1. HIV enters a cell 2. HIV stores its genetic information on single-stranded RNA instead of the double-stranded DNA found in most organisms. To replicate, HIV uses an enzyme known as reverse transcriptase to convert its RNA into DNA. This process is why HIV is known as a retrovirus 3. HIV DNA enters the nucleus of the CD4 cell and inserts itself into the cell's DNA. HIV DNA then instructs the cell to make many copies of the original virus. 4. New virus particles are assembled and leave the cell, ready to infect other CD4 cells.
1. Non-nucleaoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The newest class of antiretroviral agents ... (NNRTIs) stop HIV production by binding directly onto the reverse transcriptase and preventing the the conversion of RNA into DNA. These drugs are called non-nucleoside inhibitors because even though they work at the same stage as nucleoside analogues, they act in a completely different way. 2. Nucleoside Analogues. They act by incorporating themselves into the virus, thereby stopping the building process. The resulting DNA is incomplete and cannot create new virus. 3.Protease inhibitors work at the last stage of the virus reproduction cycle. They prevent HIV from being successfully assembled and released from the infected CD4 cell.
Current thinking is to use the combination of two nucleosides and one protease inhibitor or NNRTI to hit HIV coming and going, interfering with two different points of the virus's reproductive cycle. "I think of the immune system as a basketball game, with the Nucleosides and the NNRTIs as the forwards and the protease inhibitors as the guards hanging back to get the virus if it makes the fast break toward the end of the replication cycle," says GMHC's Johnson. For those of us who find sports metaphors as hard to understand as as the appeal of an evening at Hooters, think of the protease inhibitors as the divas who come with white gloves and extra-strength Endust after the house has already been cleaned."
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
To be fair, spreading misinformation about a public health issue that can actually endanger health and lives of people is entirely different from such purely theoretical issues as origin of the universe, where being wrong does not harm anyone. AIDS denialism has already resulted in great damage to public health:
AIDS denialist claims have had a major political, social, and public health impact in South Africa. The government of then President Thabo Mbeki was sympathetic to the views of AIDS denialists, with critics charging that denialist influence was responsible for the slow and ineffective governmental response to the country's massive AIDS epidemic.
Independent studies have arrived at almost identical estimates of the human costs of AIDS denialism in South Africa. According to a paper written by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, between 2000 and 2005, more than 330,000 deaths and an estimated 35,000 infant HIV infections occurred "because of a failure to accept the use of available [antiretroviral drugs] to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner." Nicoli Nattrass of the University of Cape Town estimates that 343,000 excess AIDS deaths and 171,000 infections resulted from the Mbeki administration's policies, an outcome she refers to in the words of Peter Mandelson as "genocide by sloth".
In the light of these facts, stronger response is IMHO justified.
Originally posted by jollyjollyjolly
AIDS/HIV/Whatever you want to call it was around in the 1940's and 50's. They have found it in sailors cryogenic frozen blood samples from WWII.
Originally posted by phalanx001
[...] feel free to inject some HIV.
Peace and out.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
The other Immunodeficiency viruses cause AIDS in other species, such as cats. Why is it so hard to believe that it does in humans?
Originally posted by halfoldman
Considering just the length of the thread at this point, exactly what thesis have you proven, and how have you proven it?
I'd just like to make sure again what the argument is about in a nutshell.
Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Lived a full life eh? She died 14 years after being diagnosed with HIV, too bad her daughter wasn't so lucky. They both died prematurely and neither one of them lived a full life.
It's obvious you're willing to turn a blind eye to see or not see whatever you like.
"Wikipedia article on the hypothesis contains refutations:" -Maslo
Duesberg argues that there is a statistical correlation between trends in recreational drug use and trends in AIDS cases. He argues that the epidemic of AIDS cases in the 1980s corresponds to a supposed epidemic of recreational drug use in the United States and Europe during the same time frame.
These claims are not supported by epidemiologic data. The average yearly increase in opioid-related deaths from 1990-2002 was nearly three times the yearly increase from 1979–1990, with the greatest increase in 2000-2002, yet AIDS cases and deaths fell dramatically during the mid-to-late-1990s. Duesberg's claim that recreational drug use, rather than HIV, was the cause of AIDS has been specifically examined and found to be false. Cohort studies have found that only HIV-positive drug users develop opportunistic infections; HIV-negative drug users do not develop such infections, indicating that HIV rather than drug use is the cause of AIDS.
Abstract A hypothesis identifying substance abuse as a main cause of AIDS has naturally excited much publicity. But such claims have no basis in fact.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ownbestenemy
While there have been members in this thread who've dismissed articles of this age, articles written "in the 90's", in terms of rage and ridicule, what has changed?
Using the denialist arguments...
And you illustrate exactly what I stated about my debating skills, so why bother critisizing them?
FYI I didn't discuss politics or science.I discussed cause and effect, simple as that, multiplied by the millions, and please - don't ask for references, they are too easy to find,and once again, to me this is more to educate than to debate a hoax.
Cause and effect is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in science and is often misused by lawyers, the media, politicians and even scientists themselves, in an attempt to add legitimacy to research.
What you illustrate - is that you don't care either way
and you Google quite good, and are very good with word games.
And out of the 1.2 million living in the U.S that could give some life experience, FEW will bother to publisize their personal experience just to debate you. Easy topic for you to win.
[...] doesn't change my opinion of the past arguments of denialist / dissident scientists / whatever [...]
In conclusion: The Roberts-Crowe Letter to Science has indeed caused damage, but
not to Gallo or Science. It has served to redirect focus from the real scientific issues to
peripheral and largely irrelevant questions of editorial practices in Gallo’s lab, as well
as made the Signatories the laughing stock of the scientific establishment
As is the case with Duesberg’s co-authors, who argue for and against the Passenger
Virus theory as circumstances dictate, it raises concerns about overall strategic
coherence when a scientist accepts with such ease two mutually exclusive results and
offers two mutually exclusive explanations for them.