8
   

Why are there no half monkey half human?

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 04:04 am
@farmerman,
Very Happy Show me how serology data can beat statistical evidence for proving a link.....what do you think they do with that data ? Inject it into pigs ?

Do you wear a clown uniform complete with nose to work ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 04:26 am
@Ionus,
do you even understand what serology data is? IS this one of the times youre being outrageously stupid or just ordinary stupid.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 04:56 am
@farmerman,
I just plopped in a search and got back almost 20 pqges of SEROLOGY and HIV/AIDS. Many of the papers did use statistics of the serology data(like how many of those suffering from HIV came down with full blown AIDS or AIDS complex). That number varied between 73 and 76%. However, ALL of the serology data showed HIV antibodies , which would indicate a progression that needs to be followed by intervention.
I know that there is a group of HIV deniers out there but their positions are not based upon science, they are based upon some political agenda. If you wish to believe like thme, you are certainly free ANUS but dont make it sound like youre in touch with some cosmic truth cause your beliefs are bullshit.
ALL (medical scientific) statistics OF THE SEROLOGY OF HIV points unquestionably to HIV as the cause of AIDS.


Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 06:59 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I know that there is a group of HIV deniers out there
What does that have to do with me ? I think HIV does lead to AIDS...but proving it is impossible because we now can use drugs to induce AIDS rather than wait for it to develop and be less manageable because we have drugs that manage AIDS, not HIV. Clearly you are not capable of reading a scientific paper and understanding it ....maybe you once were capable.....

Quote:
Many of the papers did use statistics of the serology data(like how many of those suffering from HIV came down with full blown AIDS or AIDS complex). That number varied between 73 and 76%.
Thats nothing . All those who come down with turburculosis breathe air, that number varying between 99.9999% to four decimal figures and 100% .

Quote:
ALL (medical scientific) statistics OF THE SEROLOGY OF HIV points unquestionably to HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Do you get paid by the consonant ? And that statement is bullshit like so much you come with....are you seriously telling us that no intervention was attempted, no other drugs, no other factors were involved, nothing....just HIV and AIDS....absolute bullshit .

If you want people to accept your self proclaimed scientist status why cant you understand simple concepts involving proof ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 09:39 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I think HIV does lead to AIDS...
Well, alert the media. Our own Nobel laureate has changed his mind.

"proving the relationship" is pretty much done from a clearly established viral condition HIV infection and a resultant SYNDROME (a combination of afflictions that result from low T cells caused by HIV) are serologically combined. ere it not so, how come the treatements of today work on the compromised immune systems and T cells.




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 09:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
HIV came from USA malarial research involving whole blood transfer from monkeys to humans carried out on volunteer prisoners, circa WWII and the 50's . The link between HIV and AIDS is a guess .
Heres ANUS's first post re" HIV on this thread. I read that hes into a conspiracy theory and that HIV and AIDs arebased on something other than science. .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 07:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Our own Nobel laureate has changed his mind.
You cant read . Your emotional assumptions continue to make you a laughing stock but you dont realise it . Show me where I said HIV did not cause AIDS ? I said it cant be SCIENTIFICALLY proven . You do know how to read, dont you ?

Quote:
how come the treatements of today work on the compromised immune systems and T cells.
THAT constitutes a scientific proof to you ? Tell us about how you are a scientist.....

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 07:23 pm
@farmerman,
And you still havent posted anything but a guess . Senility is one thing, but your excessive drinking is making it worse . Why is Grant your avatar ?

Quote:
I read that hes into a conspiracy theory and that HIV and AIDs arebased on something other than science. .
As usual, Gomer the Turd cant read . Try reading what is written rather than what you want to see . The link between HIV and AIDS can NOT be scientifically proven . It is a guess .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 08:14 pm
@Ionus,
Look up zoonosis and see some of the diseases that have jumped species. SIV was a precursor to HIV. HIV shares the same serology as SIV > Discussing anything with you just made me realize that you are fuckin insane. Im really not into beating my head agaisnts a wall, its just the teacher in me that really believes that everyone is somewhat educable. I have apparently been shown that my belief may be a bit awry.

It appears that, when you are presented with your own words (as I did in the previous clip) you merely change your tack 180 in the hope that noone will notice .




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 08:18 pm
@Ionus,
Youre an asshole 4559093
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:02 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Look up zoonosis and see some of the diseases that have jumped species.
This is typical of your stupid attempts to say things that are factual but are really totally irrelevant . Do you really think that if some diseases jump species it proves HIV causes AIDS ? Really ? Are you that stupid ?

Quote:
It appears that, when you are presented with your own words (as I did in the previous clip) you merely change your tack 180 in the hope that noone will notice .
And I ask people to go back and read it for themselves and see if they get the same drunken version of events that you do .

Quote:
its just the teacher in me
Awwww....you so nice.....kiss kiss
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:03 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Youre an asshole 4559093
Your only post where you havent mentioned yourself, **** and arseholes . Only one of them . Therapy is working for you.....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:06 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
your stupid attempts to say things that are factual but are really totally irrelevant
Ive been putting up data and evidence from all sides and you are just too dimwitted to understand. Maybe you are not educable.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:14 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Ive been putting up data and evidence from all sides
????Drunk already ?? Evidence like blood samples, diseases jump species and I am an aresehole . Very convincing evidence to a clown . State your proof or admit you have dug another hole too deep to climb out of.....your bluff and spin are becoming legend . You are the only person who thinks you are doing well....why dont you tell me the sky is blue therefore HIV and AIDS are proven to have a causal link .

Waiting for you Gomer the Turd...state your proof, not vague references to what maybe a related topic IF it was already proven .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:46 pm
@Ionus,
I was a;ways assuming that you wewre capable pf reading and recalling evidence. I posted about the genetic similarity of SIV and HIV, and then , the zoonotic post was not just so you could learn what zoonotic transfer of disease is(I know that I afforded you an opportunity to look it up, only after I presented it). International medical researchers (except a very small minority which I shall soon discuss, recognize the cause and effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, and the zoonotic transfer of SIV (SImean Immuno Virus) and its effect on chimps, and HIV. Heres some more , which Im sure you wont "get" nor will you read, but I think others will agree that evidence is fairly obvious.
Quote:
Before we can begin to look for a cause for AIDS, we must first work out exactly what type of illness we are talking about.

In early 1981, doctors in New York and California began to report some bizarre new disease outbreaks. In both places, previously healthy young men were showing up with rare illnesses including Kaposi's sarcoma (a kind of tumour) and PCP (a type of pneumonia), which until then had been virtually unheard of among such people. Within months, dozens of similar cases had been reported in 23 American states and in the UK, representing the start of a massive and unprecedented epidemic.5

Doctors soon discovered a distinctive feature of these cases. More than anything else, the men were lacking a specific type of white blood cell, which is essential to a healthy immune system. Normally, people have between 600 and 1,500 "CD4+ cells" (also called T helper cells) in each cubic millimetre of their blood. But the men with the strange new disease typically had very much lower levels. This immune deficiency explained why they were so vulnerable to disease.

The cases were clearly related in time and by population group (initially gay men and injecting drug users). No cause of immune deficiency could be found, but it was clearly not inherited. Scientists therefore grouped together all of these strange new cases under the heading "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" – or AIDS for short.

In 1982, no-one claimed to know the cause of AIDS, so the first definition was based on the diagnosis of one of 13 rare diseases known to be linked to immune deficiency (including Kaposi's sarcoma and PCP) "occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease".6 Over the years, the US definition has been refined as hundreds of thousands of similar cases have been documented, sometimes involving other diseases, but always associated with the same distinctive immune deficiency.7 Other definitions have also been developed to suit different situations elsewhere in the world.8

The latest US AIDS definition was created in 1993. Under this definition, someone has AIDS if they have one of 26 specific diseases (28 in children) but no known cause of immune deficiency other than HIV (with some diseases, a positive HIV test is required); or if they have a CD4+ cell count below 200 cells per cubic millimetre of blood, or less than 14% of all lymphocytes, plus a positive HIV test.9

Europe and Canada have similar AIDS definitions to the US, but do not include low CD4+ cell counts
It is interesting that AIDS, NEVER occurs without HIV. No other specific viral body.


AS FAR AS THE "DENIALISTS".It appears that the literature and the internet "denialists" are led by the"Perth Group" which is a small clot of Australian medical doctors , led by Eleni Papadopulos. Papadopulos has claimed that HIV cannot be proven to exist , so therefore, the causitive relationship of AIDs to HIV cannot exist either.
SO, by her logic (and her tiny group of ignorant followers) the HIV/AIDS relationship is groundless.

Fortunately, the chemical fingerprint, the genetic fingerprint and the actual photo of HIV virii have been tagged down without a doubt , so MS Papadopulos is full of **** (and by extension, since you are probably influenced by her babbling, so are you).
Im really not going to discuss this further with you because itd just turn into a clip hunt by me from sources that cost good m oney and will just boringly repeat the above information and evidence in greater and finer detail.

If you wish to have your denialist position reinforced, please contact Ms Papadopulos. (Id love if you could get her to post and Ill find a researcher form our Uni's molecular bio department and public health school take over, cause you do get boring . You accuse me of bad mouthing you. I produce all the data and then youjust insult me and the data.

Its a good trick on a chat board where everyone there are just schoolkids. Im no school kid , Im a real geoscientist with lots of other interests . I dont spend time engaging where I cant learn anything.
I readily admit I learned a goodly new batch of data from Montery JAck regarding some area of genetics that I immediately went and had to read up on because I was, ignorant of his point and I eagerly sopped up the information.

YOU, on the other hand, seem to have a solid brick for a head and youre only debate skill seems to be insult and anger. SO, g'day ANUS.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 12:15 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I posted about the genetic similarity of SIV and HIV
Good for you . You might have well of posted that they are both viruses . What do you think that proves in the relationship between HIV and AIDS anyway, Gomer ?

Quote:
so you could learn what zoonotic transfer of disease is
Your assumption is that I didn't know....again you are wrong . But how does that prove a causative link between HIV and AIDS , dickhead ?

Quote:
International medical researchers (except a very small minority which I shall soon discuss, recognize the cause and effect relationship between HIV and AIDS,
And as I have said they are probably right but the proof does not exist . Sober up and read what I have written .

Quote:
AS FAR AS THE "DENIALISTS".
Of which I am NOT one, but your ability to shout is very impressive . Again, like everything you get involved in, you make one ridiculous assumption after another .

Show me where I said it was proven that HIV does NOT cause AIDS ? Being a big bad scientist like you are, I thought you would understand all this.....

Quote:
which is a small clot of Australian medical doctors
Very Happy You have no end of problems with people who are Australian, don't you ?

Quote:
Im no school kid , Im a real geoscientist with lots of other interests .
Wooooo!!! Yet another post full of you, **** and arseholes .

Quote:
You accuse me of bad mouthing you.
So that is your definitive statement on proving a causative relationship between HIV and AIDS ? Very impressive, Betty .

Quote:
It is interesting that AIDS, NEVER occurs without HIV.
It never occurs without a pulse, either...perhaps having a pulse is the real cause....where is the proof, clown ?

Quote:
the chemical fingerprint, the genetic fingerprint and the actual photo of HIV virii have been tagged down without a doubt ,
????? Are you really this fucked in the head or are you handing the argument to me on a platter ? So....they have the chemical fingerprint, the genetic fingerprint AND the actual happy snap of HIV ???? WOWWWW !!!! So what, clown ? I have a photo of a car...how does any of this prove.....now read very carefully...A CAUSATIVE relationship between HIV and AIDS ?

It cant be done, you big clever scientist you.....

Here's a bar line for ya...."Je suis's a scientist" .

Quote:
g'day ANUS.
Awww.... what a nice man.....G'night, Gomer the Turd...

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 01:07 am
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm

HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS

Appendix 2: DOES HIV CAUSE AIDS?

Dr Richard Hunt

Despite the overwhelming evidence that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS, there are still many things that we do not know about the virus. Some people say that all that is necessary for AIDS is an HIV infection. Others invoke co-factors. A small but influential minority say that HIV is an unjustly maligned by-stander that is found in many immunocompromised states but is not the cause of the disease. The most outspoken of these are Drs Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis.

The following are the arguments raised by those who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS:

i) HIV is not in semen.

In fact, it is actually found to a high degree in most investigations.

ii) Viruses work exponentially to produce new virions and disease.

This statement confuses virus in a cell, where this is true in many cases, with disease in individual. There are numerous examples of slow progressive viral diseases.

iii) Viruses do not cause disease when neutralizing antibody is present.

This is not true. There are examples of diseases which progress in spite of the presence of antibody.

iv) Fewer than 1 in 10,000 T4 cells infected.

We now know that the presence of HIV can cause uninfected cells to undergo apoptosis

v) Few hemophiliacs get AIDS; instead, they die of immune suppression by therapeutic blood proteins.

HIV positive hemophiliacs get immune suppression but HIV negative ones do not.

vi) Transfusion of HIV contaminated blood not been shown to give AIDS.

In a Mexican study of 39 patients given HIV+ blood, AIDS occurred in 3% of the recipients within 12 months, 50% after 29 months, 75% after 36 months, 100% after 48 months. The mean survival time after AIDS onset was 9 months.

vii) HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates.

Postulate 1: An infectious agent occurs in each case of a disease in sufficient amounts to cause pathology.

It is said that there are many cases of AIDS without HIV. It is to be expected that there would be other causes of immune suppression and so there would be AIDS-like diseases without HIV. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of AIDS-like immunosuppressive diseases occur in HIV-infected persons.

Postulate 2: A specific infectious agent is not found in other diseases.

This was later abandoned by Koch when it was found that one agent can cause more than one specific disease.

Postulate 3: After isolation and culture, the infectious agent can induce the disease in another individual. The infectious agent can then be isolated from the newly infected host.

In the case of HIV which only causes disease in humans, this is difficult to do as there is, naturally, a lack of volunteers. However, this postulate has been satisfied by the following evidence:

Cloned simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) causes an AIDS-like disease within a year in macaques. Characteristics of the disease are low CD4+ T4 cell count and opportunistic infections such as pneumocystis pneumonia.


HIV2, which is closely related to HIV1 and cause AIDS in western Africa, can cause AIDS in some moneys such as baboons. Again specific CD4+ cell loss was observed.


The best evidence comes from a laboratory accident that occurred in the late 1980's. Three laboratory workers who worked with the virus became infected with purified cloned HIV1. After 5 to 7 years, all three had low CD4+ T4 cell counts and one had developed pneumocystis pneumonia and died. They were serologically positive for HIV. The HIV from all three patients was sequenced and found to be the same as the virus with which they appeared to be infected. One got the virus by a puncture wound when handling a centrifuge used for HIV concentration, one through mucous membrane and facial exposure and the other had direct contact with the virus though the actual route of infection was not known.

None of the three had lifestyles that would predict the possibility of AIDS. The report of the accident was published in 1993 and so the infections clearly occurred several years before that. The laboratory worker who developed pneumocystis pneumonia had not received AZT (which Duesberg has implicated as a possible cause of AIDS).

Thus, all three exposed patients had severe immunodeficiency (as a result of specific CD4 cell loss) after being infected with HIV. In 1994, Jon Cohen (Science vol 266, p 1647) asked Duesberg about his position on HIV as a result of the reports of the three lab workers. Duesberg did not agree that Koch's postulates had been satisfied. He pointed out that as of December 1994, 2 of the 3 lab workers did not have opportunistic infections but did not address the one person who did.



With regard to Koch's postulates, Duesberg has argued that the following criteria must be met to show that HIV causes AIDS

1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.
2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
3. It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.
4. It must be found in the experimental host so infected.

It is now apparent that:

1. Virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-infected
2. HIV can be isolated from virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease
3. Laboratory workers accidentally infected with concentrated purified HIV have developed AIDS
4. HIV has been isolated from these individuals

It should also be noted that:

HIV has always preceded AIDS in a population.

HIV is the single common factor between AIDS sufferers who are gay San Franciscans, African female heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, children, intravenous drug users.

Within any risk group only the HIV+ individuals get AIDS. It could be argued that all members of these groups are subject to immunosuppression but this is not the case with wives of hemophiliacs.

There is a better correlation between HIV and AIDS than between cigarettes and lung cancer.



Summary of the abundant evidence that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS:

1. Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-like syndromes were rare, today they are common in HIV-infected people

2. AIDS and HIV are invariably linked in time, place and population group

3. The main risk factors for AIDS are sexual contact, transfusions, IV drugs, hemophilia. These have existed for years but only after the appearance of HIV, has AIDS been observed in these populations

4. Infection by HIV is the ONLY factor that predicts that a person will develop AIDS

5. Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations with anti-HIV antibodies but is rare in populations with a low seroprevalence of anti-HIV antibodies

6. Cohort studies show that severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur exclusively in individuals that are HIV-infected

7. Persistently low CD4+ T4 cell counts are extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV or another known cause of immunosuppression

8. Nearly everyone with AIDS has anti-HIV antibodies

9. HIV can be detected in nearly everyone with AIDS

10. HIV does fulfill Koch's postulates

11. New-born infants with no behavioral risks develop AIDS if infected as a result of the mother being HIV-infected

12. An HIV-infected twin will develop AIDS, while the uninfected twin will not

13. Since the appearance of HIV, mortality has increased dramatically among hemophiliacs

14. Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS has repeatedly led to discovery of HIV in recipient as well as donor

15. Sex partners of HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion patients acquire the virus and AIDS without other risk factors

16. HIV infects and kills CD4+ T cells in vitro and in vivo

17. HIV damages CD4 precursor cells

18. Body viral (HIV) load correlates with progression to AIDS

19. HIV is similar in its genome and morphology to other lentiviruses that often cause immunodeficiency, slow wasting disorders, neurodegeneration and death

20. Baboons develop AIDS after inoculation with HIV2 that also causes AIDS in humans

21. Asian monkeys develop an AIDS-like disase after inoculation with simian immunodeficiency virus



Clearly, the correlations between HIV and AIDS are very striking indeed.










Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 05:14 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Clearly, the correlations between HIV and AIDS are very striking indeed.
So is breathing and AIDS . I believe HIV causes AIDS but Gomer the Turd is now too addled to read correctly . What I want someone to do is not collect circumstantial evidence but to actually prove HIV causes AIDS . It cant be done . The process of elimination can no longer be done as interventions are made with drugs . Direct experiment is ruled out here . When AIDS was first discovered the long lead time from HIV to AIDS meant not enough observational evidence was collected before the process was interfered with . There are also some people who get HIV and never get AIDS .

So where is the proof ?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 06:27 pm
@Ionus,
Its difficult to read the previous posts with your head up your ass like it is.
The argumenst that HIV was NEVER found in semen was found to be bullshit.
and so on.

I can understand , by being an HIV?AIDS "denialist",the notoriety it would add to your career as a medical doctor (if you were one).
Opining that HIV and AIDS are unrelated because of the lacks of "proof" is as pernicious an arguemnt as the one that evolution didnt happen becaus we werent there and there is no "proof". Alas, all we have is evidence for a very strong and compelling argument. Im curious, why is it that "You believe" after all that HIV causes AIDS?? Does evidence have anything to do with it? or are you just inable to reach a conclusion with only 90% certainty?

I certainly will get help if you promise me that you will try to obtain a new BRAIN.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2011 03:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Its difficult to read the previous posts with your head up your ass like it is.
All your posts are difficult to read . Are you saying its difficult for you to read because you have your head up your arse ????

Quote:
The argumenst that HIV was NEVER found in semen was found to be bullshit.
Did I make that argument or are you desperately searching for anything.....

Quote:
I can understand , by being an HIV?AIDS "denialist"
You dont understand the principle behind opening a door when you get this driunk . I said twice I was not a denialist but you cant remember what happened yesterday can you ?


Quote:
Opining that HIV and AIDS are unrelated because of the lacks of "proof"
Are you drinking 60 "proof" ? What I said was :
Quote:
The link between HIV and AIDS is a guess .


To which you said and I replied :
Quote:
Quote:
Now hes asserting that HIV doesny cause AIDS.
No, you are.....I said it cant be proven and it cant .

Now here we are and you still dont get it . If you were a scientist instead of an amateur rock collector, you would know that proof is not a 90% guess . That is a one in ten chance of being wrong, it does not mean you are right . Why do the simplest concepts in science elude you, you big bad scientist fellow you...

Quote:
Im curious, why is it that "You believe" after all that HIV causes AIDS??
Have you forgotten just a couple of sentences ago I didn't believe, and now it appears I do.....

Because HIV causing AIDS is the most probable and an assumption is sometimes necessary to start with....didn't you learn any of this or are you too old to remember ?? Are you aware of the causative link between several types of senile dementia and alcoholism ? Never mind, it is too late for you . Just ring for nursey .

Gomer the Turd must seek help .
 

Related Topics

Why was the political party named Whig? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 08:50:24