 |
|
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
| |
I am wondering what will kill the AIDS victims earlier, drugs like azidothymidine or the reccommendations of mad scientists like this Das UN:
Med Sci Monit. 2005 Jun;11(6):RA206-211. Epub 2005 May 25.
Essential fatty acids and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Das UN.
UND Life Sciences, Cleveland Heights, OH 44106, USA.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that is characterized by profound immunodeficiency, opportunistic infections and Kaposi's sarcoma. As yet no effective therapy is available for AIDS, though retroviral drugs are able to prolong life and contain HIV proliferation to some extent. I propose that essential fatty acids (EFAs) and their metabolites could be useful in the prevention and management of AIDS. Linoleic acid (LA) and arachidonic acid (AA) inactivate enveloped viruses, linolenic acid-enriched macrophages are markedly tumoricidal, EFAs activate macrophages and neutrophils and induce free radical generation; and cytokines bring about some of their actions by inducing the release of EFAs; gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) prevent genetic damage and have tumoricidal actions as well; and are relatively non-toxic when administered orally or parentarally over long periods of time. In view of this, I suggest that further studies with regard to the role of GLA, AA, EPA and/or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the pathobiology of AIDS needs to be performed. It is also proposed that possible use of these fatty acids in the prevention and treatment of AIDS needs serious consideration.
PMID: 15917732
|
|
Reply
| |
| Often, a person with severe symptoms is "EFAD," most likely due to lower desaturase activity and/or so many AA metabolites being made that the body can't make enough AA to satisfy the demand. "DAS UN" has generated quite a few "studies" that have given me a good laugh, at least. Of course, since AA is such bad news, and they think "HIV" is some sort of molecular monster, there is a certain method to the madness. As the old saying goes, "it takes a monster to kill a monster." However, along with claims about AA metabolites, there is also the suggestion of omega 3 supplementation, which would inhibit AA metabolization. It sounds to me like someone who is very ignorant of some very basic facts here wrote this thing. |
|
Reply
| |
A new report seems to include some very important information on "AIDS"-like conditions:
QUOTE: ...The study also showed that different T cell functions required different numbers of functional ITAMs. "We were surprised to find that many ITAMs were required to make T cells divide and expand, but only one or two was required to make T cells secrete cytokines," Vignali said... UNQUOTE.
Thus, if certain amounts kinds/amounts of stress occurs, one would likely see a drop in T cell levels and a rise in cytokines, which is what one sees in "AIDS." What are "ITAMS?"
QUOTE: ...T cell receptors need many copies of switch-like components called immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMS). ITAMs are components of the CD3 adaptor proteins that attach to the T cell receptor and help transmit the control signals from the T cell receptor into the cell... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512113511.htm |
|
Reply
| |
I posted this on another newsgroup, but I'll copy and paste it here because it may be helpful to "newbies" to the "HIV/AIDS controversy" (which shouldn't be a "controversy," because the scientific method was created to eliminate it:
QUOTE: I'll take a different "angle" on this. Our own "Softrat" has made arguments about real viruses (not "HIV") being endogenous, and without actual, direct experimental support for this claim, I think we've gotten sidetracked to some degree. Instead, there are some clear points about viruses one can glean from the literature (things all agree upon, with the exception of "HIV"):
Viruses either kill quickly (very, very rarely) or don't kill at all(unless you body is incredibly weak). Some can be annoying (some Herpes), reactivating from time to time. The key point here is that the virus doesn't make a conscious decision to reactivate, but instead stressful conditions in the body lead to reactivation. When viruses become problematic, they do so by prompting an inflammatory response, which is what does the actual damage or at the very least causes symptoms. Viruses do not kill by destroying tissues or organs, as "flesh-eating bacteria" can.
So where does "HIV" fit into this picture? It doesn't, on any level. Let's say "HIV" is a real and exogenous virus. It doesn't kill quickly, but it is said to reactivate later. Why would it reactivate later? Since viruses are so simple, and since in the early days of the "AIDS epidemic" it was observed that "HIV" killed within about 18 months at most, there is no explanation for why this is no longer the case, not that a virus could kill in 18 months anyway. This might be true for one or two recorded cases of rabies, for instance, but not for a viral epidemic. A virus simply cannot, by itself, kill many years after infection. Such a claim assumes that the body has basically no adaptive capabilities.
If the body needed more of a certain class of T cells, it could simply create more of them. Essentially, "HIV/AIDS" was the creation of people raised on watching movies like "Creature from the Black Lagoon." They assumed something monstrous had to be causing what was later called "AIDS." They were incapable of imagining that young people could do anything to their bodies that would lead to a severely compromised immune system. So, on the one hand, the young adult human body was viewed as nearly indestructible, and so on the other hand, something incredibly horrible was required to kill it within 18 months. Despite no evidence that "HIV" is present in any human, this notion ossified, and because more and more evidence has come to light to contradict "HIV/AIDS," more and more impossible notions need to be generated to support it.
UNQUOTE. |
|
Reply
| |
The "experts" studying "HIV/AIDS" have basically created a new genre of fiction, which I'd call, simply, science fiction comedy. Here is a recent example of it:
QUOTE: New research into the earliest events occurring immediately upon infection with HIV-I shows that the virus deals a stunning blow to the immune system...
Until now, scientists believed that the window of opportunity to intervene in the process of HIV-1 infection lay in the three to four weeks between transmission and the development of an established pool of infected CD4 T cells. HIV-1 cripples the immune system by invading and killing CD4 T cells, key infection-fighters in the body.
"But this new study shows that HIV-I does a lot of damage to the immune system very early in that time frame...
"What this demonstrates is that significant T cell death is occurring much earlier during this period than we previously believed, and that TRAIL itself may be a co-conspirator in enhancing cell death... UNQUOTE.
Now let's recap the implications of this claim. In the "early days" of "HIV/AIDS," it was claimed that "HIV" killed those "infected" with it within about a year to eighteen months. Today, there are claims that those infected can live a couple of decades. In the USA, the claim now seems to be (from the "experts" I've heard speak to this) that you will live about a decade or a bit more if you take the "medicine," but a few years less, perhaps 7 to 9 years, if you do not take the "medicine." Thus, if this new claim is accurate, it is not possible for people to live 7 to 9 years, even if we agree that somehow the toxic "medicine" helps those who take it live ten years or more. Instead, the initial claim, made back in the 1980s, that one could only live about 18 months, at most, should hold true. What should we tell all those people who are still alive, several years after "HIV infection, who have not taken any "medicine?"
Let's take a look at some other "juicy tidbits" from this report:
QUOTE: ...The conclusion comes from the study of 30 people who were newly-infected with HIV-1...UNQUOTE. One key question, obviously is how can they be sure about exactly when "infection with HIV" occurred? Even if they could be sure, there are no controls to their "study." In order to control properly, they would have to do the same kind of study for "HIV infected" people at other times before they were supposedly killed by "HIV." They would also need to do this same study with "HIV negative" people who's body's are under a great deal of stress, from things like acute flu, running in a marathon, pregnancy, those undergoing chemotherapy, SLE patients, etc.
In addition, in the first quotation, the researcher points out that there might be a co-factor, and that co-factor is something the body produces when certain stressors are present. So, does "HIV" cause "AIDS" by itself, as the "experts" previously demanded we all believe, or is it only a problem in a particular context, as these researchers argue?
One does not need to be an "expert" in anything to realize that if the extreme kind of damage these "experts" claim occurs in the "early stages" of "HIV infection" does in fact occur, the person inflicted would not live very long. This is the only possible interpretation; otherwise, the language used is ludicrous and laughable. One can't claim that "a lot of damage" occurs, yet it's know that many if not most such people will appear fairly or very healthy for years, even if they don't take the "medicine." The body is either damaged or not, and if it is damaged, the person would know about it (or be dead).
There was an interesting finding made by these researchers, but it's not likely to be pursued in a reasonable way any time soon:
QUOTE: ...Through a series of in vitro laboratory experiments with peripheral blood cells, scientists found that microparticles suppressed levels of IgG and IgA, two classes of antibodies that normally would protect a person against infection. "This is important because many scientists believe that a fast-acting memory B cell response as well as a T cell response will be necessary to fight HIV-1" said Nancy Gasper-Smith, PhD, the lead author of the study... UNQUOTE.
As they point out, microparticles are: QUOTE: ...tiny bits of cell membrane that are broken up and left floating around in the plasma when the cell dies and breaks apart... UNQUOTE.
This can occur for different reasons, such as in "chronic inflammatory" diseases or certain kinds of drug abuse (legal or illegal). I've cited studies on this thread that also support the claim that such particles are immuno-suppressive. No "virus" is required to cause this, just certain stressors in certain amounts over a certain period of time, which of course will vary somewhat from one individual to the next. But, for more than one reason, the "HIV/AIDS" science fiction comedy stubbornly persists in the minds of our "greatest minds."
Source for the quotations above: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080718092221.htm |
|
Reply
| |
A new report of immune system decline with aging seems to be just as valid for cases of "AIDS" among those who are not old:
QUOTE: ...The atrophy of the thymus, a small gland at the base of the neck where T cells mature, is one of the most obvious signs of the age-related decline of the immune system. This decline becomes significant towards the age of 50. It is caused not only by a decreased output of T cells from the thymus, but also by a decreased ability to recognize new antigens. The result is an increased susceptibility to infection as well as a lowered resistance to the immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080722114201.htm
Note that stress of various kinds can cause thymus atrophy. This is not an issue about being old, chronologically, so much as it is about how stress can affect the body over time. |
|
Reply
| |
From a new report:
QUOTE: ...The new Lancet study found cART yielded a 13.8-year life-expectancy increase - from 36.1 years in study participants who began therapy during the 1996-1999 period to 49.9 years in participants who began therapy during the 2003-2005 period... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725142400.htm
Thus, what we should see in the USA are a lot of people dying of "HIV/AIDS" within the first year or 18 months of "infection" (as was the case in the early/mid 1980s) and a lot of people who claim to take the drugs as prescribed living at least a few decades. However, the "experts" themselves have said that if you don't take the drugs, you live in the 7 to 9 year range and if you do, you live around 10 to 12 years. How anyone could live about 50 years taking these toxic "medicines" is beyond comprehension, but of course the "experts" will never be forced to take the drugs to show us how "safe" they supposedly are. |
|
Reply
| |
This was submitted by a member for a different thread, but I thought it would be best posted here:
QUOTE: An article I just read says that scientists have supposedly figured out (by some pretty goofy methods, if you ask me) that AIDS has been around for longer than we expected, likely between 1884 and 1924. it says "The results appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature" Anyone have access to that?
My question is what are they using? It says that they used old HIV samples and figure out how they fast and how they mutate and used that to backdate. I havent done any research on AIDS but have I not read on this forum that they dont have an actual HIV virus that they've found but rather just markers? If thats the case, what are they using here?
http://news.aol.com/health/article/study-says-hiv-is-about-100-years-old/197058
-Drew UNQUOTE.
|
|
Reply
| |
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
QUOTE: "...HIV-1 protease is not an active enzyme when it is first expressed in cells. It has to be activated to do its job," Tang said. "What we were able to see is how it self-activates from an immature form when the virus is not infective into a mature form when the virus gains infectivity..." UNQUOTE.
Again, the problem is that they are assuming these enzymes are from "HIV," but they don't look for "HIV," to be sure there are particles present that meet the textbook descriptions of it. When this has been done, an excess of microvesicles (cellular "junk") has been found, rather than an abundance of "HIV," which would be necessary for "HIV" to be dangerous. In any case, claims about proteases need to be made with caution, because as wikipedia.org points out:
QUOTE: ...Proteases occur naturally in all organisms... The activity [of proteases] can be a destructive change, abolishing a protein's function or digesting it to its principal components; it can be an activation of a function, or it can be a signal in a signaling pathway... Proteases are also a type of exotoxin, which is a virulence factor in bacteria pathogenesis... UNQUOTE.
Thus, one must be very careful when making claims about proteases. It is most likely the case that in "HIV/AIDS" the "patient" has stressed his/her body to such a degree that dangerous protease activity is present, and no "virus" is required for this. Simple, inexpensive experiments could demonstrate this point, refuting "HIV/AIDS," but of course those who control the research money are too "conflicted" or ideological to fund such experiments.
Source of fist quoted passage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081001145028.htm |
|
Reply
| |
Here is a crucial document for "dissidents" generated by "orthodox" scientists:
O'Hara CJ, Groopman JE, Federman M. "The ultrastructural and immunohistochemical demonstration of viral particles in lymph nodes from human immunodeficiency virus-related and non-human immunodeficiency virus-related lymphadenopathy syndromes." Human Pathology 1988; 19:545-9.
Quote from the above study: "The presence of such particles do not, by themselves, indicate infection with HIV..."
This is also important: QUOTE: In a paper published in 2003 by researchers using one of the most modern methods to study virus particles*, Kuznetsov and his colleagues contradicted what virtually all HIV experts claim. They reported that "The clusters of gp120 do not form spikes on the surface of the HIV as is commonly described in the literature. The clusters are hardly protrusions at all. We suggest that spikes, knobs, observed by negative-staining electron microscopy may be an artifact of the penetration of heavy metal stain between envelope proteins. Indeed, the term "spike" appears to have assumed a rather imprecise, possibly misleading definition, and might best be used with caution" [1]. In other words, this posits zero knobs on the so called "HIV" particle. Such particles cannot be infectious and thus cannot be a virus.
Hence the literature is contradictory in regard to the number of knobs. The knob count for the HIV particle has been reported as 80, 72, 0.5 (on average), possibly zero and actually zero... UNQUOTE.
1. Kuznetsov YG, Victoria JG, Robinson WE, Jr., McPherson A. Atomic force microscopy investigation of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HIV-infected lymphocytes. Journal of Virology 2003; 77:11896-909.
Source: http://www.theperthgroup.com/RESPONSE/ParenzeeEPEIsolationSACCourt.pdf
From this source, the authors conclude the following:
QUOTE: To summarise the evidence so far for the existence of HIV.
1. Reverse transcription is detection of the presence of an enzyme activity which is not specific to retroviruses.
2. Enzyme activity is not isolation of anything. Including a virus.
3. More than twenty year after its discovery there is no agreement in regard to the taxonomy of the particle. Or, to put it another way, taxonomically the HIV particle belongs to several mutually exclusive classifications.
4. Scientists accept the existence of retrovirus-like particles, even with RT activity or RNA, which are not infectious. Hence they cannot be viruses.
5. Retroviral-like particles are ubiquitous.
6. Retroviral-like particles appear in cell cultures which are not infected with "HIV".
7. Knobs are fundamental to the definition of retrovirus but so far nobody has proven they exist. If the particles said to be a unique retrovirus HIV do not have knobs they cannot be the "HIV" particles
and they cannot be transmitted. Such particles cannot be a virus.
UNQUOTE. |
|
Reply
| |
From a new report:
QUOTE: ...The HIV-1 vaccine used in Merck's STEP trial relied on a weakened form of a common cold virus, Adenovirus 5 (Ad5), to carry bits of HIV into the body. Those bits would presumably trigger the immune system to fight off later infection with the virus... three years after the trial began, researchers realized that more of the vaccine recipients who had prior immunity to adenoviruses had been infected with HIV than those without such immunity... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106153534.htm
My comment: Again, the notions of the "orthodox" scientists has been demonstrated to be inaccurate. On the other hand, this is more strong evidence for alternative explanations, such as some discussed on this thread. Specifically, if, as most "dissidents" argue, the "HIV test" that is usually given first is just measuring antigenic exposure, then one would expect the results these scientists generated. That is, they injected these "bits" into people, which generated antibodies. Their notion is that this "protects" people, but instead it makes them more susceptible to problems due to excessive antigenic exposure, which is consistent with what happens in "AIDS." Read some of the other posts in this thread for evidence of this phenomenon, which is well-documented and was well known before 1980. |
|
Reply
| |
Taken from an interesting site about coconut oil:
http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/coconut-research.htm
AIDS Victim Tells of Healing Virtues
of Coconut Oil
In coming out of the closet to tell his story Tony, 38, lends hope to thousands of AIDS sufferers worldwide. “You don’t know how hard it is for one to have an illness that others find repulsive…I had wanted to shut myself inside my room and just wait for my time to die,�?Tony told symposium participants.
Tony was a guest speaker at a symposium titled “Why Coconut Cures�? held in Manila, Philippines May14, 2005. The symposium was headed by Dr. Bruce Fife, who was also the keynote speaker. Other participants included cardiologist Conrado Dayrit, dermatologist Vermen Verallo-Rowell, biochemist Fabian Dayrit, and Senator Jamby Madrigal.
Tony’s testimony, along with those of others who had experienced dramatic recoveries from various ailments, provided first-hand accounts of the use of coconut oil in healing chronic health problems described by symposium participants.
Beneath the sunglasses that he wore his eyes were moist, not in self-pity but in triumph. Covered with a cap and long sleeves, hides a body scarred by a disease Tony contracted while working in the Middle East in the 1990s. Coming home in 2002, Tony was devastated to learn that he was infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). As the disease progressed, the pain he endured came not only from the infections ravaging his body but from the shame the disease had brought him. He felt like giving up.
Drugs, which he could barely afford, could not deliver him from the dreaded virus and the other infections that were slowly draining away his life. His body was covered with fungal infections, and oozing sores accompanied by a chronic pneumonia infection that caused a persistent cough. He knew he was losing the battle as each day symptoms grew worse and he found it increasingly more difficult to function and was completely incapable of working.
Unable to afford medication he sought help from the Department of Health. He was referred to Dr. Conrado Dayrit, the author of the first clinical study on the healing effects of coconut oil on HIV infected patients, which was conducted at the San Lazaro hospital in the Philippines. By this time Tony was diagnosed with full blown AIDS and had little hope for recovery.
Dr. Dayrit secured a steady supply of coconut oil for Tony’s use, free of charge. He was instructed to apply the oil to his skin two to three times a day and consume six tablespoonfuls daily without fail.
The program worked miracles. Each time Tony went to the hospital for his periodic blood tests his viral load decreased. Tony said that when he told hospital doctors what he was taking, they could not believe that a simple dietary oil was killing the virus better than all the modern drugs of medical science.
Just nine months after his initial visit with Dr. Dayrit, Tony appeared before the audience at the symposium for all to witness his remarkable recovery. The infections that once racked his body were gone. Even HIV was no longer detectable. What used to be skin sores all over his body were now just fading scars. His life energy had been restored enough for him to give an eloquent testimony of how something as simple and natural as coconut oil could halt this deadly disease.
Evidence for coconut oil’s effect on HIV was first discovered back in the 1980s when researchers learned that medium chain fatty acids—the kind found in coconut oil—possessed powerful antiviral properties capable of destroying the AIDS virus. Since then numerous anecdotal accounts of HIV patients using coconut and coconut oil to overcome their condition circulated in the AIDS community. Even basketball legend Magic Johnson who retired from the NBA because he was HIV positive is reportedly credited with using coconut on his road to recovery.
The first clinical study using coconut on HIV patients was reported by Conrado Dayrit in 1999. In this study HIV infected individuals were give 3.5 tablespoons of coconut oil daily. No other treatment was used. Six months later 60% of the participants showed noticeable improvement
This was the first study to demonstrate that coconut oil does have an antiviral effect in vivo and could be used to treat HIV infected individuals. Dr. Dayrit is now heading a larger study in Africa using coconut oil in the treatment of HIV.
The symposium “Why Coconut Cures�?was based on Dr. Bruce Fife’s recently published book Coconut Cures. Philippine president Macapagal-Arroyo recognized Dr. Fife’s relentless advocacy in educating people about the healing properties of coconut.
SOURCE:
http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/newsletter-sample.htm |
|
Reply
| | From:  gos2u | Sent: 11/11/2008 11:49 AM |
Hmmm...well, coconut oil's gotta be less toxic than ARVs -- it's not surprising at all that it's more "effective" than the best drugs that medicine has to offer, at preventing iatrogenic disease. --- Gos "Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
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
0 recommendations 
Return to General