 |
|
Reply
| |
There is plenty of interesting material on this topic, though not many people realize that there is any debate on a scientific level, and dismiss those who want to examine the evidence as "loonies" of one variety or another. Few realize that the most exaustive examination of the evidence has been done by the "Perth Group," which has posited an oxidative stress hypothesis, though since the definition of "HIV/AIDS" varies from one nation or region to another, one can never be sure if two people are talking about the exact same scientific phenomenon.
As a historian, I was trained to attempt to get a general sense of what the crux of an issue is, then examine the "pro" and "con" evidence being argued. Moreover, I was taught to make sure that language itself was not a major part of the disagreement. Below, I will try to "sum up" the "HIV/AIDS" debate in a very general way. If you'd like to see more "debate," there are many places of the internet, such as the newsgroup [email protected], where you will find all kinds of diverse viewpoints.
One thing that all the scientists agree upon is that "markers" are being used to make claims about who is "infected with HIV" and who is most likely to develop "AIDS" or die within a certain time frame. One marker, for example, is the "CD4 count," which measures specific cells of the "immune system." The "dissident," Peter Duesberg, argues that the markers are correct, in that they determine whether a person has been exposed to "HIV," but he does not think "HIV" is dangerous. Nor does he think the markers have any significant predictive value. The Perth Group argues that there is no reason why markers should substitute for the actual virus.
Think about it this way: if there is a virus and it is doing severe harm to a person, why has it never been possible to take a sample of the tissue/blood, where the damage is happening, and actually see it? The technology exists, yet the "establishment" has decided that the markers are enough to tell people that if they do not take very toxic drugs to combat "HIV" then the "HIV" will kill them. At this point, the establishment mostly ignores this, claiming that "HIV" is mysterious, tricky, wiley, or some other such word, though again, the there is no technological contraint on scientists. If there is a contraint, it appears to be based in ideology, not science.
The Perth Group agrees with the establishment that the makers may have some predictive value, but not because a virus is involved. Rather, they argue that the markers can be generated in "non-infected" cells or tissues, so their claims transcend science and lie in the realm of basic logic. That is, one would first have to demonstrate that the markers are unique to a specific virus, and then that the markers occur in all those who are "HIV infected" and that nobody who is "HIV negative." This is not the case with any of the markers, let alone all of them.
I have written up this post to demonstrate how one can attempt to get a general sense of an issue. Often, however, a person will become fixated on one very specific phenomenon, and lose sight of the overall situation. I invite those who wish to talk about this issue ON THIS LEVEL to write up new posts for this thread. However, more specific examinations of this topic should be posted on a new thread, or on a different newsgroup.
|
|
|
Reply
| |
This is a very good report about "HIV/AIDS," if you ignore the nonsensical idea that a "virus" is doing the damage (as it pointed out, it's an inflammatory problem). This report even demonstrates how hard it is for many "experts" to overcome their preconceived ideas, because the scientist in question appears to be "on a mission" to destroy the terrible "HIV" that he believes ended his friend's life. Good luck to anyone trying to convince this person that "HIV" is a laboratory construct. Also, notice how there is the usual assumption is that the Tat protein must come from "HIV," even though they don't know if one particle that meets the textbook descriptions of "HIV" is even present anywhere in the person's body. Lastly, there is something new (to me, at least), which is the claim that a tiny amount of "HIV" can do horrible things to a human body. This claim is less credible that the worst "B movie" science fiction, even if we grant them everything they claim about "HIV" !
QUOTE: ...Gelbard was a newly minted pediatric neurologist embarking on his career when a good friend of his �?a doctor with whom Gelbard had trained �?became ill and died of AIDS in less than two years. His friend's struggle, and the severity of his neurological symptoms, touched Gelbard. Gradually, with the support of mentors, Gelbard came to focus on the neurological effects of HIV. He now leads a group of researchers funded by the National Institute of Mental Health that is trying to identify or create the first treatment for the neurological effects of HIV, known collectively as neuroAIDS or HIV dementia.
Scientists have known that Tat, which helps HIV operate, replicate, and infect cells, is at the forefront of HIV's attack on the brain, bringing about severe inflammation. Immune cells within the brain go into overdrive, churning out substances that attract more immune cells, and white blood cells from the body flood in and join the fray, all clumping together to form destructive entities known as multinucleated giant cells.
"Suddenly the brain environment turns from nurturing to toxic, and the brain has to work much harder to send messages. Cells are on overdrive, spending a lot more energy to do the same things they used to do easily," said Gelbard, who is director of the Center for Neural Development and Disease at Rochester.
Other changes occur throughout the brain as well. Neurons that normally reach throughout the brain by forming networks of far-reaching, delicate extensions crucial for cell communication become damaged. Instead of sprouting healthy dendrites �?projections that resemble tiny trees �?neurons in the brain of an HIV patient have had parts of their dendrites abruptly torn off, in a process known as "synaptic pruning." The dendrites begin to look like a patch of severely damaged trees after a bad ice storm.
Such damage occurs in parts of the brain crucial for thinking, decision-making, and movement and memory. That accounts for symptoms like difficulties concentrating, forgetfulness, poor coordination, confusion, and gait disturbances. In later stages, neuroAIDS can cause outright dementia.
Gelbard's team discovered that Tat works through the ryanodine receptor to sicken neurons in two ways. Scientists have known that Tat makes vulnerable the mitochondria, organelles within neurons and other cells that are commonly considered the "power packs" or energy sources for cells. The team discovered that Tat destroys the ability of mitochondria to protect themselves from changes in levels of calcium.
The scientists discovered another effect of Tat as well. Tat has a dramatic effect on an organelle known as the endoplasmic reticulum, where proteins are actually assembled and folded. Gelbard's team discovered that it's Tat's effects on the ryanodine receptor that cause an "unfolded protein response" seen in the brains of HIV patients. Shape is everything for proteins, and they're nearly always useless or harmful when they are unfolded or misfolded. The problem in HIV patients is exacerbated because protein folding requires a great deal of energy �?energy that cells whose mitochondria are petering out aren't likely to have.
The team also showed, in mice, that a single exposure to Tat has long-lasting effects on the brain, causing problems with mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum weeks later. Perhaps most striking, Gelbard says, is the observation that the exact same types of damage were seen in brain tissue of patients with HIV and neurologic disease but not in tissue from patients with HIV who did not have the neurologic disease.
The findings are in line with past findings from the team, which has shown that the central problem in HIV dementia is not that brain cells simply die. Rather, they become sick and lose their ability to communicate with each other... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081114134921.htm |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First