AIDS: What IS the CELL that Causes this?

[PHPlatonica]

We all have heard about AIDS and HIV. Infact Some of us may have gone to Bizarre extremes to avoid this disease at any cost.

Then One day, you do your part for the "world" because you have a good Heart, and you Donate blood. Not long after, you receive a letter from the office you have given blood too, explaining that you should be retested for HIV and AIDS infection. (I can't even Comprehend the Devastation in that)

You take your test, one comes back negative, but another comes back positive. You go to another clinic. Their tests indicate that you do NOT have this incurable infection. who is right? you can go for a third, and forth. Continue until you decide on your own whether you should stay celibate now or what? Maybe you shouldn't have children either? the list there goes on and on. So at this point, getting past the devastation and moral stigma, you research this. And you Want to know "What Does this Particular DISEASE LOOK LIKE?" How is it Identified? And you Find out that it has never been Identified. Infact, no one even knows how to pin point the actual "GERM" "MUTATION".. There isn't a Virus, a physical cell, that has the Identification of AIDS and HIV. What you WILL find is a Process that happens to cells and proteins. A way they break down indicates that something isn't right. But there is no actual "cell" or "germ", as with Anthrax, That says Positively "YES, THIS IS AIDS."
But, I am interested in letting you guys do your Own research. Find a Way that we can IDENTIFY this AIDS and HIV Culprit that is killing Millions of people. isnt it? I hope You all have Much Better Luck then I did, Because I feel Horribly Lied too. I can not find it. Any Information That you can give that is scientifically specific to the AIDS "VIRUS" and is an Identified actual CELL, I Really Want to SEE it Please. So We can identify this "monster" In the Mean time, Go ahead and read This article. Digest it, it is Different.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/01/13/aids_no_gold_standard_for_hiv_testing.html

 

[Hipparchia]

Viruses are not cells. They do not exist as cells. Why would you expect us to identify a cell where none exists? Do you search for feathers on rabbit?

 

[Hipparchia]

From the several million hits on the internet relating to HIV I picked the third one I looked at as adequately answering your question.

HIV is different in structure from previously described retroviruses. It is around 120 nm in diameter (120 billionths of a meter; around 60 times smaller than a red blood cell) and roughly spherical.

HIV-1 is composed of two copies of single-stranded RNA enclosed by a conical capsid, which is in turn surrounded by a plasma membrane that is formed from part of the host-cell membrane. Other enzymes contained within the virion particle include reverse transcriptase, integrase, and protease.

HIV has several major genes coding for structural proteins that are found in all retroviruses, and several nonstructural ("accessory") genes that are unique to HIV. The gag gene provides the physical infrastructure of the virus; pol provides the basic enzymes by which retroviruses reproduce; the env gene supplies the proteins essential for viral attachment and entry into a target cell. The accessory proteins tat, rev, nef, vif, vpr, and vpu enhance virus production. Although called accessory proteins, tat and rev are essential for virus replication. In some strains of HIV, a mutation causes the production of an alternate accessory protein, Tev, from the fusion of tat, rev, and env.

The gp120 and gp41 proteins, both encoded by the env gene, enable the virus to attach to and fuse with target cells to initiate the infectious cycle. Both, especially gp120, have been considered as targets of future treatments or vaccines against HIV.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#HIV_structure_and_genome

Most (all?) tests for HIV do not look directly for the virus, but for anti-bodies associated with it.

 

[invert_nexus]

Are you under the impression that the hiv virus has never been identified?

Or a diagram:

Or are you saying that the link between aids and hiv is still somewhat tentative?


Edit: Your link doesn't work either, Platonica. (What does the PH stand for? Everytime I see it I think PHP which is a script language, isn't it?)

 

[leopold]

(What does the PH stand for? Everytime I see it I think PHP which is a script language, isn't it?)

same here

yes, PHP is a scripting language

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I hope You all have Much Better Luck then I did, Because I feel Horribly Lied too. I can not find it. Any Information That you can give that is scientifically specific to the AIDS "VIRUS"

Go to a library a pick up a textbook you stupid dumb-ass HIV conspiracy theory piece of shit.<P>

 

[MetaKron]

People who don't know that their intelligence has been insulted really hate those who do.

 

[PHPlatonica]

k, Can you Be any more rude? My Question is, what does the actual virus look like? I know about the proteins, i know how they identify with it. But where is the actual virus? I HAVE looked, I just see the destruction of the cells. A similar thing happens with a Flu, and other illnesses. I am not Saying AIDS Doesn't Exist, I am ASKING where Is it? Its such a huge epidemic, and Tests are done on a scale.. But they have not identified the actual (not cell apparently) But Virus that I could find. THAT is What I am Asking. Where is this "AIDS"... I Know about the T CELLS.. I know about the Proteins and that the tests for HIV do not look directly for the virus, but for anti-bodies associated with it. right? so.. Where is the disease? seriously. No Conspiracy SOMETHING is KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE.. so please don't read me wrong. But There are many False tests, and Positive tests, and then false again. Where these results can come from a wide RANGE of problems. So What if some one is told NO they do not have it, but they DO??? How can you tell? Does that make better sense? If not I can try my question again. I am honestly looking for the VIRUS.. not what it is Doing.. What it is DOING is OBVIOUS...

 

[Dreama]

well, aren't you all just pretty impressed with your information? Are you also aware that the tests that check for the antibodies are not standardized and very subjective?

 

[PHPlatonica]

Are you under the impression that the hiv virus has never been identified?



Or are you saying that the link between aids and hiv is still somewhat tentative?

No I was looking for the PHYSICAL Virus. The Actual "bug?" I am not saying HIV and AIDS Doesn't exist, Not at all.. that is not it. I am Wondering if there is possibly another way to Find this specific Virus it's self... Not See what it DOES, that is MORE then Obvious, but rather, how Small is it? what shape is it? Etc.. Wow.. that is what I would really like to know.. Does that clear up things? a little?

 

[PHPlatonica]

Viruses are not cells. They do not exist as cells. Why would you expect us to identify a cell where none exists? Do you search for feathers on rabbit?

Even on YOUR link, it states this:
HIV infection is a chronic infectious disease that can be treated, but not yet cured. There are effective means of preventing complications and delaying progression to AIDS. At the present time, not all persons infected with HIV have progressed to AIDS, but it is generally believed that the majority will. People with HIV infection need to receive education about the disease and treatment so that they can be active partners in decision making with their health care provider.

here, let me Repeat this "AT THE PRESENT TIME, NOT ALL PERSONS INFECTED WITH HIV HAVE PROGRESSED TO AIDS, BUT IT IS GENERALLY BELEIVED THAT THE MAJORITY WILL''''

ok? you see that ? even in the link YOU Gave, they arent Sure.

Read it again if you like. Then read how people die of other illnesses when the cells break down. Dont read me into a "conspiracy theorist" look at the pappers there are for this. It is all I am asking.

 

[PHPlatonica]

Are you under the impression that the hiv virus has never been identified?



Or are you saying that the link between aids and hiv is still somewhat tentative?

Is that a Photo of the Virus itself? or the aftermath of the Virus?

 

[PHPlatonica]

The medical literature spells it out differently – quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they’ll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they’re arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That’s quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the U.S.

In 1985, the World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book “Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC,” saying, “If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases…” The results – African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. (“AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm.” Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily “New Vision” outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes “heaps of unclaimed garbage” among the crowded houses in the flood zones and “countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera.”

 

[PHPlatonica]

At present there are about six dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:

“[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic.” (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). “Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection.” (Medicine International, 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, “the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus.” (Science, November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be “interpreted.” There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There’s just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you’re positive; if you test below it, you’re negative.

So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC’s instructional material: “Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary.” (CDC-EIS, “Screening For HIV,” 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: “Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary….Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?” (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: “[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs,” and one test’s cut-off point had “no predictive value” for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

 

[PHPlatonica]

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you’re positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it’s read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you’re in and what kit they’re using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that “the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns.” (Mayo Clinic Procedural, 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB’s differently, and further noted, “All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria.” (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that “a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive.” (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study “identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity,” saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR, November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. “Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load.” (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:

“The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test….is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.”

But that’s exactly how it is used – to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is “no virologic gold standard” for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The “virologic gold standard” is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren’t specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient’s blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That’s the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: “no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people.” (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that “The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program.” ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: “the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood.” (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that “2.9% to 12.3%” of women in a study tested positive, “depending on the test used,” but “since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate…” (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient’s blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don’t do this, and they’re saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can’t.

That’s why tests are determined through algorithms – above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there’s no virologic gold standard, the world’s top AIDS researchers are saying that what we’re calling HIV isn’t a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we’re suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

 

[Hipparchia]

PHP, I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to say here. Invert Nexus has posted pictures of the virus. We have known what the virus looks like for a very long time. (I think we had identified the virus before we had definitively linked it to AIDS.)

So, once again, we have identified the virus. I believe we have sequenced its genome. We know more about this little bugger than probably most other viruses on the planet. What is confusing me is why you are unaware of this. It only took a couple of minutes of googling to turn up abundant links confirming this. What is it you don't undestand? This is clearly upsetting you, but I don't understand why?

As to identifying the AIDS 'cell', I think you are getting confused. AIDS (Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is not a virus, a prion, a bacteria, or any living (or dead) material thing. It is a collection of associated symptoms that reflect a collapse of the immune system, triggerd by the actions of the (identified) HIV virus.

None of this has much to do with problems in the testing procedure, does it?

 

[PHPlatonica]

Thank you So much for not Jumping on me. I am coming from the Perspective of a None scientific person. Who has Listened to countless adds on Television. To being paranoid in public with sanitizers and alcohol swabs. Not Going to the Bathroom in public restrooms, JUST in case. My Paranoia, was so intense I did not want to leave my Home. I suspected Mental disturbances as the answer, though I had never experienced an anxiety like THIS. So I was told to confront my Fear. If I was not partaking in exotic sexual activities and Drug use, or being around people associated with this Disease.. Then Chances are that I would not contract it. Obviously.. (Please stay with me on this I might be asking my question All wrong I am trying..)

So the issue about donating blood. The way they screen this is VERY scrutinized. And should be because this is a very SERIOUS thing. It is a disease that you could PASS to another Person. Not to mention the associated ways the disease is contracted. That alone shows in a WHOLE that People who are partaking in questionable behaviors are more likely to become infected. So there is a HUGE Social disgust on this disease in the first place. Speaking as an every day person who reads the WARNING signs posted. I could just as easily be hit by a car, but same thing applies, I will take appropriate steps to avoid that.. By like not playing in the street.
So with all those stigmas, as an every day person using common sense, I find out that the same process That is HIV has been detected in the blood. a second test disproves that. But a third test is questionable. So you wait. Lets not even consider the emotional feelings and stress. after 6 months, the test is retaken. Again it is positive For HIV the second and third test are not. !!!!??? Immediately under Quarantine laws, your name is placed on a file of Positive. Because one test indicated a positive, you are automatically taken off the blood donation list. I don't know how many People in the every day, general population, know that. Even though the other tests show negative. Of course the personal Fear and anxiety in it self can compromise the immune system. But this part of the Epidemic is not Public, and far more Damaging to households and individuals. So you go to find the Actual AIDS. But that is not there. You are just HIV Positive on Two tests, while the Other 4 state No. Plus you are now on a "list". But you Do not have AIDS. And HIV is Not being seen again.
Then before the Fear and depression Destroy you completely, you go in search for the actual "AIDS" and you Find that there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS, But not all HIV turns into AIDS, and there have been AIDS cases that there is No HIV present. So the search is still on. But When It boils Down to a Person. TO say YOU, wouldn't you like to know? Should you go under quarantine? And Every one Else is saying "Don't sweat it. If it was negative it's negative." So What made it Positive in the first Place? Why Cant the actual "AIDS" be Pinpointed and tested automatically, with out the protein problems of HIV?
So.. Gosh, I hope that makes better sense? I do not want to mislead any one with my inquiry at all. I don't think it's some LIE or conspiracy. I just want to know what it is, and maybe that All those "Positive" People out there, on pretty strong Drugs, Need to be monitored and the Culprit that IS actually AIDS is tested for, instead of HIV.
ok.. Im going to try that, and Really hope that makes more sense.

 

[MetaKron]

If you look at the electron micrographs very carefully and in the right frame of mind, you can label every molecule correctly, right down to the last atom, and place each atom in its three-dimensional structure. You can also work out the DNA chain and predict exactly what that strain can do and how it kills.

I just didn't see it before. How blind of me.

 

[jshatz]

Go to a library a pick up a textbook you stupid dumb-ass HIV conspiracy theory piece of shit.<P>

Attacking someone and calling them cruel names is a 3rd grade way to disagree. If you have something to give or offer, then do so. But attacking a person's character or intelligence is the weakest attempt in any discussion. I only imagine that by demeaning unknowns via the internet, you somehow feel powerful. Pathetic, really. It's the classic fallacy in any logical discussion. What a sad life you must lead.

 

[jshatz]

I believe what Platonica is saying is not so much "does it exist", but more of the nonstandardized way we test and try identify HIV or AIDS. HIV testing tests only for the antibodies to the virus, not the virus itself. We have not found a way to isolate the actual virus for testing purposes. There are people who have HIV who never develop AIDS, and the non HIV AIDS category.

I am a healthy, middle class, non drug using, married woman who tried to donate blood recently. The HIV screening test (ELISA) came up positive for HIV antibodies in my blood. Further confirmatory tests showed negative results. Why did I have a false positive read? A Hepatitis B vaccination I received shortly before donating. There are dozens of empirically proven reasons (including vaccinations, flu) why false positives occur.

Here is where the "conspiracy theory" starts. In Africa, people get 1 ELISA screening test only. This is where our numbers of HIV cases are greatly inflated. Google the exaggeration on actual HIV cases in the world. So, if I lived in Africa right now, I would be considered HIV positive, although several expensive confirmatory tests (because I have the means and money for them) show negative.

The theories involved are more of the social construct of how we market and identify the virus. If you read the medical journals on HIV and AIDS, it is all very clear and they don't hide that we know very little about it. We have to read more than the headlines of the news or the first thing that pops up on a google search!

Please read the article and the referenced PEER REVIEWED medical journals.