PhPlatonica,
Ok. First. Let's go over Josef's articles. Shall we?
First, he goes on about African Aids and the way that it is defined:
"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)"
First off, I don't understand exactly why he threw in the reference to "AIDS in Africa" there. The decision to use the physical symptoms rather than an hiv test for definition of AIDS was not part of the paper. In fact, it was specifically mentioned in the paper that a problem with assesing the "geographic scope and intensity of AIDS and HIV infection in Africa" is that, among other things, "the widely used CDC/WHO definition of AIDS requires sophisticated laboratory support for diagnosis of opportunistic infections and malignancies and exclusion of other known causes of immunodeficiency".
In other words, the paper,
AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm is not setting up definitions, but is rather using definitions set up previously. The definition of AIDS used at this time was the
Bangui Definition which Hassleberger had mentioned just prior to the above quote.
Now. Hasslberger goes on to say this: "Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS."
He makes a logical blunder in assuming that since the Bangui definition of AIDS includes certain symptoms as part of the criteria, that it overrules all these other diseases. In other words, according to Hasslberger, after 1985 there were no more deaths by dysentary or cholera in Africa. This is just plain disinformation.
Read the link I've provided for the Bangui Defintion above. It clearly shows that a certain score must be achieved, with each particular criteria having a certain point value. Dying from dysentary does NOT qualify as AIDS. Shame, shame, Hasslberger. You're lying.
Another flagrant lie in this is that Hasslberger states that famine became AIDS. But, if you look at the link I've provided, you'll see that pronounced malnutrition is an exclusion criteria.
Shame, Hasslberger. Scaring the good people so that you can sell your herbal supplements. How mercenary can you get?
(Seriously. This Hasslberger guy is a punk.)
Now. Just stop and think for a minute. Why did they do this? Why did they use these diseases as a criteria for AIDS? What does AIDS do? It reduces your immunological response. AIDS doesn't kill you. It merely opens you up to opportunistic infections. It is these infections which kill you. Therefore, using the infections as a criteria for diagnosis of AIDS (for reasons of keeping track of an epidemic) is not necessarily a bad idea. However, according to the paper referenced from Science, and from which I've quoted, it's easier said than done to perform all the proper diagnostic tests to do even that.
Remember, this was also in the early days of the epidemic. The Bangui definition was created because serum testing wasn't available widely at the time. You might be interested to learn that there is a
new definition of AIDS by the WHO. Basically, it just recommends that an HIV test be performed, but if that's not possible then use the Bangui definition.
So. Where are we?
I think that answers part of the issue of misdiagnosis in Africa.
***Time passes***
Ok.
Now my eyes are bleeding and I've got hiv figuratively falling out my yin-yang (FIGURATIVELY, you hear!?! Muaha!!)
So.
I'm going to hurry up and post what I've discovered. Hopefully some of this will answer some of your questions.
I'll forego going into detail into the life-cycle of the virus which I'd considered explaining before. Instead, I'll focus on what I've learned about hiv screening? Ok? If you'd like more information on the virus itself, I could try to explain it to you in layman's terms as well as I'm able.
Alrighty.
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.
Well. They're hedging their bets. But, the criteria for linking HIV with AIDS is strong. As strong as for any other disease and microbe that is well-accepted.
Here. I've found this page at the CDC that answers a large amount of questions you might have:
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS.
Some selected passages:
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
1. Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
2. Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
3. Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.
With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.
Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
That isn't all. There is more instances of infected health care workers as well as evidence from animal studies.
The link between HIV and AIDS is a sound one. The fact that not all people with HIV have AIDS is due to the fact that life cycle of the virus is a complicated one. There are many factors which cause the virus to come out of latency and cause AIDS. These factors are complex and are not completely known. This is why there is the hesitancy you read when people are hedging their bets on the HIV/AIDS connection as shown in wikipedia's article.
By the way, you can read a bit about Koch's Postulates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates (Wikipedia is always a good place to
start.
Then read how people die of other illnesses when the cells break down.
This is in regards to the possibility that it's not HIV that causes the immune problems but rather the drugs used to treat HIV?
Again. From the above linked CDC page:
MYTH: AZT and other antiretroviral drugs, not HIV, cause AIDS.
FACT: The vast majority of people with AIDS never received antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to the licensure of AZT in 1987, and people in developing countries today where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS, 2000).
As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals.
In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo. Among HIV-infected patients who had not yet developed AIDS, placebo-controlled trials found that AZT given as single-drug therapy delayed, for a year or two, the onset of AIDS-related illnesses. Significantly, long-term follow-up of these trials did not show a prolonged benefit of AZT, but also never indicated that the drug increased disease progression or mortality. The lack of excess AIDS cases and death in the AZT arms of these placebo-controlled trials effectively counters the argument that AZT causes AIDS (NIAID, 1995).
Subsequent clinical trials found that patients receiving two-drug combinations had up to 50 percent increases in time to progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to people receiving single-drug therapy. In more recent years, three-drug combination therapies have produced another 50 percent to 80 percent improvements in progression to AIDS and in survival when compared to two-drug regimens in clinical trials. Use of potent anti-HIV combination therapies has contributed to dramatic reductions in the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths in populations where these drugs are widely available, an effect which clearly would not be seen if antiretroviral drugs caused AIDS (Figure 1; CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM 1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al. Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717; Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190; CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ 1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687).
There
have been studies. The studies have shown that the drugs do not cause AIDS.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists would now interject with "Consider your sources." But, when you start accusing scientists of lying because they don't say what you want to hear... where is there left to turn?
Is that a Photo of the Virus itself?
Yes. That is the virus itself. Cultured, I imagine. The virus is known. It is identified. It's genome has been examined. HIV is perhaps one of the best-known viruses on this planet.
Let me take this opportunity to comment on something
Metakron says:
Metakron said:
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.
I take it that your stance is that AIDS is a lie, yes? It's just another tactic by the bully-powers-that-be to push you down?
Come on, don't be thick.
The picture is just a picture. The structure of the virus is determined through other methods.
Are you trying to say that molecular biology is a bunch of bunk and lies?
What is your stance, Metakron? Why don't you spit it out instead of being the passive-aggressive cunt that you are? Come on. Stand up and be a man for a change. Pretend I'm a bully and let me have it.
Alright.
Now where were we?
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:
I don't have access to all these journals, I'm afraid. But I have seen that Hasslberger has taken other quotes out of context (and I believe he completely fabricated some). So, I'll have to take the quotes he provides on his site with a grain of salt. Maybe a salt shaker would be a better term.
I went into this actually expecting to find that the tests weren't altogether accurate. That a large number of false positives occur. That a huge number of factors can cause false positives.
What I've come across suggests different.
Again. From the page that I linked above:
MYTH: HIV antibody testing is unreliable.
FACT: Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity (the ability of the screening test to give a positive finding when the person tested truly has the disease ) and specificity (the ability of the test to give a negative finding when the subjects tested are free of the disease under study). Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable WHO, 1998; Sloand et al. JAMA 1991;266:2861).
Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55.
Above 98 percent accuracy.
There are a number of different types of tests and I I've not found a page that lists them all with their respective accuracies, but I have found tables comparing a few and they all range in 99 percent above.
I've also found a page on guidelines for labs that do HIV testing and they are
required to confirm the accuracy and specificity of the tests. They are not
allowed to simply take the manufacturer's word for it.
This says something. (This is, by the way, what science is all about. Science is not about dry facts, but rather it is a method. A means of verification hypotheses and theories rather than faith-based acceptance.)
Now. In the above quote is another answer to another question you ask in your most recent post:
And, I would like to know Are there any tests that can specifically Define and isolate the disease AIDS.
Err. Well. Not exactly, I guess.
Understand this, Platonica. AIDS is a
syndrome. It's not a virus. HIV is a virus and eventually causes AIDS.
So. I'll instead answer the question as if you'd asked if there are tests that specifically find HIV rather than antibodies.
The answer is: Yes.
"Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests."
Using PCR, they've even been able to find the inserted HIV genetic material within the genetic material of the host. (HIV is a type of virus that actually inserts its genetic material directly into your DNA rather than just hanging out in the nucleus of the cell.)
Another interesting fact I've found out from this page (
U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines for Testing and Counseling Blood and Plasma Donors for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Antigen) is that not only is blood and plasma tested for antibodies, but it is also tested for the p24 antigen. The p24 antigen is a key structural protein (it composes part of the shell) and is detectable 6 days prior to antibodies being detectable in the blood.
According to the page, the procedure is as follows:
If the first screening test is reactive, the p24 EIA is repeated in duplicate. If both duplicate tests are nonreactive, the test result is reported as negative. If at least one of the repeated p24 EIA tests is reactive, the test is considered repeatedly reactive; the donation is then discarded, the donor is deferred from donating blood, and a more specific assay (the neutralization assay) is performed to verify the presence of p24 antigen. The neutralization assay should be performed before informing donors of test results.
So. I wonder what this 'neutralization assay' is exactly? I haven't found anything on it as of yet and, frankly, I'm tired. I'll look into it more later for you. Maybe someone else here already knows and can save me the trouble.
These tests, by the way, are also 99 percent plus accurate and specific.
Need I go on? Read the links and if you have questions, I'll try to answer them.
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.
Again. I haven't been able to track down anything specific on all the tests, but according to the CDC, they're quite accurate.
Yes. There are false positives, but they tend to get weeded out.
There was a recent news article about a guy in Scotland who tested positive for HIV and then later tested negative. The implication of the article was that he somehow beat the virus. This indicates that cases where a final diagnosis of positive being overturned is quite rare. I'm sure it does happen, but the numbers are good.
Of course, that doesn't help when you're one of the few hanging on uncertainty.
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.
I don't have a clue what this 'gold standard' is all about. The CDC states that the tests are highly specific. And accurate.
Someone's lying.
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.
And this can be done. And has been done. It's expensive though.
Also. It's funny that he mentions this right after talking shit on the PCR tests which are another form of direct testing.
These types of tests are not part of the standard regimen of tests and are thus technically meant enough to diagnose HIV. But, that is only a matter of definition and protocol.
If the virus genes are in your body, then that means you have the virus.
If the virus is able to be cultured from your body. Then that means that you have the virus.
Refer to Koch's postulates again.
Damn.
This is long. I know.
Is there anything left that I wanted to address?
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.
From the CDC:
How long does it take for HIV to cause AIDS?
Prior to 1996, scientists estimated that about half the people with HIV would develop AIDS within 10 years after becoming infected. This time varied greatly from person to person and depended on many factors, including a person's health status and their health-related behaviors.
Since 1996, the introduction of powerful anti-retroviral therapies has dramatically changed the progression time between HIV infection and the development of AIDS. There are also other medical treatments that can prevent or cure some of the illnesses associated with AIDS, though the treatments do not cure AIDS itself. Because of these advances in drug therapies and other medical treatments, estimates of how many people will develop AIDS and how soon are being recalculated, revised, or are currently under study.
As with other diseases, early detection of infection allows for more options for treatment and preventative health care.
Really, you should spend some time reading this site:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
It's got stuff from the simple to the complex.
Anything you don't understand, bring it back here and we'll try to help you.
Much better reading stuff from legitimate sources than crackpot sites like that Hasslberger guy.
***page refresh***
Oh. Great. It's back:
Metakron,
You don't embarass easily, do you, Hercules? Your mama should have walloped some manners into you and your science teachers failed entirely.
Sounds like you're promoting that very behavior which you devote so much time to whining about.
Hypocrite or anything?
I didn't actually catch that when Hercules said it. Pathetic, isn't it? He has to call someone a conspiracy dumbass piece of shit because he doesn't understand the science.
What do you know about science? Do you have any idea what Hercules does for a living? He apologized for jumping on Platonica like he did. And he explained well why he jumped to his conclusions. Her opening post and poll are very misleading (unintentionally, as it turns out.)
Now. You on the other hand.
You
are a conspiracy theory piece of shit. Right?
Come on. Tell us all about how AIDS is a big fat lie. Tell us about how your mother and your small town bullies are all behind it.
I'd love to hear your reasoning.
If not. Then shut the fuck up.
You add nothing here.
And, yes, we all have been lied to, by people who use a lot of intimidation to push their shit.
You mean mercenaries like Hasslberger who try selling holistic garbage to people like you?
"AIDS is LIE!! Buy my herbal supplements!!!"
It's just more and more pathetic because they can't even tell good lies anymore.
Be specific.
What isn't good about the lie?
What is it that 'tipped you off'?
Put up or shut up.
you guys are awesome. Thank you.