Rethread HIV/AIDS

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

FYI, current statistics:

Link to chart

From the CDC page Link but was getting too long to load.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 18, 2000

Answers

Dang, clipped the post.

Anyway, remember to put the percent of people in each risk group in contrast to the total population to get a true idea of the incidence of AIDS in this country.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 18, 2000.


CDC - Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm

-- also (worth@a.look), December 18, 2000.


Anyway, remember to put the percent of people in each risk group in contrast to the total population to get a true idea of the incidence of AIDS in this country.

And the point you're trying to make is?

-- Clarify your point so we (can@discuss.it), December 18, 2000.


SomeoneElse said,

And the point you're trying to make is?

I guess that would help... Anyway, on the original thread, Link I was trying to show (at least SOME of the time ;-) ) that irresponsible behavior is the cause of AIDS in this country. Others have put forth the proposition that (as I interpret it) personal behavior is NOT the cause of the continued spread of HIV.

My point with these statistics would be that all other things being equal a disease that is mainly transmitted by heterosexual contact in Africa should be transmitted basically the same way here. But it's not.

In the U.S. in 1999 "men having sex with men" account for 50-70% of new AIDS cases, whereas only 5-15% are caused by heterosexual contact, one-third of which are from heterosexuals having contact with an I.V. drug abuser. This is out of a population where in terms of numbers "men having sex with men" doesn't represent more than 5% of the population as a whole.

My point here is that there really isn't a biological reason (that I'm aware of) to cause AIDS in homosexual men in the U.S. and proportionally less so in Africa, that implies that something else is responsible for the spread of this disease. I believe this is the BEHAVIOR of the people involved. When one takes this position, people come out of the woodwork to shout "homophobe, etc.", but the fact is no matter how much one is shouted at, these numbers still represent people that are dying, that didn't have to, if only they hadn't behaved in the manner they had.

As I've shown on the earlier thread, education has NOT resulted in a decrease in risky behaviors in the San Francisco homosexual community, rather over the past several years the amount of people reporting having unprotected sex INcreased from 1/3 to 1/2!

My question to you (all) is: If the personal behavior of homosexual men and IV drug abusers is NOT to blame for their over-representation in the AIDS statistics, what is? and secondly, if education is the answer to the problem, why isn't it decreasing the people committing risky sexual behaviors in high risk (and high education) areas like San Francisco?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 18, 2000.


AIDS and HIV are declining in this country. Rates of both HIV infections and AIDS are declining quicker in gay men than any other group.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), December 18, 2000.


Frank, behaviors affect our health in every way. We can't just stop medical research and the development of new treatments for disease.

-- helen, genetically predisposed to arterial sclerosis...pass the butter (b@r.f), December 18, 2000.

....If the personal behavior of homosexual men and IV drug abusers is NOT to blame for their over-representation in the AIDS statistics, what is?

It's well known that in the U.S., HIV is often transmitted during unprotected anal sex. The real question is how we should treat those who engage in risky behaviors. For example, how sympathetic should we be to those who got lung cancer by smoking cigarettes? How much should be spent on lung cancer research?

....secondly, if education is the answer to the problem, why isn't it decreasing the people committing risky sexual behaviors in high risk (and high education) areas like San Francisco?

Education did decrease risky behaviors when it began in the late 1980s. After education began to work, the zeal lessened to get the word out about unsafe sex, and the number of PSAs about it dropped. I don't hear nearly as many public service announcements about HIV on TV and radio as I did 10 years ago.

There's a new generation of people out there just beginning to have sex. These younger people do not have the experience some older people do of knowing someone their own age who has died from AIDS, and they didn't pay much attention to AIDS educational efforts when they were children.

The education we used to have needs to continue.

Frank, a question now for you--if you believe education doesn't work, what do YOU suggest? Quarantine camps, making homosexuality illegal, a major federal research project to try to find out why gay people are gay?

And what should we do about those who engage in risky behaviors like cigarette smoking?

-- Education works (better@than.condemnation), December 18, 2000.


Somewhere, I read someone taking all this roundabout talk and boiling it down to its essence -- that AIDS is God's way of eliminating queers, druggies and Africans, and it serves them right! And if this is true, then education is the last thing we want, it only slows down God's will.

I'd like to know just what Frank is trying to say to us.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 18, 2000.


A piece written by someone who has been there (he says) The Bug Chasers- Men who Seek to Aquire AIDS for "Status"

http://www.sightings.com/general6/sicksicksick.htm

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 18, 2000.


That was out of line Flint.

Aids demographics in this country are crystal clear that it is spread almost exclusively by behavior. Second or third hand behavior perhaps but behavior nonetheless.

Aids is like cancer when it comes to survival. It's measured in years of remission not cure. Worst news recently for the homosexually indiscriminate is that the famous "Cocktail" is being used less and less as 5 year consequences come to light.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), December 18, 2000.



Carlos:

You can make the same case for nearly any disease. Indeed, we have exacerbated some through behavior (like unsanitary practices and open sewers and lack of mosquito netting) and eliminated others (or very nearly) through other behaviors. We know what to avoid (like eating uncooked pork), but we don't always do it. Sexually transmitted diseases have a clear behavior to be avoided, but people don't. And people cough and sneeze all around me at work because they don't want to take time off.

What makes HIV or AIDS special?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 18, 2000.


A central error of at least one of Frank's arguments is the fact that AIDS transmission in Africa is primarily through heterosexual contact, while in America, it is through unprotected homosexual contact or through sharing needles. The implication seems to be that, at least in America, the transmission of AIDS is based on weaker moral grounds.

What is often not discussed is one of the primary reasons for the wider spread of heterosexual transmission of AIDS in Africa: the common practice of female circumcision and other "surgery" to ensure virginity, chastity, and decreased sexual desire.

AIDS in homosexuals is mostly transmitted through anal/rectal microtears, caused by penile insertion into a canal not biologically designed for this practice. This sometimes causes a small amount of bleeding, which can transmit blood products (such as HIV) to the partner.

A similar process can occur with heterosexual intercourse, if the female genitalia has been damaged in some way. Since clitoral circumcision (and other practices I decline to describe) is/are unthinkable in our western culture, it shouldn't be surprising that it is not commonly discussed as a cause of heterosexual AIDS transmission in Africa.

If you are shocked, you should be. If you don't believe me, do your own research. AIDS is a more complicated issue than some would like to portray.

-- Anon (Cant@say.now), December 18, 2000.


http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/dailynews/hivinsanfran00063 0.html

HIV Infections Rise in San Francisco

Quick action by the city's gay community and public health officials also made San Francisco a model for the fight against AIDS, pushing new HIV infections down from an estimated high of 6,000 in 1982 to a fairly steady 500 per year throughout most of the 1990s.

The estimated total for 2000, however, is between 800 and 900, with gay men accounting for about 575 of the new HIV infections, according to Dr. Willi McFarland of the city’s Department of Public Health.

-- The (San@Francisco.figures), December 18, 2000.


Flint,

Perhaps I missed an earlier reference to "queers and druggies" on an earlier thread. Thought you were banging (poor choice of words) on Frank for this thread's content.

Anon,

Either you're in denial or you're an idiot. Female circumcision has about as much to do with the spread of aids in Africa as does the lack of same in males. Body fluids. Ring a bell? In Africa, promiscuity is rampant and is culturally accepted which means morality isn't an issue. AIDS transmission isn't complicated. What's complicated is making what isn't complicated fit in with what we'd like to belive.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), December 19, 2000.


In Africa, promiscuity is rampant and is culturally accepted which means morality isn't an issue.

Do you know that as fact, Carlos, or does that explanation fit well with preconceived notions you may have?

I just did a search on female circumcision in Africa and found the following page.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Female Genital Mutilation

It originated in Africa and remains today a mainly African cultural practice.

I don't know if this "circumcision" has anything to do with the spread of AIDS, but I'm not ready to rule it out as a contributing factor either.

-- (I@don't.know), December 19, 2000.



I think we can pretty much dismiss the Sightings article as an editorial work. There are no names given, no statistics cited, and the piece is full of pop psychology. I'm not saying it's impossible that some people actually want AIDS but if you're going to make such a claim, you should be prepared to back it up with something, even anonymous sources. Do you have anything else?

Female genital mutilation is a big problem throughout Africa.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), December 19, 2000.


Can someone tell me if catching the flu by flying on an aircraft full of possibly sick people is a behavior related illness? Certainly one could wear a sealed haz-mat suit with a biological filter face mask to avoid such exposure?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 19, 2000.

The possible role of female circumcision in the transmission of HIV is probably not related to transmission on the ... (I need a new bucket, 'sumer) ... razor blades or other cutting instruments. The procedure is normally performed on children before they reach sexual maturity. The practice does result in injuries that are aggravated by sexual contact for the rest of the woman's life, resulting in bleeding during every act of sexual intercourse.

-- helen (b@r.f), December 19, 2000.

Helen-

If you look at CDC statistics worldwide, women who get HIV from heterosexual acts are rising at an alarming rate. I wouldn't be surprised if the lingering effects of FGM are a factor in transmission in Africa.

Unk-

To do otherwise is immoral.

Alice-

Well said.

Carlos-

On what do you base your claim that promiscuity is rampant in Africa?

Flint-

I'd like to see what Frank has to say about this, too.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 19, 2000.


Alice, you said,

AIDS and HIV are declining in this country. Rates of both HIV infections and AIDS are declining quicker in gay men than any other group.

Not true. Link AIDS *deaths* have been declining, due to better therapy, but the number of people infected with HIV and AIDS cases is INcreasing.

Helen,

By no means do I want to stop research. Your post seems to suggest that you feel it is impossible to change people's behavior, so we can *only* cure this disease to have a chance of controlling it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Education,

Lung cancer is a great example. In Philadelphia, smoking is accepted, and lots of people smoke (in fact, my favorite cheesesteak restaurant, ((Dalessandro's)) is a smoking-only establishment). In L.A., on the other hand, a smoker is viewed as if Stalin had suddenly entered the room - Guess which area has lower smoking rates? The one that condemns the practice. And as I've said, I'm not against ANY research.

As far as education changing behavior, do you have any statistics that the amount spent is less? That would be great if we could show a 50% decrease in spending equated to a 33% rise in incidence. We'd have our answer! OTOH, if spending didn't decrease, it's just a nice theory. On the last, I'm getting there.

Flint, you said,

Somewhere, I read someone taking all this roundabout talk and boiling it down to its essence -- that AIDS is God's way of eliminating queers, druggies and Africans, and it serves them right! And if this is true, then education is the last thing we want, it only slows down God's will.

I'd like to know just what Frank is trying to say to us.

Way to GO! Don't bother trying to refute the facts I presented, or even the conclusions drawn from them. Don't even answer the question I asked, rather try some vague ad hominem against what you think my motivations are. Good work.

Anon,

You said, AIDS in homosexuals is mostly transmitted through anal/rectal microtears, caused by penile insertion into a canal not biologically designed for this practice

are you saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural? Be careful, soon some of your "friends" here will bite your head off.

More to the point, wounds heal, a female circumcision as a cause would have to be infected at the time it was performed (at a very young age as I understand the practice, although I may be mistaken) If they are not infected at this time, or shortly thereafter, female circumcision is likely NOT the cause of heterosexual transmission in Africa.

Carlos, you said,

Perhaps I missed an earlier reference to "queers and druggies"

No, you didn't miss it, I never said anything like that, that's out of Flint's mind, not mine.

(Titleless) I've also heard that the number of heterosexual partners in Africa is much higher than in the States, but don't have the data to back it up. Perhaps someone here does, and if so, it's the most obvious cause for the transmission of disease.

Helen, you said,

The practice does result in injuries that are aggravated by sexual contact for the rest of the woman's life, resulting in bleeding during every act of sexual intercourse.

Is this true? Where did you read it?

AIDS in this country is NOT treated as any other disease. With lung cancer for example, although the cigarette industry denies it for financial reasons, no one disputes that smoking leads to lung cancer, and that the more you smoke the more at risk you are. OTOH, with AIDS, the disease is treated like a religion, with the "correct" answer known ahead of time, and people are unwilling to even consider that their preconceived notions are incorrect. Why is it so hard to say that people's ACTIONS are responsible for their decisions?

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2000.


You still haven't addressed my main point, Frank.

If you believe education doesn't work, what do YOU suggest?

-- Education works (better@than.condemnation), December 19, 2000.


AIDS in this country is NOT treated as any other disease.

You're right. AIDS was first identified in the late 70's, yet it wasn't until the Clinton administration that a US president dared to even mention the name. Condoms have been known to be a big defense in the war on AIDS, yet it wasn't until the late 80's that ads for condoms were seen on TV. In many school districts, despite the increasing numbers of young people getting AIDS, education about the disease can't even be taught.

With lung cancer for example, although the cigarette industry denies it for financial reasons, no one disputes that smoking leads to lung cancer, and that the more you smoke the more at risk you are.

No one is denying that there are some behaviors which are high-risk and that are more likely to lead to AIDS. If you've ever taken the time to read some of the literature from GMHC (Gay Men's Health Crisis) you'll see some very stern warnings against these behaviors.

OTOH, with AIDS, the disease is treated like a religion, with the "correct" answer known ahead of time, and people are unwilling to even consider that their preconceived notions are incorrect.

What are you getting at here, Frank? We have health officials everywhere talking about high risk behaviors and the need for safer sex. There are even some volunteer groups I've heard tell of that frequent gay bars and give condoms to people who look like they might be getting interested in each other.

I'm beginning to suspect that you won't be satisfied with anything less than PSAs telling people not to be gay.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 19, 2000.


Frank:

Until I can determine what your conclusions are, I can neither agree with them nor refute them.

You say behaviors influence health, but this is trivially obvious.

You say AIDS is not treated like other diseases, but you don't point out any salient differences. Treated differently how?

You say AIDS is treated like a religion, but I have no idea what you intend to *mean* by this statement? That people worship AIDS? That AIDS is tax exempt? What?

You say the "correct" answer is known ahead of time, but you don't let us in on either the answer or the question, and lack of meaningful referents makes this statement pure noise.

You say people's actions are responsible for their decisions. I'd think this would be the other way around -- certainly I act on my decisions, and the decision comes first. How can anyone decide what to do AFTER they do it?

So I still have no idea what you are trying to say about AIDS. We think we understand how it is transmitted, we think we understand the biology involved with the immune system, we don't currently have any cure or particularly effective treatment. We know what behaviors are risky, and we try to inform people about them.

But you draw a distinction between AIDS and lung cancer that isn't visible. Both are clearly linked to voluntary behavior. Neither can be effectively treated. Both are fatal. In both cases, the best strategy currently available is to avoid the dangerous behavior. So where is this "religious" difference? I just can't see it.

In any case, I presented a view about AIDS I'd seen elsewhere in the hopes that you would comment on it. Instead, you attack me for bringing it up. Why? If your point (whatever it is) has nothing to do with the morality of the AIDS victims, why not just say so? If you have some other point, there has GOT to be a clearer way to make it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.


Frank, curing an infectious disease is NOT the only way to eradicate it. Expecting the disease to disappear based soley on the suddenly responsible behavior of humanity is expecting too much. Research into any disease -- HIV or anything else -- often leads to beneficial treatments for related ailments that are not necessarily based on poor health habits (behavior).

There are many misconceptions about how HIV is transmitted and/or treated, depending on who you talk to. Education is critical, but there are many groups of people who can't understand or who don't believe what a health worker tells them.

Young people are immortal until proven otherwise. Even those with access to good education and health care may make a fatal mistake. Many young people don't believe their group is at risk, or they don't believe any of their friends would lie about being infected. Most of them see no reason to be tested to find out.

Some people don't care about themselves or anyone else.

As for female circumcision causing life-long bleeding: I have read personal accounts of women from Africa and the Middle East. I have listened to an interview on NPR with a woman OB/GYN who grew up in the Middle East and practices medicine there. The amount of tissue removed and the manner in which it is removed varies with the culture and the practitioner (who is almost never medically trained). Some women are so badly mutilated that they are vulnerable to constant infection. When a circumsized woman gets married, her husband cuts or tears his way through the scar tissue to consumate the marriage.

Have I grossed you out yet?

-- helen went to empty the bucket (b@r.f), December 19, 2000.


Tarzan, you said,

If you've ever taken the time to read some of the literature from GMHC (Gay Men's Health Crisis) you'll see some very stern warnings against these behaviors. ... What are you getting at here, Frank? We have health officials everywhere talking about high risk behaviors and the need for safer sex. There are even some volunteer groups I've heard tell of that frequent gay bars and give condoms to people who look like they might be getting interested in each other.

First, while you may have seen SOME volunteer groups, the question is whether their noble action is representative of the whole community. I'd say it isn't, made obvious by the fact that the volunteer groups exist in the first place. The problem still is people in certain subsets of our population engage in behavior that is not just "sort of" bad, but VERY bad, and they are continuing to do so. Can their behavior be changed, or are they a lost cause as far as it goes, unless a cure can be found?

I'm beginning to suspect that you won't be satisfied with anything less than PSAs telling people not to be gay.

Again Tarzan, you're mistaking your agenda with mine. My problem is with the PROMISCUOUS BEHAVIOR of the male homosexual population which causes them to become infected with AIDS. If you'd read back to my comments on the prior thread in regards to your "lesbians" taunt, I (consistantly with my position at least) agreed that this is NOT an issue with lesbians, as they for the most part don't engage in the same risky behaviors. It's YOU who keeps calling this a "gay" issue, not me. My problem is with the BEHAVIOR, which incidentally happens to be most obvious in the male homosexual and IVDA populations.

Flint, you said,

Until I can determine what your conclusions are, I can neither agree with them nor refute them.

Please reread my post, I think it's pretty clear. If you need clarification in a specific area, please ask.

You say behaviors influence health, but this is trivially obvious.

No it's not! That's the whole point! People won't admit that their behaviors are what causes their problems, or if they will admit it intellectually, they don't have the wisdom or willpower to change their habits accordingly. How can you say it's "trivially obvious" when young people continue to make impulse decisions that can end their lives so prematurely?

The rest of your post dealt with my second post, not the one you so pithily commented on the first time.

Education,

I'll answer your question, on what I think should be done, and hope you'll get around to showing me some figures to back up your statement on the marked decrease in AIDS education money in S.F.

What I think should be done: Not to be confused with what others on this thread have said should be done. What we need to do is to get the people in the high risk groups to realize that their actions are not just dangerous, but WRONG in a moral sense. Why? Use smoking as an example (see above) negative public perception in CA has decreased the number of new smokers, and has continued to do so. The exception to this would be cigar smokers, which have increased (in my mind, due to the glamourization of this by Hollywood).

The next thing people say is that AIDS-inducing practices ARE condemned: But they're not. The trouble is, while society at large may condemn practices associated with transmitting AIDS, (sometimes even criticising people for being afflicted with AIDS), the high-risk group *itself* does not. An example might be like a sectarian religion that doesn't believe in blood transfusions, even to save a child's life. Even though society might condemn this, it doesn't necessarily translate to *the group* feeling their behavior is wrong, rather it may even bind them tighter to their convictions as they are now being dictated to and scorned upon by an "outsider". In the same way, what we need to do in the high-risk for AIDS communities, is to convince the members in the communities themselves that continuing to engage in high-risk behaviors is not only dangerous, but morally wrong. Once done, new infections, like new smokers, will decrease.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2000.


Helen, Thanks for the response. You said,

Expecting the disease to disappear based soley on the suddenly responsible behavior of humanity is expecting too much.

I agree, really. What bothers me is that (to my ears) no one is really publically demanding that high-risk groups BE responsible for their actions. Further, you have people denying that there is even a *difference* in the behavior of people in high-risk and not high risk groups! How can you expect change, if people won't even admit there's a problem?

On circumcision, won't (generally) ANY first intercourse result in bleeding from the hymenal remnants (even in non-circumsised females)? Continued bleeding to me represents a truly 3rd world surgery... but you fall in to the same trap. You can't criticize that unhealthy procedure either without being called a bigot. Trap two is that a virginal female isn't spreading AIDS, her male partner is. It's their behavior that needs changing, not hers.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2000.


Frank, my comments on female circumcision were made only to impart information. Anal intercourse causes bleeding and makes HIV transmission easier. Female circumcision can do the same thing. In countries where heterosexual transmission of HIV is the primary mode, the men tend to bring it to their monogamous wives.

Behavior IS the primary vector in HIV transmission, I agree with you fully in that respect. My point is that human behavior is very hard to change for a variety of reasons, and research into curing ALL diseases is a logical and humane course of action.

If the numbers of HIV/AIDS cases and death rates in African nations are true, it looks like they're fried. I can't even imagine how they can survive as nations or as cultures with most of two generations dead or dying.

We've told our kids the bare and brutal facts of HIV transmission. We've tried to model responsible behavior. If they screw up, pun intended, I hope medical science can help them survive the experience. What else could I do? I'm a mom.

-- helen (b@r.f), December 19, 2000.


Frank -- as for bleeding during the first act of intercourse in a non-circumcised female -- it doesn't have to happen. There are several educational books on the subject of sex within marriage that assume virginity. :)

-- helen (b@r.f), December 19, 2000.

First, while you may have seen SOME volunteer groups, the question is whether their noble action is representative of the whole community. I'd say it isn't, made obvious by the fact that the volunteer groups exist in the first place.

Oh, Frank, you simply cannot be serious with that "argument". The reason there are volunteer groups is because of the STIGMA attached to the group who is most affected by the disease; the STIGMA placed there by **people like you**. If you doubt this, reference your very own comments about "condemnation" and you will see a glaring reason for the need for volunteers.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 19, 2000.


Helen, you said,

Frank, my comments on female circumcision were made only to impart information

Sorry if I was editorializing on your comments, I knew your intent was just giving an FYI.

Patricia,

My response there was really directed to Tarzan who (IMO) tends to say that any fact one pulls "isn't representative" of the group in question. It was a "if it's good for the goose" sort of thing for him to think about.

Also you said,

The reason there are volunteer groups is because of the STIGMA attached to the group who is most affected by the disease; the STIGMA placed there by **people like you**.

Again, this is FALSE. The reason there is a discernable over-representation in some groups is NOT due to societal stigma, it is due to the people in these groups BEHAVIOR. Any stigma in soceity was attached AFTER the behavior of the group caused them to be over-represented in the population. Again, I don't think a *societal* stigma will help in groups that don't see themselves as part of mainstream society, in fact it may hurt. What's needed IMO is to get the groups themselves to stigmatize the BEHAVIOR in their group as immoral to see change for the better.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2000.


Frank:

OK, you raise a troublesome issue here, and my suspicion is that you condemn this behavior on moral grounds NOT because it's dangerous, but because it falls within a range of behaviors you were brought up to consider immoral.

Otherwise, you could condemn hang gliding or sky diving or racing stock cars or MANY other high risk activities on precisely the same grounds. The practitioners of all of these activities recognize that they are dangerous, but do not consider them wrong, simply risky.

Certainly the greatest safety precaution these people could take would be to just stop doing these things, right? Would you try to preach to bungee-jumpers, to convert them from the immorality and wrongness of their dangerous ways? Why not?

Now, I suppose you could make the case that we should recategorize smoking from dangerous to immoral on the grounds that (at least in closed environments) smokers impose their evil will onto nonsmokers by filling the air everyone must breathe with carcinogenic smoke. But with the very rare exception of rape victims, people don't engage in sexual practices inadvertently. Which means they don't have to do it if they don't want to.

From my perspective, this makes any such behavior entirely a matter of personal choice. If these people (or I) wish to go engage in dangerous, possibly fatal, bahavior that does NOT affect you, not even indirectly, who are YOU to condemn me for doing so? And why?

What you are proposing here is an *enforcement mechanism*, to be imposed on these people to save them from themselves. But you must bear in mind that your audience does not necessarily share your moral compass. You are trying to use morality as a club to beat on these sinners with, because mere awareness isn't preventing them from engaging in activities your religion tells you is very bad. But before you can recommend a procedure to enforce something, you must first convince us that it needs to be enforced.

And you have not done so. Yes, there are sexually transmitted diseases. Yes, sexual promiscuity increases the odds of contracting one or more of these (assuming no simple test of a potential partner to determine the presence of any such disease, *along with* a social custom to exchange tests as part of the foreplay). But I view this particular subculture much the same as I view people who study volcanos. They are taking what they know to be real risks, because they feel their rewards justify these risks. Why condemn them? Why not simply refuse to join them? If they don't know the risks, tell them. If they do it anyway, let them die. Their choice.

Personally, I don't agree that vulcanologists or others who court danger "don't have the wisdom or willpower to change their habits." Why *presume* that those habits ought to be changed? Why not let them go to hell in their own chosen handbasket? Why should someone try to force, stigmatize, or shame you into stopping you from doing something *they* don't choose to do? If they succeed and you stop from induced guilt, haven't you succumbed to mind control?

(As a footnote, I don't agree with smoking being condemned either. Imposing your smoke on others should be kept to a practical minimum, but if that's done, smokers are NOT EVIL. At worst, they are trading decades of genuine pleasure for a sooner, shorter and miserable old age. So long as they KNOW these risks, the decision is theirs and NOT yours.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.


Flint,

The difference between sky diving and HIV is that skydivers only kill themselves, whereas people with HIV often taken innocents with them. A better comparison might be drunk driving and HIV, as drunk drivers can drive for *years* without hurting anyone, but OTOH might kill a family in a single evening. Would you say that drunk driving is "wrong", or simply "risky"? If "wrong", why not apply the same standard to HIV, if just "risky", why is it illegal at all?

With the bungee jumpers, the only life they're risking is their own. I might think them foolish, but don't think they should be stopped from their actions (see above).

On sexual transmission of AIDS: If these people (or I) wish to go engage in dangerous, possibly fatal, bahavior that does NOT affect you, not even indirectly, who are YOU to condemn me for doing so? And why?

But it does affect me: First, an AIDS patient costs 20-24K per year for treatment, and again, this is a *contagious* disease. While the costs might be relatively small now (7 billion per year, U.S.), the larger the population of infected people, the bigger the tab, part of which I pay either through taxes for the indigent, or as higher insurance costs. But actually, I have to agree to some extent, if I do a good job raising the kids, my family won't be directly at risk any more than I am, so I suppose I *could* just say, "so what, let em die".

To go further, I've always thought motorcycle helmet laws were an infringement on civil liberties. What the state should do is say "go ahead, do what you want, but we won't pay a nickel for your head injury", and not try and regulate safety. So I guess I could agree with you if you say that the state should NOT fund any AIDS care, making citizens not responsible for the actions of high risk groups, but honestly, I can't say that I find this approach to be ethically acceptable.

But I view this particular subculture much the same as I view people who study volcanos. They are taking what they know to be real risks, because they feel their rewards justify these risks. Why condemn them? Why not simply refuse to join them? If they don't know the risks, tell them. If they do it anyway, let them die. Their choice.

Again, if someone dies in a volcano, that's it, minimal cost to anyone. An HIV+ patient who doesn't change their behaviors not only kills others, but costs society monetarily. Remember, compared to Africa, the AIDS epidemic here is in it's infancy. What would our society be like with say 25% of the working population HIV+ and requiring 20K or more in expenditures to maintain?

To summarize this ramble, if you don't believe I have the right to "save people from themselves", you'll probably still agree that HIV patients DO present CONTINUING costs to society that people who fall in volcanos don't. Wouldn't that be reason enough to try and decrease the incidence of the disease? On smoking, I was using as an example of how condemning a behavior can lead to its decrease in society, not expressing it as my personal rant du jour.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2000.


Frank:

I agree that motorcycle helmet laws are bad laws. I think anyone who doesn't wear one on the bike is an idiot, but has the right to be an idiot. And if he suffers a head injury, that's just tough. He knew the risk and took it.

And I guess I feel the same way about AIDS and HIV. We should study how to cure it as hard as possible, but I have NO sympathy with those who know the risks, take them, contract the disease and THEN complain because their illness is not subsidized as much as they'd prefer. This is what insurance is for. If your group is too high-risk to get insurance, then this is what savings and investments are for. And if you lack those and STILL tempt fate, don't come crying to society when fate calls your bluff. Maybe charities can help, but I don't want to be *forced* to subsidize such carelessness. It should be MY decision to contribute to charity.

I think the distinction between risky sexual behavior and drunk driving is depressingly practical. There is a fine line somewhere here. Drunks drive *knowing* that they can probably get away with it this time, apprehensions being only the tiniest percentage of incidences. Would we tolerate anything as intrusive as an army of breathalyzer-toting enforcers sampling us all the time and following us if we failed, ready to arrest us if we got behind a wheel? I doubt this.

So we take our chances, and enforcement works (barely) because drunks tend to drive distinctively, which we have deemed grounds for arrest and test.

But how would we enforce a ban on sexual activity of an HIV positive person? Would such enforcement be worth the price? Should we assume HIV will never be curable, and *brand* its victims to render them unattractive as partners? Should we implant radio transmitters in them? Unlike drunk drivers, they aren't doing their thing in public. Perhaps more to the point, they aren't doing their thing with unwilling people. Unaware, perhaps, but not unwilling.

So I can understand that if effective prevention cannot ethically or practically be done externally, then it must be internal. The AIDS victim (or potential victim) must somehow be made not to WANT sex. Unfortunately, this has never been successfully done. We've caused people to feel dirty, or guilty, or ashamed, or subject to social stigma as they do it. But they still do it. I remember watching an interview with one of the first people in the US to get AIDS. He was asked, would he become celibate now that he knew he was condemning each of his partners to death? And he said "Hell no!" Sex was all he had to look forward to in his remaining time!

How about "AIDS colonies"? Anyone who tests positive gets to live in one. We could set California aside for this purpose and never miss it. They could have all the sex they wanted with one another, no safe sex necessary. What do you think?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.


HIV has not been shown to be harmful in itself. The connection between HIV and AIDS is manufactured; AIDS was redefined in the 1980's so that the term would apply only where HIV was present. The motivations for this were political, not scientific.

Most of the so-called HIV victims in this country are risk not from that virus but from behavior that depresses the immune system, such as recreational drug use and gratuitous anal intercourse. In desperately poor countries, AIDS is largely due to chronic malnutrition.

HIV-positive persons who otherwise seem in good health, deterioriate rapidly once start the spectacularly toxic "treatment" AZT.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 19, 2000.


David L:

I remember reading in Scientific American a while back a long article showing in great detail the progression from HIV to AIDS, the cumulative effect on the immune system, the results of everything from tissue samples to white blood cell counts to T-cell population dynamics and on and on and on (I am not a biologist).

Are you now saying this was all faked? Or that these scientists were fooled? Will you forgive me if I prefer to believe the depth of scientific analysis I've read rather than your unsupported and self- serving assertions? At least until you can show that Scientific American (and all its readers) somehow pulled a fast one on everyone but you and whoever told you what you now choose to believe?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.


Flint,
Actually, I find your request for evidence supporting my assertions, entirely legitimate. My recent posts (on other subjects) have drawn so little response, that I decided on this occasion to be more provocative. (It worked.) Not that I don't subscribe to what I wrote, but I would normally have presented it with a little finesse.

I would be glad to take a look at the Scientific American article. I don't follow, though, how my above statements were self-serving. They were meant to serve no cause, aside from expressing my opinion.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 19, 2000.


Flint:

David L. is correct. The whole thing is a giant charade. We know that HIV [any of the strains] is not dangerous. This is well understood within the scientific community. But there is this giant political conspiracy to prevent dissemination of this information. The scientific community has agreed on this issue; make up your data set so that we all agree. You see, we scientists aren’t individuals. We answer to our commander. He lives in a bunker under a mountain in Antarctica. He came from another planet. We have slavish loyalty to our leader and all march in lock step. This is a difficult but doable conspiracy.

Boy, part of my job is to oversee regulation of this kind of work. We require all kinds of containment and complicated equipment and require continuous medical monitoring of personnel [at great expense]. It makes no difference if they are working with the whole virus or just cloning a few genes. We don’t do this to protect workers or the community, we do it so no one will believe David L. I think we have succeeded. I have studied with CPR. 8<))

Howzit goin, David L.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 19, 2000.


David L:

Maybe I used the wrong word. But I don't understand your opinion here, what it's for or where it comes from. Let me contrast what you write with what Scientific American writes:

[HIV has not been shown to be harmful in itself.]

Misleading. Kind of like saying smoking isn't harmful in itself, it's the cancer that's harmful. HIV is described as an early phase of a progression. This phase can last for widely varying amounts of time, depending on many factors that influence the integrity of the immune system.

[The connection between HIV and AIDS is manufactured;]

No, it's medically demonstrated quite clearly. It's not a fabrication. The disease is at least this well understood.

[AIDS was redefined in the 1980's so that the term would apply only where HIV was present. The motivations for this were political, not scientific.]

Again, misleading. The immune system struggles against HIV, at first with considerable success. The stronger the immune system, the more success. But very gradually, HIV wins this battle. It can take decades against a very powerful immune system, or can happen quickly if the immune system is already weakened. AIDS is defined somewhat hazily as the final stages of the entire disease, when the immune system is completely dysfunctional. But this isn't a political definition so much as a definition that has been put to political purposes.

[Most of the so-called HIV victims in this country are risk not from that virus but from behavior that depresses the immune system, such as recreational drug use and gratuitous anal intercourse. In desperately poor countries, AIDS is largely due to chronic malnutrition.]

This is dangerously misleading. Behaviors that depress the immune system of course make HIV's inroads that much easier and quicker. But without HIV, the result of these behaviors is not AIDS as medically defined. Bear in mind that a weak immune system is a generalized condition, making one vulnerable to a very wide variety of opportunistic bugs. It's the bugs that do the actual damage; it's the state of the HIV disease that LETS the bugs do the damage. There is a medical, nonpolitical distinction between dying from starvation and dying from AIDS after malnutrition assisted in weakening the system.

[HIV-positive persons who otherwise seem in good health, deterioriate rapidly once start the spectacularly toxic "treatment" AZT.]

There seems to be a "cliff" factor here, like a cancer metastasizing. The HIV-positive "healthy" person is in fact losing white blood cells, and showing measurable deterioration even if it's not externally visible or the victim doesn't feel it yet. AZT seems to have been a blind alley in most cases, doing more harm than good. It's also very expensive, and tends to be postponed until real AIDS symptoms first start to appear. But by that time, the patient has already gone over the cliff. Don't confuse the treatment with the symptoms on limited evidence. And right now, we obviously don't know anywhere near enough, and it's still extremely easy to blame the broken arm on the splint!

What makes this whole disease so difficult is the slow life cycle, which is not fully understood either. There is a very complex adaptive battle going on between the immune system's production of antibodies, and HIV's production of bodies. The battle ebbs and flows, and we see cell counts bobbing up and down, we see remissions for long periods, we see (in the end) sudden failures which were being built up to all the time, and we blame these on the proximate cause at the time of failure -- recreational drug use, sexual activities, diet, medication, whatever.

But we aren't totally ignorant. I encourage you to read that article and follow the references.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.


Flint: I appreciated your last post. Very informative. I mean that.

Did you retrieve your info from the 'net' or thru personal book research?

Frank, I was wondering IF your job is related to HIV/Aids? I thought I saw you mention this in another thread.

Good thread, thanks.

Perhaps I'll be able to figure out who is simply being sarcastic and who is serious?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 20, 2000.


I think Flint was making "a modest proposal".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 20, 2000.

Flint,

I can't help but think you're pulling my leg a little here... But OTOH my brother-in-law's solution to the drug problem is to let people who wanted to have all the drugs and free food they want in an enclosed environment, but not let them out until they tested negative for drugs, (reasoning this would be cheaper on society than burglaries to support addiction, etc.). Who knows, if you also mandated Norplant maybe he's right.

Oops, also, on What makes this whole disease so difficult is the slow life cycle, which is not fully understood either.

I remember that some time ago (ASIDE: Tarzan, I believe this was in the Summer months of 1995 or 1996 ;-) ) anyway, there used to be a debate over why the virus would infect people, be very active, go dormant, and spring up virulently later. Someone had a great idea of labelling the RNA of HIV and seeing where it went. The upshot is, they found that the virus did NOT go dormant, but in fact the body was fighting a pitched battle all the time. What appeared to be latency was the body getting a handle on the virus to a large extent, but not really a decrease in virus production. And as you say, it's much like walking off a cliff, once the body can no longer maintain equilibrium, you rapidly tumble down the other side.

Z,

I almost stroked out reading the first line or so of your post, I'm glad I kept reading. Maybe looking in at this site in the morning isn't such a hot idea after all.

Consumer,

No, I haven't had to deal with HIV/AIDS (even tangentially) for a considerable period of time. You don't forget everything though, and the subject still bothers me. BTW, did you read my response on the prior thread?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2000.


"The HIV-AIDS Connection"

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm

This page has a good collection of links for those interested.

-- (Collection@of.links), December 20, 2000.


sumer:

I read most of what I write in actual hard copy books and magazines, and the rest I just kind of make up as I go along and hope nobody notices. I don't like to use the net for research because there are people out there who make things up as they go along.

Frank:

I'm not pulling your leg so much as admitting that I don't see any easy answers to the problem. I recognize that we are never going to be able to stop the spread of HIV through any kind of law enforcement, and even the effort to do so would destroy us. I think the religion angle has an insight -- that people must stop engaging in destructive behavior willingly -- but even religion has never generated enough such willingness. Drastic suggestions like colonies or euthenasia are hard to stomach. I just don't have the answers.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 2000.


Thank you for the links there linkanator :-0

Frank: Yes I did read your response, although I've mainly been 'in lurk mode', just tryin to learn what I can.

My mom died of lung cancer when I was 17. She smoked.

We each do 'risky' things in life...heck they thought bacon caused cancer a lil bit ago.

My point, it seems that folks are quick to judge the risky behavior when in fact, we each are guilty of that imho.

I know I sound redundant here, but I cant help it. Put a face to this discussion. Picture someone you love contracting this deadly disease, please. If I've missed something, clue me in. It appears that the big debate is ??????????

The bottom line is....we dont know enough. Flint, you touched on the important issue to me, which is AZT. Currently, my son is taking no meds. Why? I dont know.

Some doctors say "yes" to meds right away, some say "wait".

As for insurance: My son has none. now that he is HIV positive, he cant get any. Instead he HAS to rely on public help. FWIW, this is not easy either. No, I'm not bitchin, just trying to get folks to understand. Although we 'may' resent our tax $$$ being spent, what if.....??????????? Fill in the blank. Your relative, your child?

One time w/out protection could equal death. Just one.

Then you look into the eyes of someone you love so deeply, (perhaps even fathered/mothered) and realize ... once was ALL it took.

:- just lil ol me. pointing out the reality of living with HIV.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 20, 2000.


Frank, motorcycle helmet laws are NOT stupid. Helmets reduce the severity of head injuries. While it may be ok for stupid people to kill themselves, often they don't finish the job. A helmet can make the difference between being able to be a productive member of society and a living corpse. In that way, AIDS treatments that improve the quality of life for the patient may also allow him/her to be more productive over a longer period of time.

-- helen knows a little about head injuries (b@r.f), December 20, 2000.

Helen,

Motorcycle helmets... needs to be a new thread, I'm a-thinkin,

But no, I don't think they should be mandatory, and yes, I ride (though infrequently now) and also have a helmet (that I was wearing at the time) with a big scrape/gouge in it that I'm glad wasn't my scalp.

Remember, the "no helmet" also came with a "we won't pay for your injury" clause, so no one with a severe head injury (and without private funding) would be alive for long, they would starve, or die of infection in weeks.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2000.


Consumer, you said,

Some doctors say "yes" to meds right away, some say "wait".

Really? Shows how out of date I really am. When I was (tangentially) involved in this issue, the thought was *every* patient got put on the strongest drugs ASAP. Things really have changed.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2000.


Frank, you don't know me. I don't expect you to believe me, but for what it's worth -- some head injuries will NOT cause death. Instead they mess up the mind in highly individualized ways. The injured person still walks, talks, feeds himself ... and may hurt other people because they no longer recognize situations as being dangerous. That's just for starters. Been there.

The way the subject relates to AIDS is that once you have a patient, the humane thing to do is to treat the patient. I knew all about helmet safety...educated on helmet safety...argued for helmet use EVERY time...and the accident happened the one time I relaxed the helmet rule. I didn't abandon the victim.

-- helen (b@r.f), December 20, 2000.


Helen,

I didn't know you were relating a personal experience in your original post, I had assumed you were in the medical or other associated fields, and were commenting in general.

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be personal.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2000.


Frank, I appreciate your responses and take no offense. I hope I never offend you either.

-- helen (b@r.f), December 20, 2000.

Frank, I don't make myself understood very sometimes. Usually when people are injured, they are given medical treatment apart from the behaviors that may have injured them. If resources are limited, I think that's when triage is used. As I understand triage, that means the resources are allocated according to which patient is most likely to benefit from them apart from whether or not that person is more socially deserving of them. I don't see a difference between an accidental injury and an accidental infection. ( I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the behavior that led up to the accident as an educational measure for others either.)

I'll shut up. I don't know enough about this subject to be discussing it in the first place.

-- helen (b@r.f), December 20, 2000.


Helen, you said,

I don't see a difference between an accidental injury and an accidental infection. ( I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the behavior that led up to the accident as an educational measure for others either.)

The difference to me is that an "reckless" accident victim only injures once, (and only costs society once, depending on one's priorities). An HIV+ or other lethal contagious disease patient who continues their disease-spreading behavior, not only injures once, but can continue to leave a trail of both shattered families and escalating costs for society. Sort of a linear increase in costs with time. If the people they infect (HIV now) carry on the same practices that they do, both the personal and monetary costs can increase *exponentially* as their victims can keep spreading the disease to new people as well.

So for accidents, society could almost earmark a set amount of funds to medically care for the victims, regardless of the cause, whereas for an infection like HIV, if the patterns of behavior don't change, the population of infected people (with their associated costs) will continue to grow and grow until NO society could afford to treat *anyone* appropriately. What bothers me is with the communities involved, namely homosexual males and IV drug abusers, no one can even say "you have a duty to society to change your ways" without being called a bigot or worse. How can you solve a problem if you don't admit it exists?

I'll shut up. I don't know enough about this subject to be discussing it in the first place.

Don't shut up, you know as much about this subject as anyone else here (including me), and certainly enough to post even if you didn't. This is a Y2K spinoff forum after all! What standards would you be held to? :-)

The view from here,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2000.


Hello, Z. Your post started out with such promise, but then the bottom fell out

Flint,
I have read the article which I believe you were referring to, Improving HIV Therapy from the July 1998 issue of Scientific American.

My own views on the subject are based largely on having read the book "AIDS" by Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis. In my opinion, they present a convincing and well-documented case against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Others' mileage may vary.

For those so inclined, here's an Alternative AIDS Bibliography.

On to our discussion...

[[The connection between HIV and AIDS is manufactured;]]

[No, it's medically demonstrated quite clearly. It's not a fabrication. The disease is at least this well understood.]

Can you cite a study that demonstrates that HIV causes immune deficiency, that HIV harms the T-cells that it infiltrates. I saw no such citation in the Scientific American article.

[[AIDS was redefined in the 1980's so that the term would apply only where HIV was present. The motivations for this were political, not scientific.]]

[Again, misleading. The immune system struggles against HIV, at first with considerable success. The stronger the immune system, the more success. But very gradually, HIV wins this battle. It can take decades against a very powerful immune system, or can happen quickly if the immune system is already weakened.]

Again, this is presuming that HIV causes a weakening of the immune system.

[AIDS is defined somewhat hazily as the final stages of the entire disease, when the immune system is completely dysfunctional. But this isn't a political definition so much as a definition that has been put to political purposes.]

Here's what the "AIDS" link in the SA article brought up:

ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS):
The most severe manifestation of infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists numerous opportunistic infections and neoplasms (cancers) that, in the presence of HIV infection, constitute an AIDS diagnosis. There are also instances of presumptive diagnoses when a person's HIV status is unknown or not sought. This was especially true before 1985 when there was no HIV-antibody test. In 1993, CDC expanded the criteria for an AIDS diagnosis to include CD4+ T-cell count at or below 200 cells per microliter in the presence of HIV infection. In persons (age 5 and older) with normally functioning immune systems, CD4+ T-cell counts usually range from 500-1,500 cells per microliter. Persons living with AIDS often have infections of the lungs, brain, eyes, and other organs, and frequently suffer debilitating weight loss, diarrhea, and a type of cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma. See HIV Disease; Opportunistic Infection; AIDS Wasting Syndrome.

According to this official definition, an HIV-positive person with Kaposi's Sarcoma is classified as having AIDS, but an HIV-negative person who otherwise has the same clinical profile as the first (including Kaposi's Sarcoma) is not classified as having AIDS. Moreover, HIV-positive is inferred from the presence of HIV antibody (which blood tests can measure), which doesn't necessarily mean that HIV virus is present in the body.

The original (~1983) definition of AIDS made no reference to HIV, however, HIV was inserted into the definition shortly thereafter. This semantic trick discourages questioning of the HIV/AIDS link.

[[HIV-positive persons who otherwise seem in good health, deterioriate rapidly once start the spectacularly toxic "treatment" AZT.]]

[There seems to be a "cliff" factor here, like a cancer metastasizing. The HIV-positive "healthy" person is in fact losing white blood cells, and showing measurable deterioration even if it's not externally visible or the victim doesn't feel it yet. AZT seems to have been a blind alley in most cases, doing more harm than good. It's also very expensive, and tends to be postponed until real AIDS symptoms first start to appear. But by that time, the patient has already gone over the cliff. Don't confuse the treatment with the symptoms on limited evidence. And right now, we obviously don't know anywhere near enough, and it's still extremely easy to blame the broken arm on the splint!]

AZT was designed to sabotage DNA/RNA reproduction. Unless a person's diseased (e.g., cancerous) cells are reproducing at a much faster rate than the normal cells, administering that drug will critically harm the patient before the "disease."

[What makes this whole disease so difficult is the slow life cycle, which is not fully understood either. There is a very complex adaptive battle going on between the immune system's production of antibodies, and HIV's production of bodies. The battle ebbs and flows, and we see cell counts bobbing up and down, we see remissions for long periods, we see (in the end) sudden failures which were being built up to all the time, and we blame these on the proximate cause at the time of failure -- recreational drug use, sexual activities, diet, medication, whatever.]

There are also people who have been HIV-positive for ten years or longer and have shown no clinically detectable sign of deterioriation.

[But we aren't totally ignorant. I encourage you to read that article and follow the references.]

Thanks for supplying it. It is also worth reading the scientists who dispute the HIV/AIDS connection.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 20, 2000.


"Really? Shows how out of date I really am. When I was (tangentially) involved in this issue, the thought was *every* patient got put on the strongest drugs ASAP. Things really have changed."

Not to bring back a flame war, but on the other thread didn't you present yourself as an expert and claim that you had to deal with people who have AIDS on a regular basis?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), December 20, 2000.


David L:

I'm not a biologist or immunologist. I usually skip that biological stuff in SA in favor of the physics and math. But I must say the impression I came away with was that we were dealing with something new, different and very complex. I'd also read about RNA tag studies showing the ongoing internal battle mentioned by someone else.

However, what little I've read in the medical world is careful to say that we are dealing with a work in progress, that our understanding is still very incomplete, and that the HIV->AIDS progression is strongly supported as the most likely hypothesis, i.e. the one that is currently best explained by the (growing) evidence available.

I admit I was unaware that the very existence of the disease was a political issue, nor that someone had written a book dismissing or greately reinterpreting what we've learned for political purposes. I also admit that I'm extremely leery of the motivations of such people. My exposure is limited, but I remember seeing no recognition of such a competing theory, much less a *serious* recognition, in the medical literature I've read. And I *do* know that in the fairly early stages of research, genuine competing theories are considered seriously.

So why no mention of Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis in the literature? And don't give me this conspiracy to cover up crap either. If these guys have any real biomedical evidence suggesting alternative lines of research, why isn't it being followed?

Out of curiousity, what do Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis want to see happen? What axe are they grinding? I ask because I notice something interesting in that bibliography link you provided. *Everyone* there is grinding an axe. One guy says AIDS doesn't even exist and the government is killing us. Another says AIDS is caused by racisim, while another blames Big Biomedicine jealously guarding its territory. Conspiracy theories abound. I also notice that many of these critics have been singing the same tune for over a decade, as though contining research didn't exist. Except for a few who finally became convinced by our growing knowledge base that HIV really does result in AIDS, and dropped their opposition. Revealingly, your synopsis writer regards them as traitors.

What you link to, in a nutshell, reads like one weirdo after another sadly making money off of sick people desperately looking for some reason to believe it's not their fault, that they will live, that the whole thing is a fraud. What is glaringly lacking from every synopsis provided is ANY suggestion that ANY of these people is engaged in ANY medical research. This reads almost exactly like the Creationist bibliography, also long and superficially distinguished, except there isn't a researcher in the bunch. But whereas the Creationists are motivated by religious dogmatism, these anti-AIDS people seem motivated only by cashing in on fear, suffering and death.

So while I readily agree we don't have all the answers, I believe we're looking in the right direction. Being skeptical is fine within reason. But it's not hard to make a convincing case that the sun rising in the east is a conspiracy. And you can fool some of the people all of the time, *especially* when it's a life and death matter. There is a *market* for those who prey on desperate victims, and these guys are filling the niche as you'd expect. That's my take, anyway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 2000.


Flint:

I'm not a biologist or immunologist.

I am; but I must admit that you did a pretty good job. I can agree with most of what you said on a non-technical level. Personally, I 've given-up on these agruments. People want to make them; they are ignored. If they eventually turn-out to be correct, they will be un-ignored. As you note, it is a developing field; at present it doesn't point to these alternative agruments.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 20, 2000.


Alice, you said,

Not to bring back a flame war, but on the other thread didn't you present yourself as an expert and claim that you had to deal with people who have AIDS on a regular basis?

In case t got lost in the shuffle, here's Link to the prior thread. Can you please scroll through and tell me what you are referring to?

Thanks in advance from an Uneducated, non-expert, J6P,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 21, 2000.


Frank, on the other thread you said

It's been a long time since I've had to see anyone professionally with AIDS, but yes. Currently, I keep my distance from the field, but don't think the situation has changed, one still hears stories.

What did you mean when you said this?

-- (what@you.said), December 21, 2000.


Alice? "What you said"?

Put your two questions together!!! I'm out of date because I no longer have anything to do with HIV/AIDS. In the past, to some extent, I used to. That should be obvious from my prior responses. The details of my professional life I don't wish to share.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 21, 2000.


[I admit I was unaware that the very existence of the disease was a political issue, nor that someone had written a book dismissing or greately reinterpreting what we've learned for political purposes.]

Flint, this reminds me of the argument that anyone who couldn't see the benefits of such a proven health measure as fluoridation, isn't being objective. Suppressing opposing views does keep a theory from being tarnished, but doesn't make a wrong theory correct. It just puts off having to publicly admit that it's incorrect. And if the theory is correct, the clearest way to demonstrate that is to allow all of its aspects to be challenged.

Questioning someone's motives is not a bad thing. But those who dispute the HIV/AIDS connection have very little to gain compared to those who stood to profit (and have profited) by that connection's being accepted. We're talking billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry and a highly stable source of funding to scientists to study HIV.

Moreover, what do a person's motives have to do with the soundness of the argument being put forward. If the premises check out and the conclusion follows from them, then the argument is sound whether the arguer is a genius or a dolt, a saint or a con artist.

To see a few of Peter Duesberg's citations in the literature, merely scroll to around two-thirds of the way down the Alternative AIDS webpage I provided. Considerably more of his publications are given in the bibliography of the book he co-authored with Yiamouyiannis, but you might not be impressed by his work having appeared in such rags as Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. At the time that book was written, Duesberg was a professor of mulocular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Yiamouyiannis (also a PhD) was probably best known for his work on the health risks of fluoridation.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 22, 2000.


HIV, AIDS and the reappearance of an old myth

http://www.unaids.org/special/index.html

The HIV-AIDS Connection

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm

-- (worth@a.look), December 22, 2000.


David L:

I've said all I can. In my opinion, the cases these people are making are poorly supported by available data, increasingly so as our data grow out of our research. Would you really prefer that we drop all research and start blaming the victims to make us feel better?

Nobody I know of argues that HIV/AIDS isn't made worse by irresponsible behavior. Imagine someone during the middle ages arguing that the black plague is caused by poor sanitation, and that germs have absolutely nothing to do with it. And he can "prove" this by demonstrating that the plague is defeated by good sanitation. Is he right? Was the plague simply a side-effect of long-standing practices that had never caused such drastic medical problems before? Do you really believe that the lifestyles and practices of sub- Saharan Africans have changed significantly for many centuries? Might there be some underlying cause that a lifestyle might make worse? The arguments these people put forward fail on both medical and logical grounds. Why are you so eager to swallow them?

Incidentally, associating these people with anti-fluoridation nutballs is one of the clearest ways to brand them as QUACKS! Doesn't this raise any red flags in your mind at all? Did you know that the members of the Flat Earth Society are entirely serious in their belief? I recommend you look into their literature. Life is short, and the number of weird fringe beliefs to fall for is large. Time to move along, David.

worth:

Thanks for the links. They say it better than I can. This "controversy" is NOT fueled by ambiguity in the data. It may be religion, it may be a market niche for such predators, but it's not medical knowledge behind this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 22, 2000.


Flint, where on earth did you get the idea that I agree with everything on that Alternative AIDS links page. Its URL happened to come up when I did a web search, and as it contained a few citations I consider to be of value, I figured I'd post it. I trust the folks on this forum to do the weeding out for themselves. Next time I'll include a disclaimer for your benefit.

I expected you to gag on the fluoridation reference, but was actually hoping you wouldn't. It seems that our discussion of that subject on this TBUncensored thread has not influenced your thinking.

I am reminded of the effort of you and others to share your Y2K perspectives on the TB2000 threads, only for you to be shouted down by those who weren't interested in thinking about what you had to say or in reading any of the references you provided.

In the current thread, I've demonstrated a willingness to search for an article after having been supplied with only its general theme and the name of the publication where it appeared, read the article and comment constructively. But when I invited you to look at a book I thought made a strong case for my position, you focused instead on material I expressed no opinion about whatsoever. I too, have said all I can.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 22, 2000.


David L:

I am cryptic. If you want the data, it isn't on the publically available web sites. You will need to go to the technical literature. To access it on the web, you will need to suscribe. Go to your local university library if you really want to know.

Bad day for me, I've agreed with both Flint and Decker.

Best Wishes,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 22, 2000.


Z, the technical literature is not unanimous on this question. Perhaps you are suggesting that one read only the "right" technical literature?

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 22, 2000.

Dave,

Here is an article discussing some mechanism for HIV infection and variable resistance due to genetic traits.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/287/5461/2274

A few years back Science had an full issue devoted to AIDS which included a long article on Duesberg (against his theory). I also remember when Serge Lang was circulating his support of Duesberg. Prior to this Lang (a famous mathematician) kept a famous social scientist out of the National Academy of Sciences by showing his use of mathematics was bogus. While Lang was correct about the social scientist, his case about AIDS was unclear.

dandelion

-- ddandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), December 23, 2000.


David L:

I lack, and will always lack, the technical expertise necessary to make a genuinely informed decision on these matters. When I notice that 95% or more of the people doing the hands-on research are firmly convinced they're on the right track because the available data point overwhelmingly in one direction, I'm willing to accept this as being the best explanation currently available. This goes for both HIV and fluoridation. (The flat earth I believe I understand well enough on my own).

Now, I will gladly agree with you that someone with a strong motivation to do so can disagree with the overwhelming theory, and can make a case that sounds perfectly convincing to someone as ignorant as I am. Especially when the subject still isn't completely understood, some of the data are statistical, symptoms show wide variability, there are exceptions, and so on.

But I'd be a fool to form a fixed opinion on a subject WAY outside my own expertise, based on a single book written by people who are KNOWN to be on the fringe, are ignored by nearly every real expert, and have an axe to grind. I certainly couldn't hold an INFORMED opinion, anymore than my opinion about what the real experts say is informed. At the very best, I could say "These guys seem to make a good case, but I can't know what they left out, I can't know what they misrepresented, and I can't know why they are rejected and ignored by nearly everyone in the field, after reading one fringe book. I don't believe 95% or more of the real experts are engaged in a conspiracy."

Why don't you want to believe what the data overwhelmingly indicate? Citing loonies from left field only makes me suspicious. Why *IS* everyone else in the band out of step but your Johnny?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 23, 2000.


[I lack, and will always lack, the technical expertise necessary to make a genuinely informed decision on these matters. When I notice that 95% or more of the people doing the hands-on research are firmly convinced they're on the right track because the available data point overwhelmingly in one direction, I'm willing to accept this as being the best explanation currently available. This goes for both HIV and fluoridation. (The flat earth I believe I understand well enough on my own).]

The volume of published results exceeds the capacity of any one person (even in the field) to examine them all. It's hard enough for a researcher to stay abreast of developments in his or her own specialty, let alone trace back to its origin the chain of studies responsible for the current view.

Hence, I think it more accurate to say that the 95+% aren't firmly convinced that they're on the wrong track. Why we haven't heard from more dissenters (supposing that they exist) will be addressed later.

[Now, I will gladly agree with you that someone with a strong motivation to do so can disagree with the overwhelming theory, and can make a case that sounds perfectly convincing to someone as ignorant as I am. Especially when the subject still isn't completely understood, some of the data are statistical, symptoms show wide variability, there are exceptions, and so on.]

First you say that lacking the background to judge the merits of the various theories, you find it practical to go with the one backed by the majority of researchers. Okay. But then you characterize the theory you claim not to be qualified to judge, as overwhelming, and suggest that no legitimate opposition is even possible.

So you seem to be saying that the majority has to be right, even though history has provided a host of counterexamples from Galileo to Einstein.

[But I'd be a fool to form a fixed opinion on a subject WAY outside my own expertise, based on a single book written by people who are KNOWN to be on the fringe, are ignored by nearly every real expert, and have an axe to grind.]

On the other hand, you imply that it's not foolish to form a fixed opinion on a subject WAY outside your own expertise if it's also the opinion of the "reputable" majority.

Anyone who initiates scientific revolution is by definition, on the fringe. Being on the fringe doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make them right. The extent that their arguments are sound determines whether they're right or wrong.

Regarding the axe that Duesberg and Yiamouyiannis have to grind, I think you underestimate the dilemma facing those who would try to dissuade the scientific community of an entrenched belief.

Let's look at the job of a researcher such as Duesberg. He works on an interesting and important problem in an atmosphere of bright, dedicated people and receives a pretty good salary for it. Not paradise perhaps (there may be students' papers to grade and meetings to attend), but still richly satisfying.

Now let's say this person becomes convinced that the HIV/AIDS connection is weak, and brings this to the attention of the department head. The latter would probably advise that the department receives a great deal of funding for HIV/AIDS research, which he cannot allow to be jeopardized. If our friend is inclined to persist, he must consider the possibility that funding for his work may inexplicably be terminated.

Given that staying in the system tends to ensure considerable financial rewards and security, why would someone put that at risk unless he was truly convinced of his position. That doesn't mean he's right, but it does suggest that he's sincere.

[I certainly couldn't hold an INFORMED opinion, anymore than my opinion about what the real experts say is informed. At the very best, I could say "These guys seem to make a good case, but I can't know what they left out, I can't know what they misrepresented,]

Nor can you know what the "experts" may be leaving out or misrepresenting.

[and I can't know why they are rejected and ignored by nearly everyone in the field, after reading one fringe book.]

Without having read the book, how can you be certain that it would not provide a plausible explanation.

[I don't believe 95% or more of the real experts are engaged in a conspiracy."]

But they might still have missed something important.

[Why don't you want to believe what the data overwhelmingly indicate?]

See my above comment which begins with "First."

I have no sentimental attachment to one view or the other. Before reading the D & Y AIDS book, I believed that the HIV/AIDS connection was real. But that book caused me to reassess the arguments on both sides, and to conclude based on this analysis that the D & Y book is substantially correct. I can't be certain to have reached the right conclusion, but it's not clear to me why my method of forming an opinion is any less reliable than yours, even though the two produce opposite results in this instance.

[Citing loonies from left field only makes me suspicious.]

Yeah? Well, you exactly fit the profile of a government shill. <g>

[Why *IS* everyone else in the band out of step but your Johnny?]

I think the lack of coverage of whistleblowers in medicine is a symptom of the biased coverage of medical subjects in general. The bulk of coverage I've seen either ignores alternative views or dismisses them as "quackery," a term which sheds much heat but no light, kind of like calling someone a "jerk."

I attribute this bias partly to the reverence with which the medical profession is held, and partly to organized medicine's having a formidable public relations apparatus which tends to drown out alternative views. The result is that when encountering an alternative medical viewpoint, many reporters' first impulse is to check it out with the "authorities."

The Science article I believe dandelion refers to ("The Duesberg Phenomenon") illustrates the distortion that alternative viewpoints often receive. Several of the principals mentioned in the article, later wrote to the magazine because they had been misquoted in a way that made them appear unsupportive of Duesberg's views, when in actuality they support those views.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 24, 2000.


David L:

Z, the technical literature is not unanimous on this question. Perhaps you are suggesting that one read only the "right" technical literature?

I am cryptic: To answer your questions, yes it is and peer reviewed literature.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 24, 2000.


David L:

By the by; so you don't have to use search engines in the future, much of your science is reported here:

Elk

*<))))

Best Wishes and Happy Holidays,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 24, 2000.


Z, when you say the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous regarding the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, do you make that assessment based on having identified all the peer-reviewed, published work that bears on that question, and then subjecting all of it to close scrutiny. If indeed you have done that, then I trust it would not be too inconveniencing for you to post a reference to an appropriate journal article that you feel supports the HIV/AIDS connection. Thanks, and Happy Holidays.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 25, 2000.

David L:

Let's say I'm playing the odds. Yes, historically there have been exceptions, although as Z points out, *justified* exceptions appear in peer-reviewed literature and are taken very seriously. The people you cite don't ask for peer review and are NOT presenting any new theories to be considered. They are, at *best*, pointing out that "far and away most likely" is not the same as "definite". Most likely, they are preying on desperate people or are misguided themselves. Please remember that for every Galileo or Einstein, there are a million wrong people and 5 million con men.

Your enthusiastic willingness to swallow the hooks being dangled by outsiders who avoid peer review like the plague amuses me. Do you really believe that the peer review process is totally controlled by hidebound people who use it to discourage any new ideas? Why do you reserve your distrust for the mainstream, which turns out to be correct with vanishingly few exceptions, yet fall all over yourself being suckered by the anti-HIV, anti-fluoridation fringe weirdballs? Is this a religion thing or something with you?

Finally, please notice that as our data become more and more solid, those doubters with integrity are recognizing this trend and dropping their opposition. The people you worship are flat *ignoring* everything we've learned, dismissing it today just as they did a decade ago (and *exactly* the same way Yourdon rejected the lack of FY00 problems when then didn't fit his program).

WAKE UP, David. Quit backing the horses with the broken legs. There are very long odds against these nags for a reason.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 25, 2000.


Here's the web site of The Group for the Reappraisal of AIDS, a group "made up of medical scientists, physicians, and other professionals from around the world who encourage a serious and open reconsideration of the HIV explanation of AIDS. The Group's members have identified solid scientific reasons to conclude that HIV may be entirely harmless."

I became aware of this organization only this evening (and quite by accident), else I would have posted this link sooner.

Flint, before you dismiss these people as nutballs, be advised that their doubts are shared by Kary Mullis, recipient of the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry (whose book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field I happened to borrow this evening).

I see little point in continuing this discussion, since I have said about all I wished to say on this subject and you seem indifferent to what I say anyway.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 25, 2000.


David, I have a question for you. If HIV is not the cause of AIDS, why are protease inhibitors so effective in treating AIDS?

-- (an@honest.question), December 25, 2000.

Here's a link to Duesberg's faq. Link

IMHO, he's just too stubborn to admit he's wrong, continuing to carry on like this. Or maybe he likes the publicity. In any event, while he *was* taken more seriously years ago, now that more is known about HIV he's off in the "nut" category.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 26, 2000.


an@honest, if you could provide a reference to a study that you believe shows protease inhibitors to be effective in treating AIDS, I'll read it and post my thoughts.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 26, 2000.

David, if you aren't aware that the treatment of AIDS took a large step forward in 1996, I'm not sure anything I ccould show you would convince you. I can only assume you don't know many people with AIDS. The new treatment is known variously as "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART), protease inhibitors, or in combination with other anti-HIV drugs, "the cocktail."

It works for many. It's not a cure--it does not kill the virus--but it does bring the virus to a halt, so to speak. How long it ultimately can hold the virus at bay is unknown, but many with AIDS have been restored to fully productive lives by this new treatment.

Some documentation. Two excerpts from the Journal of the American Medical Association.

http://www.ama- assn.org/special/hiv/library/readroom/hiv98/jst80004.htm

These studies, in addition to sounding a cautionary note, provide a positive message supporting use of potent combination antiretroviral regimens: despite isolation of infectious HIV from persons who had been virologically suppressed for more than 2 years, resistance mutations were not observed.[7-9] Also, prevention of emergence of resistance by viral suppression to below the 20- to 50- copies/mL threshold correlates with durability of virologic response to potent regimens.[11-13]

Use of potent therapy has resulted in remarkable declines in hospitalization rates, morbidity, and mortality where the drugs are available.[14-19] Furthermore, protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimens can be cost-effective.[20,21]

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

7. Wong JK, Hezareh M, Gunthard H, et al. Recovery of replication- competent HIV despite prolonged suppression of plasma viremia. Science. 1997;278:1291-1295.

8. Finzi D, Hermankova M, Pierson T, et al. Identification of a reservoir for HIV-1 in patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy. Science. 1997;278:1295-1300.

9. Chun T, Stuyver L, Mizell SB, et al. Presence of an inducible HIV- 1 latent reservoir during highly active antiretroviral therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:13193-13197.

10. Montaner JSG, Harris M, Mo T, Harrigan PR. Suppression of plasma viral load below 20 copies/mL is needed to achieve a long-term virologic response. AIDS. In press.

11. Kempf DJ, Rode RA, Xu Y, et al. The duration of viral suppression during protease inhibitor therapy for HIV-1 infection is predicted by plasma HIV-1 RNA at the nadir. AIDS. 1998;12:F9-F14.

12. Montaner J, DeMasi R, Hill A, et al. Validation of HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count as surrogate markers in the CAESAR trial. In: Program and abstracts of the 6th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV Infection; October 11-15, 1997; Hamburg, Germany. Abstract 207.

13. Raboud JM, Montaner JSG, Rae S, et al. Predictors of duration of plasma viral load suppression. In: Program and abstracts of the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; September 28-October 1, 1997; Toronto, Ontario. Abstract A-14.

14. Palella FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:853-860.

15. Hogg RS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Gataric N, et al. Decline in deaths from AIDS due to new antiretrovirals. Lancet. 1997;349:1294.

16. Chiasson MA, Berenson L, Li W, et al. Accelerating decline in New York City AIDS mortality. In: Program and abstracts of the 5th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 1- 5, 1998; Chicago, Ill. Abstract 9b.

17. Reggy A, Wong T, Chiasson M, Simonds R, Loo V, Heffess J. Protease inhibitors and declining AIDS deaths in New York City. In: Program and abstracts of the 5th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 1-5, 1998; Chicago, Ill. Abstract LB7.

18. Hogg RS, Heath KV, Yip B, et al. Improved survival among HIV- infected individuals following initiation of antiretroviral therapy. JAMA. 1998;279:450-454.

19. Katlama C, Valantin MA, Calvez V, et al. ALTIS PLUS: Long-term d4T-3TC with and without ritonavir. In: Program and abstracts of the 5th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 1-5, 1998; Chicago, Ill. Abstract 376.

20. Anis AH, Hogg RS, Yip B, et al. Average annual drug cost and its determinants in a population based cohort of HIV-positive adult men and women. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:327-336.

21. McCollum M, Klaus B, La Rue R, Bessessen M. HAART reduced overall costs of HIV care at DVAMC-Denver. In: Program and abstracts of the 5th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 1-5, 1998; Chicago, Ill. Abstract 200.

-- (an@honest.question), December 27, 2000.


an@honest, I was aware that "the cocktail" was an improvement on previous conventional treatment for AIDS. But the main former treatment, zidovudine (AZT), is so toxic that another treatment regimen's being better doesn't by itself indicate whether the latter is actually helpful or is simply less harmful than zidovudine.

I will take a look at the articles you've posted and see if they might bear on this question. I'm tied up for the next few days, but plan to get to the material shortly thereafter, and I appreciate your posting it.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 27, 2000.


David L:

I may be reading you wrong, but your whole post here seems intended to redirect the question into something that was not asked. The question is, does the cocktail work and if so, how and why. The question was NOT whether the cocktail is better than AZT, and had nothing to do with AZT.

If you recall, the issue is whether HIV leads to AIDS. The subissue is, if we can slow or stop the development of HIV, does this also slow or stop AIDS? If so, we have strong circumstantial evidence that HIV leads to AIDS.

Look at it this way. Let's say I've decided that no disease is caused by bacteria. I am asked why, in that case, antibiotics are so effective. It is NOT a suitable reply for me to say "Well, cutting off your leg does terrible damage and cures nothing. *Therefore*, just because antibiotics aren't as bad as cutting off your leg doesn't mean they do any good. So they are worthless, QED!

Uh, David, nobody mentioned AZT but you. Forget about AZT. Answer the question that was asked. You are already setting yourself up to demolish your own straw man. You will make no converts that way.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 27, 2000.


David L:

Yes, I could list enough to make this thread not load. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment [ I post from home and my files are at work]. You will have to do your own literature search.

The evidence at the moment is that HIV is responsible for AIDS. Does that mean that other hypotheses are not considered; of course not, but they must be supported by evidence. So far, they are only supported by politics.

One other thing, the non-peer reviewed literature is the best source of new ideas. So is the weakly peer reviewed literature. In my experience, you are going to find few earthshaking ideas in the most important journals. Still, you have to know the field to separate the wheat from the chaff when you read these other journals.

Have fun, but don't expect to convince anyone without evidence.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 27, 2000.


David L:

One last thing. Most of the directly, supporting information is based on clinical studies. These are always open to question. They deal with a genetically diverse population; they have multiple variables and only select variables are used; if the incorrect variables are chosen the results will be misleading. This could be settled, once and for all, if you would start a movement to permit creation of a genetically inbred population of humans, reared in the same environment, etc. They could be separated into control groups, infected groups and all of the treated groups. Then a reliable experiment could be designed and your question could be answered.

I don't think that you would go for that; I wouldn't either.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 27, 2000.


an@honest,
I have read reference 14 of your list, whose abstract may be found at the New England Journal of Medicine site. The full article can also be ordered from there, which is how I obtained a copy.

I find the study to contain a serious flaw. The investigators did not take into account the following which could well have influenced the observed mortality and morbidity among the subjects:

1. For study subjects who had been engaging in high risk behavior prior to 1994, when did they begin this behavior.
2. For study subjects who had a decreased CD4+ count prior to 1994, when was their first such count recorded.
3. For study subjects who suffered from AIDS symptoms prior to 1994, when did these symptoms first occur.

In other words, that the lowest rate of patient deaths was associated with "combination therapy including a protease inhibitor," might be due to patients with very advanced AIDS having died early in the study (before the "combined + PI" therapy was in widespread use), and being replaced by patients with much less advanced AIDS (who subsequently received the "combined + PI" therapy). We don't know that this happened, but since the investigators didn't adjust for the above factors, their claim of having shown the efficacy of the "combined + PI" therapy seems suspect.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 02, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ