-
Joe_zop:
I have been following the debate in this forum, and you and I debated the HIV/AIDS controversy before (in the Thailand forum).
For the information of other posters here, I am squarely on the side of the minority view, or the "denialists" as some call them. To me, the whole HIV/AIDS theory just does not add up.
I have little to add on this, and I agree with the posts below from masaji lover, among others.
The point I want to make about your latest post is the following: you write "things that lull people into thinking they're safe when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences." Now that is insulting for the intelligence of your fellow humans, in particular those who are litterate enough to be reading the posts on this forum.
Don't you think that people can decide for themselves? We are in front of a medical controversy. There are scientist on both sides, with equally impressive credentials. Yes there are many more on the side of the majority (by definition ...) but there is no necessary truth in numbers.
I have been debating this issue for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that you cannot convince people that the HIV/AIDS theory is flawed. All you can do is to make them aware that there is indeed a controversy, point them in the direction of material supporting the Duesberg views etc., and then let them get on that journey if they so wish.
Ultimately, the issue is not only to know whether HIV exists, or even if it causes AIDS, on its own or as a cofactor. There is a very real issue for any HIV positive person to know whether they need to damage their health permanently by taking highly toxic drugs even as they are asymptomatic.
To paraphrase you, I would say "things that lull people into thinking that they need to take huge amounts of toxic drugs to prevent them being sick when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences as well".
In my view, this is the only thing that really matters in the whole controversy.
Safe sex campaigns do not work. People still have unprotected sex quite a lot (several "classic" STDs are still going pretty strong).
HIV infection rates are still high, this is not surprising as more people get tested than ever before, which tends to increase dramatically the number of "false positives", if you do not believe that all positives are false positives that is.
Billions of dollars have been spent for very little, and there are calls for more. The lobbies are in full swing.
The only thing that really makes a difference is that we are able to help people who are faced with the decision to go on tritherapies etc. to decide for themselves. We must not let those poor souls who have been delivered their HIV positive results go unsupported as the men in white gather around them with their lethal drugs.
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop[i] I actually know a disproportionately large number of friends and aquaintances here in the US who have died from AIDS [/i][/QUOTE]
I don't take sides on this debate and would rather practice safe sex than worry, but I would be sincerely interested to know if any of these friends of yours who unfortunately died were exclusively heterosexual non-drug users.
-
Seydlitz,
Letting "people decide for themselves" is fine if you are choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. But when it comes to a potenially fatal virus, I think good science is more important than personal choice. The virus is either responsible for millions of deaths or -as Duesberg believes - it's relatively harmless. If one theory is correct, the other is wrong. It is not a matter of personal choice. Choose wrong and you may die. Or worse, infect other partners and ultimate kill yourself and 100's of others.
.
The point about "handing out free death sentences" relates to the fact that if HIV is harmless, then safe sex is unimportant. Simply stay away from certain drugs and you will be healthy. Who cares if you acquire the virus or pass it on to others? Even if you fervently believe this theory, I still believe it is irresponsible to youself and others to help spread HIV.
.
As to the idea that "there are scientists with impressive credentials on both sides" - you make it seem as if it's a 60-40 split between the two sides. Sorry, it's not even 100 to 1. The "minority scientists" are a VERY tiny minority. Most followers are AIDS activists and anti-AZT people, many already HIV+. While pointing out some interesting problems with the HIV-AIDS link, the cause of all these deaths has not been explained by the Duesberg followers. AZT and anti-viral drugs are the cause of AIDS? Then why has the death rate dropped so dramatically by using them? Why did so many die before AZT? Heroin, cocaine and poppers are the root cause - along with an unhealthy lifestyle? Then why didn't these common drugs kill in the millions before the AIDS virus appeared? No shortage of these drugs during the 50's, 60's and 70's. And plenty of unhealthy lifestyles.
.
The decision to take AZT-type drugs or not is indeed a personal one. And it may well be true that the toxicity of these drugs has killed some patients. But the idea of NOT supporting safe sex for HIV prevention is ridiculous, no matter what you believe . . .
-
Seydlitz:
Yes, we've debated it before, and I continue to respect your intelligence, reasoning, and veracity, even if I disagree with your point of view. I'm well aware that in no way have you at all advocated unsafe sexual practice, and, again, I respect you greatly for that. You well know that I've consistently defended your right to post information about alternative theories, and I hope you continue to do so. (That does not, of course, mean in any way that I'll not keep my option to disagree.) And I agree with you that people can decide for themselves, and I encourage everyone to read fully in order to do so.
However, the truth is that the vast majority of folks will not take the time to follow down the web links, or to delve into the specifics of the studies enough to really understand them or even to read deeply enough to take a personal position that's based on looking at something close to source materials. Things like "Isn't it amazing how much bigger and stronger Magic Johnson has gotten" is not rational factual argument about the AIDS debate; it's inflammatorily misleading at best. And statements such as trainbum17's that statistics are irrelevant because he only knows one person who's got AIDS, so he feels he's ok not worrying about safe sex -- sorry, but the fact that I believe in people intelligently making up their minds doesn't mean I surrender the right to react to statements such as those.
There are several aspects where you and I are at odds. First, you and I disagree about the weight of credentials on one side or another. While there are a couple who I consider credible and stellar on the Duesberg side, there are also those who I consider utterly uncredentialled and crackpots. We disagree clearly about the value of studies and information on this or that side. You and I also disagree about treatments -- I have friends who consider (as do I) that the only reason at all they are alive is based on those treatment therapies as we've watched their health wane and wax along with the treatments. Some of them have gone the routes suggested by some of the Duesberg literature and are not alive to partake in the debate, and others have gone the treatment route and are similarly not alive. So I'm not comforted by things which are basically attempts to reclassify, discredit, or rework statistics -- no matter what the final numbers end up being, my friends are still dead and I will not see them again.
Finally, and most importantly, we disagree about the framework of the debate. To you, it is about the treatment, whether or not people's health is being damaged as a result of that, and whether there is basically a conspiracy to get lots of money to fund false research. To me, particularly in a forum such as this which is all about high-risk sexual practice (defined so by having multiple partners who bring a greater degree of exposure into the equation) this is about intelligent sexual behavior, understanding that there are risks in unsafe practices, and getting a handle on where the risks lie. To me, this is not about the economics or the treatment, this is about the disease.
-
[quote]originally posted by dickhead
[i]
i don't take sides on this debate and would rather practice safe sex than worry, but i would be sincerely interested to know if any of these friends of yours who unfortunately died were exclusively heterosexual non-drug users. [/i][/quote]
i can't swear absolutely about the drug side of things, but needle stuff wasn't prevalent though other stuff (chiefly coke and speed) probably was being used by some. it wasn't a druggie crowd, but this [b]was[/b] the eighties. they weren't all gay but lots were. some of the women probably did have sexual contact with bisexual lovers, but to me that simply means that the risk enters my domain, as i had sexual opportunities with some of them (not taken, but they were there.)
-
joe_zop,
thanks for the kind words.
as you pointed out, I never advocated unsafe sex practices. Quite the contrary. It seems obvious to me that even if you brush aside HIV as either inexistant or harmless, you still have to face tens of bad old STDs, some of them rather nasty, and also the age-old risk of pregnancy.
There is a difference though. STDs, unpleasant as they may be, can be cured, and pregnancy is primarily an issue for the woman. HIV scare is the only thing that is strong enough to have many men use condoms. That is why, I guess, any debate that might lessen that scare is heretic.
About conspiracy etc. , I would not say that I believe there is a conspiracy. There is enough confusion to enable anybody to continue uttering the most outrageous theories along the lines of HIV/AIDS. Recently, I read that the virus keeps a memory of all the failed treatments, thus making it necessary to imagine ever more complex drugs to fight it. That is pretty smart from a mere retrovirus that is after all a very elementary entity. Someone also said last week that even with very powerful retroviral drugs, it might be impossible to eradicate the virus for another 73 years (why 73?). The HIV lobby is preparing the careers of their sons and daughters.
I suspect that western governments are aware that there is a controversy, and many in those circles have doubts about the whole hings. President Mbeki has been quite vocal over the last two years. But who would have the courage to speak up, when it is so much easier to go along.
In the west, governments continue to funds AIDS research, and foot the bill for retroviral drugs. After all it is public spending, a very Keynesian approach. It stimulates the economy, just like building roads etc. Big pharmaceutical companies benefit from that money, but they provide jobs, and they pay taxes. Little harm done here, although we could do with more schools and swimming pools, and rather less pharma subsidies.
As for Africa (and China now. It seems that the powers-that-be have written off Africa, as decidedly too backward to be a presentable AIDS victim continent, and China is the new star. At least there, they can find a single government), western governments do not care about it. It is relatively easy to promise money, not to give it, or to give much less, and even take that money from budgets already assigned to foreign aid.
Africans will not be given access to sophisticated retroviral drugs, which is rather a good thing given their toxicity. It is somewhat ironic that there is a debate on giving retroviral drugs to people who might not even have access to enough water to take the damned pills.
So back to personal choice. If someone tested positive to HIV, knowing that those tests ARE flawed, (even the manufacturers say that they should not be used to diagnose anything), while being otherwise healthy (asymptomatic), what wrong could that person do by refusing to take retroviral drugs, and see what happens ? To put the safe sex lobby at ease, let's assume that the person practices safe sex and uses condoms all the time.
If that person becomes sick, he or she can be treated for the disease for which he of she has symptoms. And of course that person would do better to stop all those activities connected to risk groups (drugs, etc.) and get a healtier lifestyle.
Ultimately, it is a bet with your own life. Nobody should be given authority to overule a person on what to do with that person's life.
There is one thorny issue, though: children. Should parents be given the right to decline retroviral drug treatments for their HIV positive children ? I think yes.
-
Prokofiev,
you will find nowhere that I ever advocated unsafe sex. Most of us on WSG have intercourse with prostitutes. That is a relatively unsafe activity. Unsafe sex behaviors make us take personal risks, and force our other partners (the wife in particular) to share in those risks, which is irresponsible. Could I be clearer ?
This does not change anything to the HIV/AIDS debate.
You say "The "minority scientists" are a VERY tiny minority". This is true, but a very vocal one. And one can only admire their persistence, and their courage to put their careers at risk wwhen it would be so easy to go along with the flow and be a respected orthodox AIDS scientist.
You say : "No shortage of these drugs during the 50's, 60's and 70's. And plenty of unhealthy lifestyles. " Indeed, and many deaths as well. Just not identified as AIDS cases until a virus, HIV, was connected with a list of pre-existing diseases.
Drugs make people sick and eventually kill them. This is why many are illegal. What made the difference in the 80s was the creation of communities in which those unhealthy lifestyles were concentrated. People died as before, but now they died in clusters in big American cities (NY and SF in particular). It is the increased occurence of those deaths in relativly closed circles that did draw the attention and lead to the suspicion that something was going on. Then came Gallo and HIV.
I do not understand why it was necessary to invent a viral theory, with a totally new virus, so special that it can do increasingly amazing things, to explain what was observed.
-
Seydlitz:
Regarding the virus having a "memory" -- c'mon now, this is pretty standard stuff, HIV or not! There are many, many viruses out there which have mutated and rendered treatments useless or less effective, requiring more sophisticated ones to be developed. I could cite malaria and the flu off the top of my head, but there are dozens of others. The fact that this is about HIV/AIDS doesn't suddenly make it newsworthy or unusual. It's not about a "smart" retrovirus, it's about evolutionary process. To label an established and understood process as somehow an "outrageous theory" only inflames the rhetoric and adds to the confusion you decry.
And the fact that people make stupid statements about numeric estimates as a way of getting their names in the paper is nothing new and has nothing to do with the facts of the debate. Estimates in this arena are like estimates in any other -- a guess by someone who supposedly has a decent idea. It's not canonical law; it's a guess. "The HIV lobby is preparing the careers of their sons and daughters." Perhaps, instead, the HIV lobby is attempting to bring a dose of reality into the process by lowering short-term expectations in the face of difficult science.
Your statements about public health funding could easily be directed toward any kind of funding, not just HIV. How many years has funding been directed toward cancer, muscular dystrophy, and many others, as opposed to building swimming pools? I can also make the same statements about money going to the farm lobby, weapons research, etc., as opposed to things I'd prefer to see supported.
"What made the difference in the 80s was the creation of communities in which those unhealthy lifestyles were concentrated." Oh, come on -- this is just a ludicrous statement. There have been large concentrations of gays and drug users before, and in fact the historical truth is that these communities, as well as others, have always congregated. People have a tendency to seeks affiliation, purely and simply. In truth, as well, these concentrations took place well before the 80's -- the gay bathouse scene in NYC was in full swing for many years before the 80's and the infamous song YMCA celebrating the fact was from the 70's. The truth of the matter is that the rumors and talk of a "gay plague" is what brought the issue to the forefront in the US, but that discussion was going on well before HIV was labelled as the potential indicator.
As to your final point regarding what parents should be able to do regarding their children's treatment with retroviral drug treatments -- look at the similar issues and arguments that have surrounded, say, laetrile treatments, among others and religious beliefs. One of the things I think is a mistake in the HIV/AIDS discussion is not placing it firmly within the context of other such debates, as such issues have arisen and been discussed before, and those discussions can provide a context for looking at them again.
Again, always good to debate with you on this topic, as healthy dialogue and thought requires opposing points of view.
-
joe_zop:
The evolutionary pattern is of course that there are subtle variations of genetic material across a given population, and the most fit survive to reproduce themselves. Nature is smart, not the individuals. What I find outrageous about the virus memory thing is that it is presented just like that. The cunning little virus learns from the past attempts at eradicating it and adapts. This presentation gives the damn thing a diabolical dimension that does not help, I think.
About gay communities, of course there have been some for a long time in large cities. It is easier to live a gay life in NY than in Anytown, USA. But those communities grew to a new, large proportion and engaged in increasingly dangerous behaviors relatively recently, say the mid 70's. It took a while for their lifestyle to take its toll, then they started dying in larger numbers than before. Then the world noticed, by the mid 80s. And then Gallo.
About children etc. I am in favor of science. And it is because of that that I have a difficulty to accept that you give toxic drugs to a healthy person, because of a theory that has quite a few weaknesses, to say the least. And if that person is a child, I find unacceptable that the authorities can take the child away.
Overruling parents who oppose treatment for their sick child, whose sickness is detectable and the treatment established to be curative, is one thing. Administering drugs to fight a virus whose trace cannot even be found, only antibodies, drugs that still have tu cure one single person, not just hypothetically lengthen his life, is a totally different matter.
In any case, I have no control on public spending, or the press. I just sit and wait. One day, that madness will stop, and we will see.
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seydlitz
[i]joe_zop:
Administering drugs to fight a virus whose trace cannot even be found, only antibodies, drugs that still have tu cure one single person, not just hypothetically lengthen his life, is a totally different matter.
[/i][/QUOTE]
So (if we remove the "trace" aspects as being some sort of trump card) the argument is that preventive drugs in all forms should be off the table, in your estimation? Or things given to people that might lengthen their lives but don't cure them?
My diabetic cousin, whose parents over her objections injected her with insulin for years without her being cured, will not be thrilled about that concept now that she's an adult. And we'll need to change rather completely our public health policies regarding vaccinations, as we're basically injecting people, including kids, with weakened forms of deadly things to which some have negative reactions, not to cure them but instead to hypothetically lengthen their lives. And, yes, I know there are differences in the specifics of some of these things, but you're talking about drawing a specific line in a broad public policy issue.
I think the difficulty here is where we stand right now in the process, which is in the early stages to middle of the developmental process. In ten to twenty years this will all look silly, one way or another. At least so I earnestly hope!
-
Joe_zop:
you are twisting what I said.
First, vaccination is all right, as a technique to trigger the production of antibodies that will protect the patient. It is well established, and it is specific. There is one vaccine per disease, with specific antibodies expected.
The problem with HIV is that it is not associated with a specific disease, and that infected patients do not generate specifc antibodies, wich is why the tests cross-react and cause false positives.
It is that simple: no virus, no antibodies, no vaccine. But then there in no disease either.
And your diabetic cousin was in no danger with my theory either. She had a serious life-treatening condition, and insulin was demonstrated as a means to remedy to that condition. Sadly, she cannot be cured, but as long as she takes the insulin, she will be fine.
This is not the case for people on tritherapies. They are healthy to start with, then they take 20-30 pills a day that damage their health beyond recovery. Their immune system collapses, they get one of many diseases and they die. Another victim of this tragedy.
It is so much the opposite of your cousin's situation: there are increasing occurences of doctors prescribing drug holidays to their patients who suffer too much from the tritherapy. Do you believe that your cousin's doctor would have prescribed an insulin holiday ? Doctors know that the drugs are highly toxic. They prescribe them anyway, but they can accept that the treatment be suspended. Realpolitik ?
-
Although I am a dickhead and this must always be taken into consideration when judging the value of my opinion, it seems to me that if everyone used condoms and practiced safe sex, this either disease or alleged disease, or virus or alleged virus, would die out in a generation. Seems like a small price to pay considering the lack of medical consensus and the extreme and overarching risk involved.
Seems to me like there's risks worth taking, and there's risks not worth taking.
Now anyone who has not been practicing safe sex and is running around exposing others to this either disease or alleged disease, is a shithead, IMO, and that is far worse than being a
Dickhead
-
Seydlitz, you are completely missing my point, which was about your call for broad public policies that allow people to assert, against the prevailing medical opinion, that a treatment should not be given to minors. That very much is in the same category as the examples I mentioned. As I said, the science of those precise examples doesn't track, and I was not at all talking about your theory, but you were talking about policy and not medicine and my examples relate to policy.
Your perspective that tritherapies absolutely damage people's systems, do no good, and in fact cause damage and disease, is decidedly a minority opinion. While I think it's very important that the issues continue to be debated and the prevailing wisdom challenged and flaws pointed out and pursued, that doesn't mean that the minority opinion should suddenly become a matter of policy.
The truth of it is very simple -- if someone who is HIV-positive chooses to believe the same things that you do, they are under no obligation, providing that they are an adult, to enter into tritherapies. Yes, they will be strongly urged to do so precisely because according the the vast majority of the medical profession that is the indicated treatment. But it is their choice -- no one can force you to undergo radiation therapy for cancer if you choose not to, and no one can force you to undergo this therapy either. You are free to reject prevailing wisdom and seek other options, and that is how it should be as long as doing so doesn't pose a substantial public health risk (which, since neither approach eliminates the HIV indication and thereby the potential transmission, is the case here.)
The problematic aspect I see in all of this, to be honest, is contained in Dickhead's indictment -- that your position indicates to folks who are HIV-positive that they are not in any way a danger to other people, so they should feel free to do as they please, including, (if they choose to be, as Dickhead labels them, shitheads) engaging in unsafe sex. And please note the distinction I'm making -- I'm not saying you are endorsing that approach or implication as I know that's very much not the case, I'm saying it is a conclusion someone could come to based on the argument that HIV does not lead to AIDS. If your position is correct, then no damage will be done by this. If your position is incorrect, then the there is the possibility that infectious people who believe they are not a risk will act irresponsibly and infect still more people.
-
The idea that drugs, gay sex and unhealthy lifestyles suddenly occured in the early 80's is laughable. Concentrations of gay men in New York, Paris, New Orleans, San Fran etc. goes back to the last CENTURY, at least. Bathhouses and public urinals since Roman times have been centers of gay sexual activity. The % of gay men has remained constant through time. Their numbers grew with the population, not any faster. The only change in the 70's was that it became more open and that the other 90% of the population became aware of what had been happening for the last few millenia. "Gay Pride" emerged. The sex was always there.
.
The assertion that drug addicts and gay men have always been dying and we only just noticed it in the early 80's is absurd. AIDS was recognized years before the HIV virus. Something DRAMATIC had happened in a short period of time. Perhaps the numbers are now inflated, but millions of people were not dying "unnoticed" prior to 1981.
.
-
Although I don't have any kids, for which the world should probably be thankful, if I DID I would vaccinate them against known or suspected dangers such as measles, diphtheria, and yes even smallpox post 9/11.
I am a pragmatist as well as a dickhead and so I think if this generation used condoms it would "vaccinate" future generations against AIDS, alleged AIDS, HIV, alleged HIV, hepatitis A thru Z and all its possible alleged permutations, and plus maybe annoying non-fatal shit like chlamydia, the clap, and assorted other drips, leaks, and drizzles. That would be good, I think.
Condoms do make sex less pleasurable and anyone who claims otherwise is probably only using them to jack off into. I like math (sorry, FU) so here is some. If condoms make sex say 50% less pleasurable (probably an overstatement in my opinion; I'd say more like 25% if someone is holding a gun to my head), maybe one way to make up for that would be to fuck twice as often. Or as I posted a long time ago, before I had perfected my Dickhead persona, if the condom eliminates 50% of the sensation, make her suck twice as hard.
I am a patriot. Not an American patriot, but a pussy patriot. It is our patriotic duty as men to practice safe sex, and women's patriotic duty to suck as hard as necessary for us to get a good, safe, guilt-free nut.
This is my opinion (and JZ, please do not refer to my opinions as indictments as I am not running for attorney general). I don't like condoms, but I don't like red lights either and I stop at them anyway.
Your less than humble, overly opinionated, but loyal and reasonably well-informed servant,
Dickhead