Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol

HIV Life >> Living With HIV

Pages: 1
Bodywise
Unregistered

Viral Load: A Deception
      #8996 - 08/29/00 07:47 PM

Viral load testing is a deceptive practice, as the results are skewed in such a way as to reflect a number of viral units that is far greater than the number of CD4 cell units.

For example: let's assume your viral load results are 100,000 and your CD4 cells are at 350. Those numbers sound terrifying, because on first examination it would appear that the number of viral units far outweigh your CD4 cells.

However the volume of plasma used to perform these two tests is quite different. The volume of plasma it took to produce the viral load count is one thousand times greater than the volume of plasma it took to produce the CD4 cell count.

If you were to equalize the volumes from which the measurements are taken, you would have either:

1) A viral load of 100,000 with a CD4 cell count of 350,000;

2) a viral load of 100 with a CD4 cell count of 350.

Most people are going to have many more CD4 cells than viral copies, even when viral load is "high".

Now, when you take into consideration that over 98% of the virus represented by the viral load measurement are noninfectious, another set of number emerges:

1) A viral load of 200 with a CD4 cell count of 350,000;

2) a viral load of 2 with a CD4 cell count of 350.

These numbers present a great difficulty for those promote the HIV/AIDS theory. For the first time in the history of infectious disease it is being claimed that immune systems are being destroyed by noninfectious virus.

Webmaster, HEAL Seattle Online
http://www.healseattle.org



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Viral Load: A Deception new
      #9010 - 08/30/00 12:39 AM

Amazing the way your logic works. You have forgotten to mention that a CD4 cell-or ANY cell for that matter, is thousands, no hundreds of thousands BIGGER than a viral particle, therefore, if you have even just a handfulof virus per cell, then the viral count ALREADY outnumbers any CD4 coun, and need we factor in to the equation the fact that CD4 cells are NOT the only cells in the body infected with HIV at any one point in time?
Check your math, boddy.
I wish to God you were right. But it's not so!
Scott




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
HSO Webmaster
Unregistered

Re: Viral Load: A Deception new
      #9024 - 08/30/00 05:45 PM

"Check your math, boddy."
Thanks, you discovered my multiplication error. A viral load of 100,000 means 2000 (not 200) infectious virus. However, 350,000 is still a larger number than 2000. This means that for every viral particle, there exist 175 CD4 cells.

"You have forgotten to mention that a CD4 cell-or ANY cell for that matter, is thousands, no hundreds of thousands BIGGER than a viral particle"
That difference in scale has nothing to do with the source volume of plasma from which the measurements are derived.


"therefore, if you have even just a handfulof virus per cell, then the viral count ALREADY outnumbers any CD4 count"
This is rarely the case; usually there exist hundreds if not thousands of CD4 cells per infectious virus particle: way more than necessary to deal with an active infection. Even the measly few particles which could MIGHT be considered infectious (in the absence of direct evidence) are not enough to produce an "AIDS" indicator disease, which most certainly have their own causes.

"and need we factor in to the equation the fact that CD4 cells are NOT the only cells in the body infected with HIV at any one point in time?"
The number of cells infected by "HIV" (or any other of the hundreds of retroviruses inhabiting our bodies) is irrelevant considering the fact that "HIV" exists in those cells merely as a dormant gene. It cannot reproduce in the presence of antibody; neither in vitro nor in vivo. Even in the case of those dying with AIDS, only insignificant amounts of "HIV" can be detected (if at all).

-Webmaster, HEAL Seattle Online
http://www.healseattle.org



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Viral Load: A Deception new
      #9036 - 08/31/00 01:16 AM

Very well, you say that the difference in size (between a viral particle and cell) has nothing to do with then volumes the use to test for V.L. and Cd4 count, but you fail to explain WHY.
You also assert that HIV along with other virions lie dormant within our genes, and that even those dying of AIDS fail to produce too many infective particles....but again, you fail to mention your sources or the reasons, or research behind these observations!!
And tell me again? How did you figure more T-cells in PROPORTION to viral particles, given the fact that cells ARE many times bigger than a virus (irrespective of volumes used) ???
Scott



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
HSO Webmaster
Unregistered

Re: Viral Load: A Deception new
      #9046 - 08/31/00 12:36 PM

"Very well, you say that the difference in size (between a viral particle and cell) has nothing to do with then volumes the use to test for V.L. and Cd4 count, but you fail to explain WHY."
Let's say I have a swimming pool full of water which contains a quantity of apples and a quantity of grapes, both of which are evenly distributed throughout the water. Now I take ten barrels of water from the pool and measure the grapes. I count 1000 grapes.
Then I take only ONE barrel of water and measure the apples, and there are only 350.
Would you say these numbers reflect an accurate ratio of the number of apples to grapes throughout the water? Of course not! In order to get an accurate ratio, we must start with the same measurement for each type of particle we are measuring, irregardless of their difference in scale.

"You also assert that HIV along with other virions lie dormant within our genes, and that even those dying of AIDS fail to produce too many infective particles....but again, you fail to mention your sources or the reasons, or research behind these observations!!"
Gartner, S., Markovits, P., Markovitz, D., Kaplan, M., Gallo, R., & Popovic, M. (1986) Science 233, 215-219.
Ho, D.D., Pomerantz, R.J., & Kaplan, J.C. (1987) N.Engl.J.Med. 317, 278-286.
Duesberg, P.H. (1987) Cancer Res. 47, 1199-1220.
Weiss, R., Teich, N., Varmus, H., & Coffin, J. (1985) RNA Tumor Viruses (Cold Spring Harbor Lab., Cold Spring Harbor, NY), 2nd Ed.
Kahn, N.C., Chatlynne, L.G., & Hunter, E. (1988) Am.Clin.Proc.Rev. 7 (5), 12-19.
Baum, R.M. (1988) Chem.Eng.News 66 (13), 29-33.
Levy, J. (1988) Nature (London) 333, 519-522.
Booth, W. (1988) Science 239, 1485-1488.

"And tell me again? How did you figure more T-cells in PROPORTION to viral particles, given the fact that cells ARE many times bigger than a virus (irrespective of volumes used) ???"
Start with an identical base measurement in order to determine the ratio of CD4 cells to viral "copies". The multiply the number of viral "copies" by .02 to determine the number of infectious virus (the rest can be considered noninfectious). See me earlier posts for examples.

Webmaster, HEAL Seattle Online
http://www.healseattle.org



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


What's New at TheBody.com

Additional Information
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess 

Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 2695

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3