006<br /><br />Including these from Uganda:<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2007/11006/Survival_of_HIV_infected_treatment_naive.3.aspx<br />Survival of HIV-infected treatment-naive individuals with documented dates of seroconversion in Rakai, Uganda<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2007/11006/HIV_1_disease_progression_and_mortality_before_the.4.aspx<br />HIV-1 disease progression and mortality before the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in rural Uganda<br /><br />And prior published studies:<br /> <br />http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)90133-3/abstract<br />Two-year HIV-1-associated mortality in a Ugandan rural population<br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1997/05000/An_HIV_1_natural_history_cohort_and_survival_times.11.aspx<br />An HIV-1 natural history cohort and survival times in rural Uganda.<br /><br />So you have data like this:<br /><br /> “The age-standardized mortality rates per 1000 person-years for the prevalent, incident, and negative cases were 156.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 115.8-211.4], 35.0 (95% CI, 16.4-75.0) and 13.5 (95% CI, 7.3-25.1), respectively.” <br /><br />Versus the statement: "there is no indicator for a negative impact on the health status and survival."<br /><br />Heterosexual transmission has been documented in multiple studies, in Uganda and elsewhere, and the risk is consistently associated with STDs and HIV viral load levels. Against this, Fiala offers two surveillance reports on HIV and syphilis prevalence and says “The conclusion of these observations is obvious: HIV can not be heterosexually transmitted”(!). He does this because he thinks “one would expect a correlation of both diseases in geographical distribution and any change over time.” But syphilis is treatable and protective immunity leads to fluctuations in prevalence (e.g. see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7024/full/nature03072.html). <br /><br />And look at table 3 here, from which Fiala carefully selected the 2000 data for the purposes of his specious propaganda: http://www.unwembi.co.za/doh/aids/syph-f.html <br /><br />Then look at the fluctuations in syphilis prevalence both by region and time.rjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-21392889249039713602011-02-06T11:35:41.556-07:002011-02-06T11:35:41.556-07:00Well, to answer your questions Jonny, Dr. Fiala is...Well, to answer your questions Jonny, Dr. Fiala is German-speaking and lives in Austria, and if it's a "struggle" for you to understand his overview, I suggest looking at his more detailed research and evidence in the links I provided, e.g.: http://altheal.org/statistics/fiala.htmchoice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-2577129930737895342011-02-06T11:04:26.743-07:002011-02-06T11:04:26.743-07:00Fiala either can't express himself clearly in ...Fiala either can't express himself clearly in English or is totally barking mad. Take your pick. <br /><br />You struggle to think how anyone could come up with such a series of random speculations and attempt to join them up into a hypothesis.Jonnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-90797337219704337072011-02-06T09:32:24.281-07:002011-02-06T09:32:24.281-07:00rj - I don't know anything about what the RA B...rj - I don't know anything about what the RA Board did so I can't speak to that, although I doubt you have the full or accurate story. Regardless, the film still stands on its own, and you seem to be using the issue about the funding as a way to avoid dealing with the film itself. Dismissing the film as "denialist" and hurling insults and accusations at the RA group is not a rebuttal - it simply arouses suspicion that maybe those "denialists" are really on to something. Arrogant bluster usually hides fear and doubt. <br /><br />As for heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa and higher prevalence in African blacks, Dr. Fiala says your argument amounts to "nonsense" because demographics and population growth contradict the existence of any HIV epidemic in Africa to begin with, at least in Uganda and South Africa. Besides the 2 links I gave in my first comment, he also gave me this one: http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7408/184.2/reply<br /><br />I'll let him speak for himself, here's his email to me:<br /><br />"Uganda was the first country hit by HIV/Aids, so we can oversee the longest time period. HIV/Aids was studied very well, HIV prevalence was quite high in the 90s, we can observe 'natural' disease progression as no drugs were available until recently, there has been little migration and no major event which would have had an impact on HIV. So where are we with HIV and Aids prevalence: HIV prevalence rose to around 16% in the general population in the 90s, then it came down. The increase of HIV was attributed to heterosexual activity. The reduction of HIV prevalence was attributed to ABC interventions. However all indicators of sexual activity remained stable over the last 30 years: age at first intercourse, age at first birth, number of children per woman. In other words there is no indicator that sexual activity changed over time or had anything to do with the dramatic rise and fall of HIV prevalence." <br /><br />"Aids prevalence: Aids is diagnosed in Uganda based on the Bangui definition. This is a highly unspecific way to make a diagnosis. The number of Aids patients diagnosed and reported over the years is insignificant. <br />Then 'underreporting' is said to be widespread. Maybe. But no facts or proof is given. In any case there are no signs of increased mortality as a consequence of 16% of the general population being sentenced to premature death. On the very contrary: annual population growth rate rose from a record 2.5% to 3.4%. One of the highest growth rates in the world. <br />In other words, while PLFA (People living from Aids) claimed that Uganda was the first victim of a global Aids pandemic with an unprecedented mortality, in fact the biggest problem of Uganda is the unprecedented population increase. This increase is the result of a stable and high fertility combined with a stable or slightly reduced mortality."<br /><br />"Last, all this development took place without any drugs being taken by the population. In essence, if HIV would be really more easy to be transmitted because of 'activated CD4 T cells', than we would expect a continuous prevalence. But even if one would accept that HIV is spread more frequently heterosexually, there is no indicator for a negative impact on the health status and survival."<br /> <br />"Concerning the claim of heterosexual transmission of HIV: frequently HIV and syphilis are tested in the same patients. And there is a strong negative correlation between these two, both over time and in geographical distribution. This can be found not only in Uganda, but also in South Africa and Thailand. Negative correlation means those regions with the highest HIV prevalence have the lowest syphilis prevalence and vice versa."choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-29095211221383053682011-02-04T17:10:15.449-07:002011-02-04T17:10:15.449-07:00http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/controvers...http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/controversy-lingers-after-premiere-of-nashville-directors-aids-documentary/Content?oid=120095<br /><br />"'I didn't imagine the intense polarities that existed before the movie came out," says Leung, 29, via cell phone from a Starbucks in New York during a visit to his fiancée. 'I was a little taken aback. All I did was put up information as spoken.'<br /><br />'Nobody was taken out of context,' Leung says. 'There was no hidden agenda.'"<br /><br />http://www.tig.org.za/Minutes_RA2006.htm<br /><br />“Motion on Funding: Bob Leppo moved that RA board authorize the RA foundation to make grants for a wider range of purposes, including films and video. Seconded by Charles Geshekter. Funding for each project would still have to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the board. Board members involved in a project would recuse themselves from such decisions. Unanimous agreement.<br /><br />Roberto Giraldo moved that the RA foundation make grants for Brent Leung’s film based on available funds. Seconded by Christine Maggiore. Unanimous agreement.”rjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-33010299551420615072011-02-04T16:50:04.715-07:002011-02-04T16:50:04.715-07:00Pointing out the fact that Fiala is on the board o...Pointing out the fact that Fiala is on the board of an organization that promotes outrageous misrepresentations and lies about the scientific literature is not guilt by association, it's just guilt.<br /><br />The film House of Numbers interviews people whose organization funded it, without disclosing that fact, or even disclosing that they're all members of the same organization. This is a fundamental breach of documentary filmmaking ethics, which renders the film not a documentary but AIDS denial propaganda. <br /><br />"these findings seem consistent with the hypothesis that HIV is a marker of immune dysfunction/activation"<br /><br />Only a lot of that activation is HIV-specific e.g.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC356973/?tool=pubmed<br /><br />and when HIV is suppressed, activation declines precipitously in close parallel e.g.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1951290/?tool=pubmed<br />http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/aid.2010.0200<br /><br />Environmental immune activation doesn't cause AIDS, immune activation caused by HIV infection does. See this recent review for a broader discussion of biological factors and racial disparities in HIV prevalence:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21223426<br /><br />It's much better to read papers rather than abstracts.rjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-17830815943398116922011-02-04T10:45:48.829-07:002011-02-04T10:45:48.829-07:00Thanks rj. Re Fiala and Rethinking AIDS, you don&#...Thanks rj. Re Fiala and Rethinking AIDS, you don't have a point. Guilt by association is not an argument, it's a logical fallacy (as is ad hominen). I find it suspicious that pseudoscientific tactics are frequently required to defend HIV/AIDS science from the "denialists." <br /><br />Second, the sources you gave indicate only that Rethinking AIDS once attributed Leung's funding to "private sources." That's not a lie, it's an omission. It's unfortunate they didn't mention their contribution, on the other hand, where's the crime exactly? Leung surely had a variety of private funding sources as it costs far more than $25,000 to make a film, and I don't see the relevance of the sources since the film should be judged on its own merits. Instead, it's usually dismissed with "denialist" type accusations like yours. Another example of a pseudoscientific response - and worse than unconvincing to people on the fence like me. You know, almost everything people like Kalichman and John Moore say makes me more sympathetic to HIV "denialism" because such tactics point to scientific weakness, not strength. <br /><br />I've seen the film and it's a very well done documentary. Interviewing people who don't agree with the establishment doesn't make it "fake," it just makes it unpopular with the establishment. I don't agree with everything in the film and am skeptical about other things in it, but I've yet to see a worthwhile rebuttal to it (see further note below). It's almost all just defensive ad hominen like yours, or it's complaints about being taken "out of context" - another meaningless accusation that avoids having to address the real issues. Besides, Leung has openly released his full extended interviews, so the out-of-context claim is BS as well as weak. <br /><br />As far as I know, there's been just one real attempt to rebut the film by Jeanne Bergman: http://www.aidstruth.org/features/2009/real-answers-fake-questions-“house-numbers”. However, it's too brief to properly address the film's claims (much of what she says doesn't really address the underlying arguments by HIV dissenters; her only point that satisfies me is the one on the use of risk factors in testing and diagnosis). She also makes a number of inaccurate statements and baseless assertions, she confuses and conflates HIV and AIDS, and like most orthodox believers, she repeatedly uses unsupported words like "conclusive" and "overwhelming" as props for the faith. If this is the best that the AIDS establishment can do, I'm justified in taking the film seriously.<br /><br />Thanks for your interesting points on heterosex transmission of HIV in Africa. I'll pass those on to Dr. Fiala. I'm not a scientist, but what occurs to me on reading the abstracts is that these findings seem consistent with the hypothesis that HIV is a marker of immune dysfunction/activation, rather than the cause of AIDS itself. Further, your second link says: "Immune activation in African residents is environmentally driven and not genetically predetermined." This does not explain the higher rate of HIV infection in American blacks, and it also implies that HIV is just one factor in causing AIDS, and/or that environmental factors could reduce HIV infection or even clear it.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-25844246315778770552011-02-03T20:08:02.892-07:002011-02-03T20:08:02.892-07:00Fiala is on the board of Rethinking AIDS, one look...Fiala is on the board of Rethinking AIDS, one look at their website is sufficient to determine whether anything he says should be taken seriously. The fake "documentary" film House of Numbers, which this clip is an extra from, was funded by Rethinking AIDS, then they lied about it: <br />http://www.tig.org.za/Minutes_RA2006.htm<br />http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2006/311/688/2006-311688738-0314e401-F.pdf (see page 11)<br />http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Content/QA/tabid/160/Default.aspx<br /><br />There's a very straightforward potential explanation for why the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of HIV is increased in Africa: activated CD4 T cells are more easily infected, and background levels of CD4 T cell activation (including genital tract CD4 T cell activation) are higher on the African continent compared to elsewhere. There is strong evidence that the same mechanism underlies the consistently observed 2-3 fold increase in risk of HIV acquisition associated with HSV-2 infection; there are higher levels of activated, susceptible CD4 T cells in the genital tract engaged in the local surveillance of HSV-2. <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20588163<br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2000/09290/Immune_activation_in_Africa_is.3.aspx<br />http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2006/01020/Herpes_simplex_virus_2_infection_increases_HIV.11.aspx<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723183/?tool=pubmedrjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-86126777531331532242011-02-01T14:36:52.037-07:002011-02-01T14:36:52.037-07:00In your original post, you certainly did not "...In your original post, you certainly did not "debunk the argument" and your only "context" was to label Fiala as a "denialist." You used that as a pretext to dismiss his views without having to refute them or even find out what they were. You used it as an entitlement to ridicule him and insult him personally.<br /><br />Accusations of "denialism" say far more about the fears and weakness of the accuser than the accused. It's just a weasel word used by bullies and cowards.<br /><br />I gave you a couple of links to Dr. Fiala's work. Instead of passing judgment based on your simplistic speculations about his views and findings, why don't you just read them yourself? It seems like you might be capable of taking off the ideological blinders for a moment - unlike Kalichman, who arrogantly and obliviously gave me the same link to Fiala's article that I had just posted myself. (Bizarrely, Kalichman quotes a couple of Fiala's excellent and damning points without offering any refutation - it's as if he believes anything Fiala says is automatically silly and false simply because he sees Fiala as a "denialist." How pathetic and laughable!)<br /><br />Regarding the possible factors you list to help explain the heterosex spread of HIV in Africa, good. I'm glad you're thinking beyond the common assumption that it's because of a unique African promiscuity, and you even state that you wouldn't argue that. Aren't you treading on dangerous ground though, by agreeing with a "denialist?" Because if a "denialist" might have a point about one thing, it means they might have other points worth listening to. It means you can't completely dismiss them out of hand, as Kalichman does.<br /><br />I'm sure we agree that not every aspect of science and research is 100% accurate and beyond question, that scientists can make mistakes, and that the science of HIV/AIDS is not exempt from error. The sad thing is, even if most aspects of HIV/AIDs science are correct, many valid scientific critiques and questions that would help improve the accountability and robustness of the science get sidelined simply because they're perceived as coming from "denialists," or never get broached at all out of fear of being accused of denialism. Subjecting dissenting scientists to personal attacks is an abuse of science that can only slow progress and reinforce wrong directions, and probably cost lives.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-72950823812473652982011-02-01T14:35:33.258-07:002011-02-01T14:35:33.258-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-37573168433985077032011-02-01T02:06:08.748-07:002011-02-01T02:06:08.748-07:00@Joyce:
Whether Fiala's comments in the video...@Joyce:<br /><br />Whether Fiala's comments in the video are out of context, and whether or not he actually professes these views is irrelevant in the scope of what I have written. His comments in the video were presented (not by Fiala himself, but by another AIDS denier)as evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS. I have debunked the argument in this context. <br /><br />As for the situtation in Africa being due to a "unique promisquity", I would not argue that, but I would argue that the AIDS epidemic in Africa does persent a (largely) unique case. Much of the spread of AIDS in Africa can be attributed to many factors that are not present in other parts of the world. We only began to really understand HIV and AIDS when it was just beginning to become an issue in the Western world, but by that time, it had already become epidemic in parts of Africa. We utilized our knowledge - and continue to do so - to prevent the same sort of outbreak here. Furthermore, it is only in Africa where you have authority figures in both the government and in the clergy telling the public that condoms help spread AIDS instead of prevent it. Africa also lacks the AIDS awareness and prevention programs that are available elsewhere. Given these factors, it is not surprising that the spread of AIDS to the heterosexual population occured in Africa much more easily than it did in other places.<br /><br />And to claim that AIDS has not spread to heterosexuals in other places is just plain nonsense. It has not become an epidemic as it has in Africa (for the above reasons), but it has become a problem in heroin users and was for a time an issue in the haemophiliac population - populations I am sure are not entirely composed of homosexuals.<br /><br />So if Fiala's argument is actually that HIV cannot cause AIDS because 1)it's only spread into the heterosexual population in Africa and nowhere else, and that 2)there is no reason for this discrepency, then he really shows his ignorance of the situtation in Africa. For someone who works in Uganda, I would expect better of him.C.W.G.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339226788815840900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443345082398372535.post-35716110312194561212011-01-31T12:12:20.220-07:002011-01-31T12:12:20.220-07:00Seth: I challenge you to cite a single example whe...Seth: I challenge you to cite a single example where Dr. Fiala has ever "changed his tune" or "changed his facts." Anyway, I can tell by your insults that you don't know him and know little if anything about him, so your remarks have zero credence. <br /><br />CWGK: Dr. Fiala is using the sentience point as a satirical analogy - obviously he's not saying that's the actual scientific argument employed by AIDS scientists. Also, it should be self-evident that his brief comments in that video clip lack context and shouldn't be judged so superficially. As far as I understand his views, his underlying premise here is that while HIV transmission has always been by sexual means (or blood), and researchers have always predicted an epidemic spreading into heterosex populations, that's only happened in Africa. So he challenges the alleged heterosex spread of HIV in Africa in part because he believes there's no credible explanation for why it would happen in Africa and nowhere else (except for the belief that African sexuality is uniquely promiscuous, which he rejects as racist and unwarranted). Hence his satirical analogy to a sentient virus that has decided to selectively infect black heterosexuals in Africa but not elsewhere for the most part.<br /><br />Note that I'm not claiming he's right. I'm just reporting his point of view to the best of my knowledge.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.com