Why I Quit Hiv

[♦ nivek ♦]

Long article with links, pop the hotlink for one hellova read.

 

kL

[Foxy Methoxy]

I've always wondered if we were just blindly accepting that HIV causes AIDS. Magic Johnson has had the virus for what, 13 or 14 years now without contracting AIDS?

[trashy]

Long article with links, pop the hotlink for one hellova read.

 

kL

 

dude, this article is blowing my freakin' mind!

[Cynetix]

Wow. One could just trade the word Christianity with HIV in several places in this article and you would quickly notice some similiarities to another unprovable fallacy we deal with on a daily basis...

 

Good read Nivek. Tanky.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Well, that's horribly offensive. Let's just chuck out all observational evidence because one dumb bitch says so.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Well, that's horribly offensive. Let's just chuck out all observational evidence because one dumb bitch says so.

 

 

From article authors vitae:

 

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [rebeccavculshaw@yahoo.com], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.

 

 

"One dumb bitch"

 

Above comment is from a peer reviewed medical expert, scientist, physician, techologist who is living on the cutting edge of research?

Just what are your quals to call Ms. Culshaw a "dumb bitch"?

 

Post your professonial works and references here, or if not comfortable showing them, feel free to PM them.

 

Ms. Culshaw's e.mail address is above so you can file your enlightened complaints right to her Inbox.

 

Please be sure to post her reply to you here on Boards.

 

Quite interested in what a "dumb bitch" has to say to such an important formerly unknown member of the medical research community.

 

 

kevinL

[pandora]

While intriguing, I won't be convinced until I read up more on my own AND an immunologist/virologist (not just a "mathematical biologist) comes out with the same opinion.

[trashy]

While intriguing, I won't be convinced until I read up more on my own AND an immunologist/virologist (not just a "mathematical biologist) comes out with the same opinion.

 

funny you should mention that

 

Here's an article by the David Rasnick that she mentions:

 

Blinded by Science

 

Interestingly enough, that article is NINE YEARS OLD! Funny how I never heard of anyone in the scientific or medical communities mention it before.

 

Oh, and here's a quote for ya:

 

""Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

 

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

 

Lots more good info on this web site:

 

Virus Myth

[Amethyst]

I'm also highly skeptical. I'll believe it's a myth when people stop dying of it. And I don't believe everything I read on the Internet, even if it is purported to be from an expert.

 

Also this caught my eye:

 

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

 

"Single scientifically really convincing evidence?" This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's just a gut feeling, but it sounds like a fundy denying that evolution exists because there's no "single scientifically really convincing evidence" for it. Convincing to whom? One or two people?

 

There are still a handful of people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old despite all the evidence, too. Should we believe them?

 

Anything is of course possible, but the skeptic in me seriously doubts it.

[white_raven23]

It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be sexually cautious. Even if AIDS weren't the "big culture scare", I'd still be careful because genital herpes doesn't really sound like much fun, and it is very real.

 

Typical stubborn species. The shit has to be fatal in order to get people to use condoms.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Way to argue from authority, nivek. I expected better from a fucking mod here.

[trashy]

I'm also highly skeptical. I'll believe it's a myth when people stop dying of it. And I don't believe everything I read on the Internet, even if it is purported to be from an expert.

 

Woah, hold on a sec. I think you missed something! People are dying from AIDS, and none of those people or web sites is claiming that AIDS is a myth!

 

It is the causative connection between HIV and AIDS that is being called into question.

 

Also this caught my eye:

 

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

 

"Single scientifically really convincing evidence?" This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's just a gut feeling, but it sounds like a fundy denying that evolution exists because there's no "single scientifically really convincing evidence" for it. Convincing to whom? One or two people?

 

I believe this is referring to the fact that, unlike every other virus in the world, no one has yet convincingly isolated HIV. The reward money for doing so is now up to $25,000.

 

It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be sexually cautious. Even if AIDS weren't the "big culture scare", I'd still be careful because genital herpes doesn't really sound like much fun, and it is very real.

 

Typical stubborn species. The shit has to be fatal in order to get people to use condoms.

 

I really did enjoy seeing that perspective though - that one reason so many people got behind the idea of a virus causing a fatal disease in gays is that it fit the fundie idea of God punishing "evildoers" so well. Tying promiscuous sex to death makes it easier to sell monogamy and abstinence to randy teens.

[lothartx]

Very interesting read. Unfortunately my background in electronics and engineering leaves me ill equiped to as be able to comment on the validity of the paper. If it was published in a peer reviewed journal, that adds credibility. Unlike Creationism which has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. <- Unecesary quip, but I can't help poking the YECs.

 

I would be very interested in reading rebuttal written by an equally qualified peer. She makes a lot of claims, but I don't see the data or basis for those claims. It may be that they did not fit in the context of article. I.e. it was more of commentary than an study or thesis.

 

The only concrete comment I can make is that she is certianly NOT a "Dumb Bitch".

 

As to whether her hypothisis is correct... I freely admit I don't know.

I'll add it to the list of questions I need to research.

[Amethyst]

I'm also highly skeptical. I'll believe it's a myth when people stop dying of it. And I don't believe everything I read on the Internet, even if it is purported to be from an expert.

 

Woah, hold on a sec. I think you missed something! People are dying from AIDS, and none of those people or web sites is claiming that AIDS is a myth!

 

It is the causative connection between HIV and AIDS that is being called into question.

 

 

Yeah, I understand that. And I understand that in the future, the science on the subject may change. But right now, there is more evidence that HIV causes AIDs than not.

 

I believe this is referring to the fact that, unlike every other virus in the world, no one has yet convincingly isolated HIV. The reward money for doing so is now up to $25,000.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kent Hovind offering a reward to prove evolution right, or something to that effect? Just because someone hasn't convinced everyone doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

I would be very interested in reading rebuttal written by an equally qualified peer. She makes a lot of claims, but I don't see the data or basis for those claims. It may be that they did not fit in the context of article. I.e. it was more of commentary than an study or thesis.

 

Same here.

 

The only concrete comment I can make is that she is certianly NOT a "Dumb Bitch".

Right. I'm not saying that she's "dumb". Just that I'm extremely skeptical.

[trashy]

Yeah, I understand that. And I understand that in the future, the science on the subject may change. But right now, there is more evidence that HIV causes AIDs than not.

<snip>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kent Hovind offering a reward to prove evolution right, or something to that effect? Just because someone hasn't convinced everyone doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

Look, I'm not going to read all these sites FOR you and then debate you - I was just repeating things from those links above - your points were all addressed there, read it or not - up to you.

[MrSpooky]

This is ridiculous. Do you people really expect me to stop freebasing retroviruses?

[Amethyst]

Yeah, I understand that. And I understand that in the future, the science on the subject may change. But right now, there is more evidence that HIV causes AIDs than not.

<snip>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kent Hovind offering a reward to prove evolution right, or something to that effect? Just because someone hasn't convinced everyone doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

Look, I'm not going to read all these sites FOR you and then debate you - I was just repeating things from those links above - your points were all addressed there, read it or not - up to you.

 

I've read them. I'm not saying it's outright impossible or anything. Just that I'm not going to agree with it entirely unless I see more data supporting that theory.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Way to argue from authority, nivek. I expected better from a fucking mod here.

 

Vulgie..

 

Again feel free to submit your professionial credentials.

 

The PM full of invective and snot did not contain a single reference to your published research, works, or ongoing investigation into the HIV-AIDS virus connection.

 

That I am interested in, your scientific ability and your outstanding accreditations documented granting you the ability to call the good Doctor a "dumb bitch".

 

If you want to make this a personal matter in which you have no standing whatsoever, you are welcome to continue to do so in private.

 

kL

[scitsofreaky]

I too enjoyed it. But I will remain sceptical, yet very interested.

Like lothartx, I don't have a background in this field (hell, I don't have a background in anything), but the lack of data is annoying. Even if I didn't understand it (likely), it would at least give me something to ask questions about. As it is, we just have to take her word for it, and while I doubt she is a liar, scientists have to back what they say with evidence.

I haven't gotten to the links, do any of them give any data?

[Amethyst]

There's a bit of data in the "Blinded by Science" page. But still not enough IMHO.

[Mike D]

Since I am not a scientist who specializes in HIV research there's really nothing I can say to refute or support what she says. But I do think she's right about one thing, I think the drugs that they give people for AIDS are toxic and harm just as many people as they supposedly help. I don't think I would take them if I was in that position....

[Guest foxjazz]

If you contract HIV and you don't treat it at all. Your likely to be dead within 5 years.

HIV may not cause AIDS, but I haven't heard of anyone with AIDS that doesn't have HIV.

 

So maybe Aids is caused by drinking Milk after getting HIV.

Or breathing air.

Or (whatever).

 

Good luck with that no drug taking thing.

Fox

[spamandham]

The single greatest evidence in support of those who say HIV does not cause AIDS is that HIV has been known for a generation now, and the number of people in the US who have AIDS is still relatively small.

 

That would not be that case if it were truly a virulent disease. Roughly half of all adults in the US have HPV. Why does AIDS not affect some significant portion of the population as well? Clearly half of us have been exposed to risky behavior, or HPV would not be so widespread.

 

I first heard the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS about 15 years ago and wrote it off as quackery. At the time, AIDS was still relatively new. As each decade passes that AIDS is not a pandemic (in the developed world), the argument becomes stronger that the whole thing is BS.

 

HIV and AIDS were discovered at the same time and have been highly politicized ever since. How often is a disease and its cause simultaneoulsy discovered?

[Zach]

This issue comes up every now and then. On an older incarnation of the forum, the user Sharon mentioned it and discussed with me at length.

 

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?sh...indpost&p=38310

 

I will say that although it is possible that HIV is not the etiological cause of AIDS, Dr. Culshaw has done little to shed light on any alternative. Her position seems to be one only of criticism. If there is some other cause of AIDS, then let's see her give us a mathematical model of some other alternative that aligns better with the epidemiology. Since she gives none, I can only assume that there is none.

 

This type of rhetoric (don't trust the Scientists, the statistics aren't perfect, etc.) seem to be the same type that's employed by the proponents of Intelligent Design. Their position also amounts to nothing more than base criticism with no viable alternative advanced.

 

I'm not an HIV researcher, but I've read some of the scientific literature. I'm going to need something a bit more substantial than a mathematician's skepticism before I write off HIV as a harmless decoy.

[spamandham]

I will say that although it is possible that HIV is not the etiological cause of AIDS, Dr. Culshaw has done little to shed light on any alternative. Her position seems to be one only of criticism. If there is some other cause of AIDS, then let's see her give us a mathematical model of some other alternative that aligns better with the epidemiology. Since she gives none, I can only assume that there is none.

 

My understanding of the contention is that AIDS is a deterioration of the immune system and not a disease in its own right. No-one dies of AIDS, they die of pneumonia, or a flu, etc. The claim of people like Dr. Culshaw is that the deterioration of the immune system is not the result of HIV, but rather the result of repeated exposure to drugs or illnesses that wreak havoc on the immune system and cause it to decay. Part of that claim is that the AIDS coctails actually contribute to the failure.

 

This is why there are so many healthy people walking around who test HIV positive. The real test of the hypothesis would be to study people who test positive for HIV who have done nothing about it, and compare life spans and health with people who live similar lifestyles who do not test positive for HIV. There's still the problem of identifying causality though. Does a weakened immune system make you susceptible to the AIDS virus? To determine causality would be difficult, but perhaps not impossible.

 

 

The biggest contention of the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" camp is the failure of the scientific community to perform falsifying tests. I don't know if that claim is true or not, but if it is, it is a valid point.