Cuba desarrolla la primera banderilla terapéutica contra el cáncer de pulmón

[AYN RANDiano2]

Usted nunca ha se ha preocupado de indagar los estudios pioneros del SIDA para ver que no contienen errores ni falsedades o le ha tomado el pelo. Está usted pisando terreno virgen que desconoce y nosotros de vuelta. Aprenda.

Exacto.

Hace 20 años yo estaba donde está usted (Parménides) ahora.

Sobre WB, ELISA y PCR, habláis con un desconocimiento que clama al cielo

¿Sabe usted más sobre PCR que Kary Mullis (el inventor de la técnica)?

"Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron"

Kary Mullis​

 

[horror]

Felicitades a los que estais participando, un hilo serio.(por fin)
Animo y no os calenteis debatan sres.

 

[AYN RANDiano2]

Notas para Parménides:

1. Un consejo personal de amigo: Tenga cuidado a quién pregunta dónde está la fuente primaria que prueba que el SIDA causa el VIH. Puede usted marcarse como un maldito en según dónde trabaje (algo así como si trabaja en la FED y empieza a hacer preguntas en el trabajo sobre qué es eso del sound money).

2. Juego con ventaja. Yo sé que tal referencia NO EXISTE:

FOREWORD
By Kary Mullis


In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency bichito (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they had hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recog nized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discov eries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be con tinually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of gays and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well estab lished that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a pub lished paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency bichito]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, Dr Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, Dr Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a bichito called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.*​

HIV & AIDS - Foreword for Inventing the AIDS bichito

 

[stiff upper lip]

Sí, perdone usted lo de new age si le ha ofendido. Fue producto de la falta de tiempo. No es nacido del trastero de Carlos Jesús. Es producto de intentar aplicar la biología de sistemas, systems biology, al estudio de la oncología. Sabe usted qué es? En el último congreso al que acudí, discutimos mucho con un señor, americano, en Boston, de orígen argentino, para más señas, que defendía que el tumor es una respuesta del huesped, que lo de las mutaciones es una patraña que si patatín y patatán. Nos lo comimos con patatas, con perdón, por el simple motivo de que NO MOSTRÓ PRUEBAS. Puede ser. Seguramente, una aproximación holistica a la enfermedad, no sólo al tumor, es la acertada, y no la reduccionista acogida hasta ahora. Pero no caigamos en el copernicanismo cuando no es necesario. Completemos y aportemos pruebas si queremos cambiar el paradigma. Por ahora, la explicación genética y molecular del cáncer es indiscutible. Las implicaciones tesutales y de sistema son importantes y hay que tenerlas en cuenta pero no borran el resto. Lean más.

Y añado. No tengo porque probar que soy quien soy si no es necesario. Sin embargo es difícil transmitir años de experiencia y formación con pocos posts sin caer en las citas, en el copypastismo o, y me perdonarán, en los consejos sobre lecturas o estudios universitarios. Es cuestión de tiempo. Si alguien en concreto necesita alguna prueba del curriculum de alguien, no tiene más que pedirla en privado, si así está más tranquilo.

Sus años de experiencia y los de sus colegas no les han servido para obtener resultados apreciables en cuanto al tratamiento del cancer. Nadie ha sido capaz de poner un enlace a un estudio que pruebe la efectividad del tratamiento actual frente a un placebo. Y nadie ha sido capaz porque no existe, si está hecho muéstrenoslo, prometo comérmelo no ya con patatas sino con ladrillo adobao y adoquines, más acordes con este foro.

Las citas, si son certeras y concretas son una herramienta bastante poderosa, no renuncie a ellas, y de hecho son la única herramienta que tiene para probar nada.

No haga preguntas, en internet es muy fácil encontrar la información que solicita, tanto para mí como para usted y no es prueba de nada. La biología de sistemas consiste en un enfoque multidisciplinario, mediante matemáticas, física y otras ciencias, y que parece ser el método de trabajo que se perfila para el futuro. La hipótesis-sugerencia de nuevo paradigma parte de la medicina oficialista, usted mismo reconoce que uno de sus colegas expuso el tema en un congreso.

Cuando en el resto del mundo civilizado se hallen inmersos en los nuevos caminos, los españoles seguiremos en el siglo XX como ha pasado a lo largo de la historia (salvo honrosas excepciones). Dejaremos pasar la oportunidad, como hicimos con el submarino, el autogiro y otros tantos inventos, y no por falta de personas capaces de llevarlos a cabo, sino por inmovilismo y corporativismo, ahí está el caso de Antonio Bru, pionero "holista" español y defenestrado por el establishment médico nacional. Por suerte en el extranjero le toman más en serio.

Tiene usted razón, hacen falta pruebas y estudios, y para ello hace falta financiación. ¿Quien la proveerá?

 

[bk001]

Se nota que eres un ignorante.
Es un tocho, seguro que no lo leerás, pero que sepas que lo que dices es mentira.

Lea algo hombre, que hasta que las casas valgan 3 euros va a pasar un tiempo, aprenda de otras cosas, PAPAGAYO.

Cuba versus Bloqueo


..............

[Continúa]

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/politica/94858-cuba-22-cuestiones-que-quizas-no-sepan-16.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Se imagina lo que hubiera desarrollado Cuba, por ejemplo, si no la hubieran estado tocando los narices????.

pues si que les temen los americanos a los cubanos.

por cierto, mis felicitaciones a estos por sus logros médicos y su buena sanidad en proporción a los medios que disponen. (quien no vea esto último muestra ser un fanboy cegado por sus ideales )

 

[superpo]

poz deme una caja de cohibas y una vcuna d´esas

 

[Parmenides]

Exacto.

Hace 20 años yo estaba donde está usted (Parménides) ahora.



¿Sabe usted más sobre PCR que Kary Mullis (el inventor de la técnica)?

"Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron"

Kary Mullis​

Kary Mullis está como una cabra. Basta haber asistido a algún seminario suyo para darse cuenta. Y sí, aunque le pese al señor Mullis, la PCR cuantitativa existe. Ha llovido bastante desde que el señor Mullis añadía la Taq a cada ciclo y pasaba de un baño a 94 a otro a 72 etc. Existe la RT-PCR, y de la semi-quantitativa se ha pasado a la quantitativa. Gracias a lo que se llama qPCR, con sondas fluorescentes (en realidad hay dos tipos de aproximación, pero eso no importa mucho), en cada ciclo de amplificación, los termocicladores modernos, siguen cuantitativamente la amplificación del fragmento específico de DNA, o de cDNA si de RT-PCR estamos hablando. Gracias a una transformacion logaritmica se pueden comparar cuantitativamente las cantidades de DNA molde presentes en las muestras a analizar. Incluso existe la posibilidad, aunque no es necesaria en la mayor parte de los casos, de cuantificar en absoluto, es decir, dar la cantidad de moleculas de DNA presentes, 1, 2, 3 las que sean, utilizando curvas de calibración. El concepto de PCR y de PCR quantitativa no es tan complicado de entender, ni de realizar. Por supuesto que alguien que la usa como técnica de routine, y que sigue los avances tecnológicos está más que prearado para entender su funcionamiento. No estamos hablando de física teórica o cálculos con diagramas de Feynman.
Desconozco los motivos por los cuales al señor Mullis, tras su aportación a la ciencia en forma de desarrollo inicial de la técnica, se le haya ido la olla de tal manera, pero no le daría mucho crédito, la verdad.

 

[Parmenides]

Sus años de experiencia y los de sus colegas no les han servido para obtener resultados apreciables en cuanto al tratamiento del cancer. Nadie ha sido capaz de poner un enlace a un estudio que pruebe la efectividad del tratamiento actual frente a un placebo. Y nadie ha sido capaz porque no existe, si está hecho muéstrenoslo, prometo comérmelo no ya con patatas sino con ladrillo adobao y adoquines, más acordes con este foro.

Las citas, si son certeras y concretas son una herramienta bastante poderosa, no renuncie a ellas, y de hecho son la única herramienta que tiene para probar nada.

No haga preguntas, en internet es muy fácil encontrar la información que solicita, tanto para mí como para usted y no es prueba de nada. La biología de sistemas consiste en un enfoque multidisciplinario, mediante matemáticas, física y otras ciencias, y que parece ser el método de trabajo que se perfila para el futuro. La hipótesis-sugerencia de nuevo paradigma parte de la medicina oficialista, usted mismo reconoce que uno de sus colegas expuso el tema en un congreso.

Cuando en el resto del mundo civilizado se hallen inmersos en los nuevos caminos, los españoles seguiremos en el siglo XX como ha pasado a lo largo de la historia (salvo honrosas excepciones). Dejaremos pasar la oportunidad, como hicimos con el submarino, el autogiro y otros tantos inventos, y no por falta de personas capaces de llevarlos a cabo, sino por inmovilismo y corporativismo, ahí está el caso de Antonio Bru, pionero "holista" español y defenestrado por el establishment médico nacional. Por suerte en el extranjero le toman más en serio.

Tiene usted razón, hacen falta pruebas y estudios, y para ello hace falta financiación. ¿Quien la proveerá?

Si escuché lo que escuché en un congreso es porque yo mismo estoy metido en un proyecto de systems biology, y obviamente comprendo bien que nos estamos adentrando en un nuevo paradigma de estudio de la medicina, pero como ya he comentado, éste no será como el giro copernicano. Systems biology no consiste en utilizar matematicas o física, consiste en acercarse a los problemas biológicos considerando todos los datos disponibles, en su conjunto, y de ellos proponer hipotesis. Para tamaña aproximación, con ingentes cantidades de datos, a priori inconexos, gracias a las nuevas técnicas de la era "omica", es necesario recurrir a estadística, matemáticas, física, y sobretodo teoría de la información. Muchos de los resultados que se encuentran con una aproxímación sistémica (top down) confirman los resultados obtenidos hasta ahora en "bottom up", y los completan aportando la visión general y las interrelaciones con otras evidencias, en apariencia desconectadas.

 

[ominae]

Antes de llamar fulastre a los demás, lo que hace con bastante frecuencia, documéntese un poquito porque la mayoría de las veces queda como un ignorante gruñon.

Los personas de color pueden perfectamente sintetizar la vitamina D que necesitan a través de los rayos del sol.

No se si es que usted se aburre o es simple. Cuanto mas oscura es la piel mas difícil es sintetizar la vitamina d (d3) de los rayos del sol y los personas de color, si los mira bien, tiene una piel un poco oscura. Eso es una evidencia científica y no se sinceramente que pretende usted replicar.

Si usted o yo nos exponemos al sol sin protección el primer dia de verano en 10 minutos sintetizamos toda la vitamina d que necesitamos mientras un oscuro necesitaría mucho mas tiempo si es que logra sintetizar una cantidad importante, que es bastante dificil.

Ya puesto a hacer el ridículo completo con sus corta y pega la proxima vez que se le olvide la crema solar en la playa pidasela a un oscuro y cuelgue el vídeo en youtube para que nos riamos un poco.

 

[horror]

No se si es que usted se aburre o es simple. Cuanto mas oscura es la piel mas difícil es sintetizar la vitamina d (d3) de los rayos del sol y los personas de color, si los mira bien, tiene una piel un poco oscura. Eso es una evidencia científica y no se sinceramente que pretende usted replicar.

Pero no te has dado cuenta que habeis dicho lo mismo?
Cualquier exxcusa con tal de llamar la atención e insultar a la gente.
Animo que aunque estés pasando momentos duros saldrás adelante.(n serio lo digo)

 

[Parmenides]

Demuéstralo tú. Sabes como se llama su inventor? sabes lo que opina sobre su uso en el "diagnóstico" del VIH?

La PCR es cualitativa y se ha estado usando durante décadas para "contar bichito", algo absurdo porque el factor de amplificación es imprevisible.

Sin "primers" específicos la PCR no detecta lo que se pretende detectar. Ya vimos que fallan el primero y el segundo postulado de Koch, por tanto no hay primers.

Si se aplica la PCR a la población en general (no solo a grupios de riesgo) la mitad de la gente dan un "carga viral" que no existe.

Mbeki T. Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Report. A synthesis report of the deliberations by the panel of experts invited bythe President of the Republic of South Africa, the Honourable Mr. Thabo Mbeki, March 2001. Available at: HIV & AIDS - Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Report - Contents . Accessed Jan 19,2006.

2.2.2 PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) and ELISAs

As already stated above, some panellists, including Dr de Harven, concurred that there is not one single report in the entire medical literature in which a correlation has been established between high viral load measured by PCR of AIDS patients and the observation of HIV particles by electron microscopy. According to him, the best experts in the field concur that this essential correlation has never been made. Dr de Harven went on to stress that (1) any epidemiological studies based on ELISA or Western Blots would have to be fundamentally re-appraised; and (2) that amowing up AIDS patients with PCR measurement of viral load is, in his opinion, scientific nonsense.

Furthermore, there were repeated assertions by some panellists that Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for developing the PCR, has cautioned that the PCR is not an acceptable method for measuring viral load. It was also argued that the PCR is not a test for bichito per se but could be totally non-specific and therefore not identify HIV.

Dr Giraldo accused the proponents of the theory that HIV causes AIDS of attaching a lot of value to PCR amplification of fragments of nucleic acids because of their inability to isolate the complete HIV particles even from patients at the height of the disease. Furthermore, PCR is not quantitative because it is not reproducible - repeat amplifications of the same sample delivering different results.

Dr Lane pointed out that the ELISA is a screening test to detect whether someone might be infectious and is not a diagnostic test for HIV. However, a combination of the ELISA with a Western Blot provides a very accurate method of diagnosing HIV infection. Dr Giraldo did not understand how two tests that were individually not diagnostic could be the basis of a diagnosis when combined. Reference was made to the amowing statements made by the manufacturers of kits used for ELISA, Western Blot and PCR tests:

* "ELISA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests that antibodies to HIV are present" and "Specimens found to be repeatably reactive by Abbott HIV AB HIV-1/HIV-2(rDNA) EIA must be investigated by additional more specific supplementary tests"

* "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosing HIV-1 infection"

* "The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection"
​

​

Respecto al Western Blot, los criterios para decidir si un resultado es positivo o negativo varían de un pais a otro y de una institución a otra:

Variación del criterio interpretativo de un Western Blot VIH-positivo de un pais a otro:

​

De esto se deduce que la prueba WB del VIH, al NO SER REPETIBLE, no es científica.

Tambien se deduce que los criterios de interpretación, al no ser uniformes, están HECHOS A MEDIDA (ad hoc) con el propósito fraudulento de forzar un encaje de los datos clínicos disponibles en cada sitio.

Se da el absurdo de que una persona declarada seropositiva en Alemania, con solo tomar un vuelo a Australia y hacerse allí el WB se "cura" porque la interpretación es diferente .... a tomar por el trastero el método científico!

Por cuestión de tiempo, le copypasto aquí la explicación exhaustiva de como funcionan los tests:

Fact: HIV tests for antibodies or the bichito itself are highly reliable (both in terms of sensitivity and specificity).

There are two important measures when considering the accuracy of an HIV test or any screening or diagnostic test: sensitivity and specificity.


HIV Rapid Test

Sensitivity is a measure of how likely it is that the test will return positive results if the person being tested has HIV. A highly sensitive test is calibrated to capture every positive sample, but will probably produce some false positives because it is so sensitive that may react to other substances as well.

Specificity is a measure of how likely it is that the test will return negative results if the person being tested does not have HIV. A highly specific test will only react to the substance being tested for and exclude all true negatives, but it will also produce false negatives.

All medical screening and testing procedures—not just for those HIV but for cancers, for pregnancy, for diabetes, for Lyme disease, for everything—must balance sensitivity and specificity: it is inherent in the nature of testing. Ideally a test should have both high sensitivity and specificity. However, using two tests, one with high sensitivity and another with high specificity, is also fine and this is usually what is done with HIV.

HIV tests are calibrated to be extremely sensitive, in order not to miss any positive cases. This is because these tests are used to ensure that the blood supply is safe, and because it is important that people who are HIV-positive not be misdiagnosed as negative, because they will then not seek medical monitoring and treatment, and they may inadvertently spread the bichito.

There are two categories of HIV tests: those that detect antibodies [ELISA and Western Blot tests) and those that detect the bichito itself (viral load or PCR tests). It is the antibody tests that are usually used when people older than infants are first tested.

In the United States, the first step in HIV testing is usually the inexpensive ELISA screening test. The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) can be used with blood or oral fluid (not saliva), and determines, with over 99.5% accuracy, if there are antibodies to HIV present. A rapid test produces results in less than half an hour; other test types require from several days to two weeks to get results. These tests are considered screening tests, not diagnostic tests: additional confirmatory testing is considered necessary to determine that an individual is HIV-infected. This is because the tests are so sensitive, they may in rare cases produce false positive or indeterminate results. Antibody tests are not accurate in people who have been infected with HIV very recently, because it typically takes 6 to 12 weeks, and can take as long as 6 months, to develop the antibodies to HIV that the test reacts to. People recently exposed to HIV should seek a PCR test to determine if they are in the stage known as “active infection.”

Most people in sub-Saharan Africa and other resource-poor settings are tested using rapid antibody tests that give results in 20 to 30 minutes. Occasionally these tests give indeterminate results. In those situations a blood sample from the person being tested is sent to a laboratory where a different test is carried out.. Different testing, screening and diagnostic protocols reflect the reality of economic and health services inequality, not ambiguity about the existence of HIV and its causative role in AIDS.

The amowing is a typical way in which HIV infection is identified in people older than infants in South Africa:

First the Abbott Rapid Determine antibody test is performed. It has been evaluated as 100% sensitive and 99.4% specific. In other words it is not expected to give a false negative (except for in the window period of course), and it gives a false positive 6 in every 1,000 tests. (Assuming a person has a 50-50 chance of being HIV-positive.)
If the Abbott test is negative, the patient is assumed to be negative. If it is positive, then a PMC First Response confirmatory test is done. This is also 100% sensitive, but 98.8% specific.
If either of the above tests are indeterminate or contradict each other, then an ELISA test is performed in a laboratory. [1]
A list of common rapid HIV tests (as of 2003) and their accuracies is available on this page of the Centre for Disease Control (CDC).

The Western Blot test is considered the gold standard against which other HIV tests are evaluated. But it is important to understand that a person is not diagnosed HIV-positive on the basis of one test alone, even the Western Blot. Instead, a testing algorithm, involving at least two tests, is used to make a positive HIV diagnosis.

Infants born to women known to be HIV-positive are tested directly for the bichito itself, not antibodies, because all newborns of HIV+ women carry their mothers’ antibodies. Women who do not know their HIV status may choose to have their babies tested for antibodies—if the results are positive, a amow-up PCR test can determine if the child is actually infected. Mothers of HIV antibody-positive children should seek additional testing and, if necessary, treatment. Even without treatment, about 2/3 of children born to HIV-positive mothers are not infected and will clear their mothers’ antibodies in 6 to 18 months; the other 1/3 will be infected, and will therefore develop antibodies of their own in response, just as adults do. Antiretroviral treatment and other interventions can reduce the HIV infection rate in babies of HIV-positive womenfrom about 25-30% to below 2%.

We know HIV testing is a valid, reliable procedure because AIDS almost never occurs in people who do not test positive for HIV antibodies or the bichito itself. The sensitivities and specificities of the HIV tests on the CDC page linked above were determined by independent evaluations against multiple HIV-1 and HIV-2 subtypes.

To see how unusual it is for AIDS to be diagnosed in someone found to be HIV-negative, consider this 1993 study of US AIDS patients (which has a simpler explanation here). Of 230,179 people clinically diagnosed with AIDS, only 299 were HIV-negative. 172 of the 299 were then re-evaluated. Of these 299, 131 were actually found to be HIV-positive, and 34 died before their status could be verified. That leaves 168 unexplained cases, fewer than one in a thousand. So already more than 15 years ago, HIV tests were very accurate. [2]

HIV tests have become even better since then. This is from a 2005 review of HIV testing in the United States:

The use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay amowed by confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection (44, 45). A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay (45), and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99% (46, 47). With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000) (48).

For more information about HIV testing and diagnosis, and responses to the misrepresentations of HIV testing made by HIV denialists, see AIDStruth’s critique of “The AIDS Trap.” [Coming soon]

Notes

1. Assuming this procedure is carried out correctly, the probability of a false positive diagnosis is 0.0006. In other words, only 6 in 10,000 people who are HIV-negative will be incorrectly diagnosed as HIV-positive. This is based on the estimate that 10.8% of South Africans over the age of two are HIV-positive, determined by the HSRC's 2005 Household Survey and confirmed by the recently released 2008 one. In practice, people at risk of HIV are more likely to be tested and the risk of a false positive is even smaller than calculated here. By the standards of medical accuracy this is extremely high, much better than a pregnancy test for example. ^back^

2. In these rare cases of idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia (ICL), patients have reduced numbers of CD4+ T-lymphocytes, and some of the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS, including ICL cryptococcosis, molluscum and histoplasmosis. People with ICL usually have a good prognosis and stable, not falling, CD-4 counts. ^back^

 

[Parmenides]

Perdón de nuevo por copypastare. En este link encontrarán los links a este reducido grupo de publicaciones, articulos, revisiones, newsletters, páginas web, reivistas científicas y presentaciones con evidencias científicas apoyando la tesis HIV/AIDS. The Science of HIV/AIDS: Supporting information | AIDSTruth.org
A breve les envio una serie de artículos de Science, del 1994 (ha llovido, sí) rebatiendo punto por punto al tal Peter Duesberg. Cuando tenga más tiempo, si quieren, podemos ir punto por punto, pero hoy termino de revisar mi ultimo artículo y no estaré tanto tiempo al pc en los próximos días.

Mi post anterior no era para patrocinar, me gustan los debates científicos, es bueno que los haya. Pero el negacionismo, como ismo, me inquieta.

-HIV no causa AIDS
-No hemos ido nunca a la luna
-Los judíos no fueron exterminados por los nazis
-La tierra es plana
-El mundo tiene 6000 años
-Las especies no evolucionan
...

Yo soy sólo un pobre investigador, con una formación científica y biomédica. Imagínense ustedes a un profesor de historia, que se encuentra con alguien que continúa a repetir que los romanos nunca existieron. Cómo se sentirían ustedes?

The Science of HIV/AIDS: Supporting information
Important and informative publications, articles and reviews from newsletters, websites,
scientific journals and publications, and slide presentations.

In Their Own Words - NIH Researchers Recall the Early Years of AIDS
Science Magazine Special News Report Reviewing the Data (Science, 1994)
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS (NIAID, 1994)
The Science of HIV/AIDS (Treatment Action Campaign, 2006)
AIDSvideos.org: Online HIV/AIDS Educational Videos in Many Languages
The Relationship Between The Human Immunodeficiency bichito And The Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (NIAID)
How HIV Causes AIDS (NIAID, 2004)
Special News Report: Fulfilling Koch's Postulates (Science, 1994)
The Durban Declaration
Interventions for reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection(Cochrane Review, 2006)
HIV causes AIDS: An independent review of the evidence (AVERT, 2006)
Effective therapy has altered the spectrum of cause-specific mortality amowing HIV seroconversion (AIDS, 2006)
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Nevirapine-Based Approaches in HIV Type 1-Infected Patients (AIDS and Human Retroviruses, 2006)
HIV disease: fallout from a mucosal catastrophe? (Nature Immunology, 2006)
Pathogenesis of HIV infection: what the bichito spares is as important as what it destroys (Nature Medicine, 2006)
Structural Biology of HIV
A 3D representation of HIV-1 virions derived from electron microscopy studies
Index to 3d Views of HIV Macromolecular Structures
Facts, Resources & Links (NIAID)
Beast in the belly: A new focus on early HIV infection in the gut and other mucosal tissues may generate novel strategies to study, treat, and prevent infection (IAVI Report, 2006)
Mortality in HIV-Infected and Uninfected Children of HIV-Infected and Uninfected Mothers in Rural Uganda.
Interventions for reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection (Review)
Publication of the Coordination Aids of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires (Spanish)
Bulletin on HIV in Argentina (Spanish)

 

[traspotin]

Parménides, sólo quería agradecerle que se tome su tiempo en escribir a cerca de su experiencia profesional diaria. Sé lo complicado que es sacar tiempo de la vida de uno para intentar explicar a los demás cualquier avance en ciencia.

Se lo agradezco de veras.

s2.

 

[Kasandra]

Ya que sabe usted más que nosotros:

¿Puede por favor indicarnos dónde está la fuente primaria que prueba que el VIH causa el SIDA?. (Tercera vez que se la pido).

Verá: Es que si no puede usted encontrar esa fuente va a resultar que usted cree que el VIH causa el SIDA por Fe, y no porque usted sepa que sea (no lo es) un hecho científico.

Cállate. Das vergüenza ajena (ya que careces de la propia).

Te ha puesto un montón de referencias bibliográficas científicas de artículos revisados por pares y te ha ofrecido aún más si se los pides.

Esas referencias tienen más valor científico que la única "prueba" que has aportado tú al hilo y que consiste en una imagen de un libro de Pauling, suficientemente rebatido ya. Sin tener en cuenta que un libro, independientemente de quién lo escriba no tiene porque ser referencia bibliográfica de un estudio científico... y por no hablar que de unos años a esta parte cualquiera publica un libro. Hasta Rapel sacó uno si mal no recuerdo.

 

[Parmenides]

Aquí tienen la respuesta de Science, punto por punto, a las tesis negacionistas de Duesberg. Juzguen ustedes mismos.