BHA: OT: Re: Let us take the demise of Africans- an example

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm labeling this discussion "OT" for off-topic. I'm going to reply
below to Bwanika's post. My usual practice is to indicate deleted
portions of text
with "[....]" but I will suspend that for this post alone.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:27:49 GMT, bwanika wrote:
>
>Andrew
>
>
>Good you replied. What is the medical defination of HIV?
>And what are the origins of HIV
>
>You can help lay your arguements against the evidence below.
>
>Bwanika.
>
>---------------
>Is it HTLV + LAV = HIV or RNA = HIV ????!!
>
>
>
>  1. In 1975 Howard Termin / David Baltimore discovers what is called
>  REVERSE
>  TRANSCRIPTASE or RT.  RT can be termed as retroviruses and indeed HIV
>is a
>  RT, which contain RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material or in
>lay
>  mans language their structural configuration.  These so called
>  retroviruses
>  depended on the enzyme reverse transcriptase to convert the code
>  (structural configuration ) contained as RNA in order to become DNA.
>  You'll
>  notice that sometimes HIV is indeed referred to as RT or retrovirus
>also a
>  virus which contains RA codes.

I think you mean "which contains "RNA codes." A good diagram of a
retrovirus is at <http://www.accessexcellence.com/AB/GG/diagram.html>.
As you can say, RNA is an important part of a retrovirus. The enzyme
(RNAse) is also part of the retrovirus. HIV is considered a kind of
retrovirus.

>  2. In 1980 Robert Gallo discovers what is termed as Human T-cell
>leukaemia
>  virus or HTLV.

Okay.

>  3. In 1983 Montagnier submits a paper on the 20th May 1983 entitled,
>  "Isolation of T-lymphotropic Retrovirus". It is said the virus was
>  isolated
>  from blood samples of a 33 year old gay man in the US  suffering from
>  AIDS,
>  it is said the man lived for the next 10 years after this discovery.
>You
>  can get the paper and read it.

Okay. The thing about AIDS is that you never know when you're going to
die. The doctors can give you an expected lifespan, but you can't
really rely on it. It's just statistical.

>  4. In the same year in 1983  Gallo credited to have discovered the HIV
>  virus produces a paper published on the 11th may 1984 entitled "
>Antigens
>  on HTLV infected cells by leukaemia and AIDS sera related to HTLV. HTLV
>  means Human T-cell leukaemia virus or HTLV I -II . The same virus
>actually
>  discovered by the same man Robert Gallo in 1980!

This shouldn't be surprising. The leukemia was probably an
opportunistic infection. Gallo probably assumed that the virus he found
was associated with the leukemia, but later realized it was associated
with the underlying disease, namely, AIDS.

>  5. In 1984  Uganda, In East Africa, Africa experiences her  first case
>of
>  "slim " or body wasting also AIDS if you want it to be called so. At
>least
>  that is the general view according to observations and discussion I've
>had
>  with Uganda's most educated researchers in the area.

Okay. It's important to note that we will never know when was the
"first" case of AIDS or of HIV infection.

>  6. On 14th December  1983 Abraham Karpas a leukaemia researcher at the
>  Dept. of Haematological medicine at Cambridge University comes up with
>a
>  low key paper entitle " Molecular Biology in Medicine " proclaiming to
>  have
>  discovered by electron microscope pictures of a virus called
>  Lymphodenopathy Associated Virus or LAV.

Okay.

>  7. In may 1986 the International Taxonomy of viruses agree that Gallo's
>  Human T-cell leukaemia virus or  (HTLV I - II) and  Karpas's
>  Lymphodenopathy Associated Virus or (LAV) are identical therefore they
>  should be called human immunodeficiency virus or HIV. (Coffin et al.,
>  1986).

Not surprising. Scientific discoveries usually occur at the same time
in different places. It just happened that they gave their discovery
different names.

>  8. Mulder et al in 1994 or before that year do AID tests on rural
>  villagers
>  numbering 9389 persons of HIV- I antibodies at the Ugandan virus
>Research
>  Institute.  4,8 % (450,6) were found to be positive. "Deaths were
>  ascertained over 2 years" and 198 were recorded. Of these 109 were in
>  seronegative i.e. not HIV positive individuals and 89 in seopositive
>  individuals i.e HIV positive. Of the latter, 73 were adults.

I don't understand how this is significant in your analysis, but okay.

>  9. Polio vaccine launched in the central and the great lakes region
>were
>  launched in 1958 among thousands of children according to what I have
>  read.
>  We are informed that people with Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or
>  AIDS
>  die in three to five /six years. I wonder how many of these children
>died
>  if the case is such that this polio vaccine is linked to AIDS causing
>  virus
>  HIV or other viruses derived from polio development from monkey or
>  Africans
>  eating chimpanzees! Look at the population figures in Rwanda, Congo,
>  Burundi, and Uganda for more facts.

I don't think the hypothesized link between the Polio vaccine and HIV
is likely to be upheld. It is true that the secret of manufacturing
the polio vaccine was to create fragments of the polio virus that
would in only a very small number of cases harm the recipient, and
would, in almost all cases, allow an individual's immune system to
develop antibodies against that fragment. At a later time, if they had
been exposed to polio, their antibodies would be able to latch onto
that fragment and in so doing kill the entire virus. Simple, neat and
effective.

It could have been that a by-product of the manufacturing proces was a
strand of RNA that could itself reproduce. This retrovirus could have
been the precursor to HIV.

The medical establishment has done some investigation and found that
this idea is without merit. The Washington Post wrote an article on it.
<http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50146-2000Sep11.html>. My
own bias is that the establishment is wrong on many issues.
Nevertheless, the hypothesis seems farfetched. Although the Washington
Post's write-up is unconvincing, it still would require quite an
extraordinary explanation to argue effectively that the polio vaccine
caused HIV/AIDS.

No matter where HIV/AIDS came from, there's little anything can be done
now, other than to fight HIV infections.

>  10. Prior to HIV discovery i.e HTLV + LAV = HIV, viruses like
>Taxoplasma
>  which affects the brain and eye, Cryotosporidum a diarrhoea virus,
>Herpes
>  a
>  mouth, anus, genital virus, cytomegalovirus  i.e. retina of the eye
>virus,
>  mycobacteria e.g. tuberculoses (T.B.) virus, Cryptocoicus for
>meningitis ,
>  pneumocystics for pneumonia and Kaposis's sarcoma for blood vessel
>cancer
>  (according to one Uganda doctor known since late 60's but also for many
>  centuries ) have been in existence .  You'll notice that these are some
>of
>  the opportunistic disease associated with AIDS i.e. causing what are
>said
>  to be symptoms for AIDS. what I can't understand is HIV a combination
>of
>  these virus or it is HTLV + LAV = HIV or we don't know?!

In the conventional understanding, HIV is a separate virus. As HIV
infects a host,
the host gradually experiences an impaired immune system. This opens
the door for the opportunistic infections. In a healthy person, the
immune system is able to block those opportunistic infections.

HTLV and LAV were probably the names that early scientists used for
what we today call HIV. Just a guess.

>  11. We should ask for Epidemiological data showing that indeed AIDS
>  patients in general and Africans in particular are dying of AIDS
>related
>  diseases. If those case are less than 40 %, and that AIDS patients are
>  dying of disease which have been prevalent in Africa for centuries,
>then
>  we
>  must question what AIDS is?

It's clear that many Africans are dying of AIDS related diseases. It is
also clear that many more Africans are experiencing an extremely high
death rate due to AIDS. HIV causes AIDS. We best fight AIDS by keeping
HIV from spreading.

>  12. Ninety eight percent of haemophiliacs with AIDS test positive for
>the
>  presence of hepatitis B virus (Brenner et al., 1991), in fact hepatitis
>B
>  virus (HBV) seropositivity is a predictor for HIV seropositivity, but
>no
>  one claims that HBV is the cause of AIDS. Why?

Benjamin Disraeli once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics."

Just because there's a correlation doesn't mean there's a causal
relationship. The two may be coincidental occurrences. In this case,
they are likely coincidental.

>  13. In one study in Africa, 83% of patients with suspected AIDS wer HIV
>  positive, but so were 44% with malaria, 97% with herpes zoster, 43%
>with
>  pneumonia, 67% with amoebic dysentery and 41% with carcinoma. In the
>other
>  study, 42% of women with recurrent abortions, 67% with vaginal
>ulcerations
>  and 33% with haemorrhoids had a positive HIV antibody test.

Probably all just coincidental. There are a lot of bad diseases in
Africa. This is because human beings have lived in Africa for far
longer than any other continent. Pathogens there have had much longer
to adapt to humans as well as to Africa's varied climate. It's thus no
wonder that disease in Africa is more prevalent and more deadly than
elsewhere. Nevertheless, more medical resources should be devoted to
Africa.

If you happen to be looking for a book recommendation on this subject,
I recommend
Colin Tudge's "Time Before History."

>  14. Are HIV antibodies not found in response to malaria, tuberculosis,
>  leprosy and many other parasitic diseases does this mean that such
>  individuals is HIV positive ?

No. HIV antibodies (theoretically) only develop in people with HIV
infections.

>  15. The best conducted studies in heterosexuals including the European
>  Study Group (1989) have also shown that for women, the only practice
>  leading to an increased risk of becoming HIV antibody positive is anal
>  intercourse. Therefore, in non-African countries the only risk factor
>for
>  the acquisition of HIV antibodies is anal intercourse in the passive
>  partner (male or female), and if the only cause for the development of
>HIV
>  antibodies is HIV infection then one must conclude that in non-African
>  countries HIV is unidirectionally sexually transmitted. How does this
>  correlate with bidirectional sexual transmission in Africa?

The answer to this and many other questions can be found at
<http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm>.

Additionally, the risk of North American women to HIV infection from
heterosexual intercourse is rising fast. This indicates that strains of
HIV that were once uncommon to North America are becoming more
prevalent there.


>  16. In the whole history of Medicine there has never been an example of
>a
>  sexually transmitted disease which is spread unidirectionally, and
>  certainly not one that is spread unidirectionally in one country and
>  bidirectionally in another.

Could you further explain this claim, and back it up with evidence?

>  17. AZT was originally designed as cytotoxic DNA chain terminators kill
>  growing human cells for chemotherapy- why is it encouraged to be  used
>in
>  Africa if it in fact contributes to cell death -i.e. causing AIDS?

The politics of the anti-AIDS, anti-HIV drugs are well known and
controversial.

>  18. How can diametrically different diseases as cancer and pneumonia
>  malaria, Diarrhoea, fever and about 30 more different diseases are all
>  said
>  to have the same cause, i.e. HIV causing AIDS (Institute of Medicine,
>  1988;
>  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992; National Institute of
>  Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1994).

Technically, AIDS does not cause any disease. AIDS is itself a
syndrome. A person living with AIDS
is at great risk of opportunistic infections, however.

>  19.  This is a reference to the premise floated from some quarters that
>  AIDS in South Africa is particularly prominent along thehighway routes
>  used by long distance  truckers, who are infecting women as they motor
>  along. This is clumsy epidemiology. Toronto star-     July 9, 2000
>Rosie
>  Dimanno

Okay.

>  20. But malaria - while easily treated with inexpensive drugs, while
>  hugely
>  preventable with methods as simple as insecticide-treated bed nets -
>has
>  no
>  clat. No powerful   international health lobby has declared war on it.
>  Elizabeth Taylor hasn't set up an eponymous fundraising foundation for
>it.
>  Rock bands don't hold benefit concerts for  it. Toronto star-     July
>9,
>  2000 Rosie Dimanno.

True. Malaria is really hard to fight, though. It could be harder to
fight than HIV in the long run. As for the bed nets, that is more or
less a stop gap measure.

>  21. Africans are not wildly promiscuous, compared with other societies.
>  Intravenous drug use - the other major source of HIV infection, which
>is
>  spread through exchange of semen and blood - is far less a scourge in
>  Africa
>  than in the Old World and the New World. Toronto star-     July 9, 2000
>  Rosie Dimanno.

Apparently the strain of HIV that is (still) mostly prevalent in Africa
is spread more easily with heterosexual intercourse than is the strain
that is mostly prevalent in North America. Heterosexual sex is more
common than homosexual sex everywhere. Thus, Africa would likely
experience a greater degree of infection. This may be changing,
however.

Thank you for your critical eye.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx





     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---