 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2005Self-given names.
While responding to an article by Paul Whiting about name-calling I noticed a curious oddity. In the earliest days of AIDS dissent, those who disagreed with the majority theory felt it was important to have a name for themselves. They chose a name with heroic connotations: "dissident". We, on the other hand, don't have a name for ourselves. I never noticed this absence until now. I can't recall ever seeing one of us say that we need a name for ourselves. This difference has deep implications. What we believe is our opinion. What they believe is their identity.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "This difference has deep implications. What we believe is our opinion. What they believe is their identity." David, What do you, who support the HIV theory of AIDS, prefer to be called? Going forward, I will refer to the group of doctors, scientists, educators, healthcare workers, lay people and all others who support the HIV paradigm whatever name they choose. If you find the name "dissident" somehow offensive, would you prefer the name "rethinker"? We also call ourselves that. Let us decide what we wish to call ourselves, so that we may get on with this business of debating. -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > "This difference has deep implications. What we believe is our opinion. > What they believe is their identity." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you find the name "dissident" somehow offensive, would you prefer the > name "rethinker"? The word dissident is used because it invokes the image of political persecution. If you want to read about HIV dissidents then read this http://hrw.org/reports/2005/china0605/ > We also call ourselves that. The word rethinker implies that you have thought about something. You have provided no evidence for that. 99% of what you write is pulled off "rethinker" websites. The "rethinkers" have been thinking the same thoughts for 20 odd years. For some reason they appear totally unable to find ANY problems with their own ideas. This is not because their are none. The one factor that appears to connect all of these people is their preparedness to deny the existence and importance of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. If you want I will stop using the term Denialist. > Let us decide what we wish to call ourselves, so that we may get on with > this business of debating. My name is Chris. The only thing holding up the debate is your preparedness to avoid any scientific evidence. Do you really think anyone would take me seriously if I attempted to debate quantum mechanics or relativity with out using any mathematics or ever referring to the results of any experiments? Chris Noble snip >The word rethinker implies that you have thought about something. You >have provided no evidence for that. 99% of what you write is pulled off >"rethinker" websites. The "rethinkers" have been thinking the same >thoughts for 20 odd years. About the only one who made much sense was Robert Root-Bernstein--and he now recognizes that HIV exists and causes AIDS. He thinks a co-factor may be necessary but provides no evidence for that. (Neither syphilis nor mycoplasma infection have been shown to be co-factors in the sense that they MUST be there along with HIV for AIDS to develop.) Root-Bernstein actually did some interesting thinking about how AIDS develops. Much of it has not panned out--but other bits have. I.e., there is, as with some other infections, potential autoimmune phenomena that arise. Others that may be scientists that they list are also erroneously listed (e.g., Joe Sonnabend) Others, like my old buddy, Casper Schmidt, died some years ago from complications related to AIDS. Dissident is inappropriate as a collective name at this point. Denialist is indeed more suitable. Flat-earther would work. The more interesting question for discussion here that gets lost in the haze of ancient, refuted crap of denialism is HOW infection with HIV results in the clinical syndrome of AIDS. George M. Carter "Dissident is inappropriate as a collective name at this point. Denialist is indeed more suitable. Flat-earther would work." "Apologist is inappropriate as a collective name at this point. Benefactor is indeed more suitable. Henchman would work." >"Dissident is inappropriate as a collective name at this point. Denialist >is indeed more suitable. Flat-earther would work." > >"Apologist is inappropriate as a collective name at this point. >Benefactor is indeed more suitable. Henchman would work." PharmaTaliban works almost as good. >Let us decide what we wish to call ourselves, so that we may get on with >this business of debating. The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Why do you think you need a name for us? We are not the topic of the debate. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Why do you think you need a name for us? We are not the topic of the debate." David, For the very simple reason that I don't want to have to type out "those who support the HIV theory" everytime I refer to you as a group. And I am sure all of you don't want to have to type out "those who deny the validity of the HIV theory" everytime you refer to us as a group. Does that make sense to you? >"The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Why do you think you need a name for >us? We are not the topic of the debate." > >For the very simple reason that I don't want to have to type out "those >who support the HIV theory" everytime I refer to you as a group. Why do you think you need to? The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Talk about HIV and AIDS, not us. If two sides debated whether pigs have wings, would anything be gained, would anybody be brought a micron closer to the truth, if they called each other flyers and grounders, and wasted time talking about each other instead of talking about pigs? SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "Why do you think you need to? The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Talk about HIV and AIDS, not us." David, Because this debate also centers around two groups regarding the HIV theory and AIDS and their opposing views. Thus, just we would have the Catholics and the Protestants debating over the true message of Jesus Christ, we have the apologists (or the orothodoxy) and the dissidents (or the rethinkers) debating over the true cause of AIDS. And why are you so worried about this? -Paul Whiting > "Why do you think you need to? The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Talk > about HIV and AIDS, not us." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because this debate also centers around two groups regarding the HIV > theory and AIDS and their opposing views. No, the debate centres around the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS. > Thus, just we would have the Catholics and the Protestants debating over > the true message of Jesus Christ, we have the apologists (or the > orothodoxy) and the dissidents (or the rethinkers) debating over the true > cause of AIDS. But this isn't about religion. It is about science. In science it is the data that is important. > And why are you so worried about this? You are attempting to avoid looking at the evidence. Chris Noble >"Why do you think you need to? The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Talk >about HIV and AIDS, not us." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Because this debate also centers around two groups regarding the HIV >theory and AIDS and their opposing views. It's not two groups at all. Within the denialist community, there is the split between those who claim HIV doesn't exist and those who think it does but does not cause AIDS. And then a third group who will believe either of these mutually exclusive concepts at whim. George M. Carter "It's not two groups at all. Within the denialist community, there is the split between those who claim HIV doesn't exist and those who think it does but does not cause AIDS." Yes, George, it's called "independent thinking." More informally it is often referred to as "having an open mind." You should give it a try sometime. >"It's not two groups at all. Within the denialist community, there is the >split between those who claim HIV doesn't exist and those who >think it does but does not cause AIDS." > >Yes, George, it's called "independent thinking." No, it's called cognitive dissonance. >More informally it is often referred to as "having an open mind." > >You should give it a try sometime. So should you. I've been looking at the issues around HIV and its role in AIDS for over 16 years. I carefully read the thoughts back in the day of Duesberg, Root-Bernstein, Casper and others. I have also reviewed the work of Shearer, Clerici, Douek, Hellerstein, Autran, Droge, Olivier, Tang, Abrams, and others. I've been working with people living with HIV/AIDS since 1989. And in all that time, those that proclaim denialist views have produced NOTHING that explains why young people develop PCP, CMV retinitis, MAI, wasting, neurological disorders and horrific forms of cryptococcal meningititis, cryptosporidiosis, tuberculosis, etc. HIV screws the immune system up--these infections are a potential (and potentially lethal) consequence. I also have read the utter nonsense of the Perth Group. The only thing I can say positively was that Eleni-Papadoupoulos wrote a somewhat interesting article on oxidative stress. But it was limited and is now rather dated. So that's a charge that is simply meaningless. George M. Carter >>"It's not two groups at all. Within the denialist community, there is the >>split between those who claim HIV doesn't exist and those who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, it's called cognitive dissonance. George Carter is an expert in cognitive dissonance, which is when you become a Director (Charity Queen) in charge of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, ostensibly for the benefit of AIDS patients yet ALWAYS refusing accountability for the moneys collected and subsidized by the taxpayers. For Carter this amounts to "gerbicognition", that is, having the brains of a f.cking gerbil. >"Why do you think you need to? The debate is about HIV and AIDS. Talk >about HIV and AIDS, not us." > >Because this debate also centers around two groups regarding the HIV >theory and AIDS and their opposing views. They are two groups of individuals, and individual names are all we need. >Thus, just we would have the Catholics and the Protestants debating over >the true message of Jesus Christ, we have the apologists (or the >orothodoxy) and the dissidents (or the rethinkers) debating over the true >cause of AIDS. If Catholics and Protestants didn't have names for each other, they might be reduced to quoting Bible passages and explaining their interpretations of those passages to each other. They might be forced to focus their attention on the actual topic of discussion. Horrifying. >And why are you so worried about this? I am amused by your unwitting self-revelation. What the fact that you can't discuss HIV and AIDS without having a name to describe us really means is this: you can't discuss HIV and AIDS. You need to talk about us, instead of about HIV and AIDS, because you don't know how to judge a theory based on the quality of the evidence and arguments used to support it. You need a name for us because your only intellectual tool, your only method, is to find or construct reasons to attack the character of somebody on the other side, and then generalize that moral conclusion to everybody else on the other side, That is not a method of scientific argument. It is the method of religious argument. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "You need a name for us because your only intellectual tool, your only method, is to find or construct reasons to attack the character of somebody on the other side, and then generalize that moral conclusion to everybody else on the other side..." That's odd. It sounds as if your describing exactly how those who support the HIV theory of AIDS refute those who deny the validity of that theory. Ya know, the "Denialists." Now, wouldn't it be funny if we were both doing the same thing? >"You need a name for us because your only intellectual tool, your only >method, is to find or construct reasons to attack the character of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ya know, the "Denialists." Paul, the word for what they do is: P A R O C H I A L LOL !!! "Paul, the word for what they do is: P A R O C H I A L" pa·ro·chi·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-rk-l) adj. Narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial: parochial attitudes. Lorenzo, Thanks for the thought-provoking reframe! -Paul >"You need a name for us because your only intellectual tool, your only >method, is to find or construct reasons to attack the character of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It sounds as if your describing exactly how those who support the HIV >theory of AIDS refute those who deny the validity of that theory. Yes, some of us do that. >Ya know, the "Denialists." Careful with that generalization, Eugene. Though I have used the term "denialist" in the past, nowadays I use "dissident." >Now, wouldn't it be funny if we were both doing the same thing? Think back to what I said about Catholics and Protestants, or "flyers" and "grounders". I wonder what would happen if we could ban the words "dissident", "denialist" and "apologist", and forbid attempts to replace them with other words... SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber >>"You need a name for us because your only intellectual tool, your only >>method, is to find or construct reasons to attack the character of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Careful with that generalization, Eugene. Though I have used the term >"denialist" in the past, nowadays I use "dissident." Gee, I used to use the word "dissident" but now I kind of like "denialist" ... maybe a better term might be "diss-a-lisp" to describe how we get the apologists' collective panties in a bunch. >I wonder what would happen if we could ban the words "dissident", >"denialist" and "apologist", and forbid attempts to replace them >with other words... Nah, Canzi Pants - you can't help being a scienced-challenged creature with parochial fantasies. It's not your fault that you were whisked off to elementary school aboard one of those little yellow school buses for the "special" children. "I wonder what would happen if we could ban the words ‘dissident’, ‘denialist’ and ‘apologist’, and forbid attempts to replace them with other words..." David, I think that is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard someone who supports the HIV theory say! I tip my dissident hat to you! You are, of course, absolutely correct. But problem lies with people. And if you'll bare with me, for a few minutes of armchair philosophizing, I will elaborate on that statement: We are, above all else, social animals. We are naturally drawn to groups of individuals with whom we share our same values, beliefs, understandings etc. Basically, we just wanna belong. So, I believe, it's natural for people to identify themselves with one or more groups of other people with whom they share similarities. Thus, those who support the HIV theory of AIDS - the "apologists" - share the same beliefs. And those who question the HIV theory of AIDS - the "dissidents" - share the same beliefs. Effectively, however, both groups are seeing what they *want* to see. Now this is where, I believe, the lines of "science" and "belief" are crossed: I would like everyone reading this debate to consider the extraordinary thought that the belief in something comes *first* and the evidence, to back it up that belief, comes *second*. Simply put, it's called bias. Let me explain. No one - not scientists, not doctors, not even the President of the United States - will act in direct contradiction to their beliefs. And, therefore, no one will even "see" what contradicts his or her beliefs. Most people think "They'll believe it when they see it," but really “You'll see it when you believe it." In other words, we only allow those things into our conscious mind that support our belief system and we only see the evidence that supports our paradigm. Now, science is supposed to eliminate this great problem of bias by carefully labeling scientific understandings as "theories," rather than "beliefs," and by using the scientific process to weed out the crap. That does not mean, however, that scientists and doctors are, somehow, *exempt* from acting on their beliefs and simply “seeing what they believe.” In other words, doctors and scientists are still human, no matter how much they claim not to be. True Science - if such a thing actually exists - would of course eliminate all bias. But as we have all learned in school - through monumental scientific mistakes made in the past - that is not strictly possible. Therefore, we are having this "little debate" about the validity of the HIV theory based on the *beliefs* of two main groups and their resulting sub-groups: The doctors and scientists that support the HIV theory, talk about their "mountains of data" and their "overwhelming evidence." Thus, the lay people who are *active in supporting* this theory - by taking the HIV tests and following the prescribed treatments - base their actions on an implied trust of those in the scientific MAJORITY who support the theory. And the doctors and scientists, who question the HIV theory, talk about it NOT fulfilling the classic rules of science or, for that matter, standing up to simple logic. And thus, the lay people who are active in *questioning* the theory - by NOT taking the HIV tests NOR following the prescribed treatments - base their actions on an implied trust of those in the scientific MINORITY who refute the theory. So, here we are duking it out, calling each other names, pointing out the stupidity of our opponents and extolling the intelligence of ourselves, and basically having one, big pissing contest. In conclusion then, this is what I have to offer to anyone who's interested in considering the “ravings of a denialist with an agenda”: I think the HIV theory of AIDS is a load of crap… …but don't take my word for it, 'cause I'm just “a simple country boy." I would invite everyone who - like me - was diagnosed as "HIV-positive" to simply read every piece of dissident literature you can get your hands on. Simply ask yourself, "What have I got to lose?" It's just information, folks! If you read it, and it sounds like a load of crap, and if it doesn't make sense to you, come back to the HIV theory of AIDS better educated, knowing that you have - indeed - chosen the correct path. Then, take your ARVs and enjoy your immune reconstitution disease. Otherwise, if you don't know what your "enemy" knows, how will you ever know whether what they are saying is true? Now, everyone in the "dissident camp" already know what those in the "apologist camp" know, because it's been shoved down our throats for the odd twenty years. But we know something that you don't. And what I came here to do – specifically - is to get all of you "HIV-positives" interested in exploring the dissident views because, I believe, if you really examine the dissident view, just like I did, it will make SO MUCH MORE SENSE TO YOU than the apologist view. That is why I started this debate! I wanted you to have the same *opportunity* that I did - to read what the doctors and scientists who question the HIV theory have to say - so that you can make *more informed* decisions about your health. It's your life. -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon (massive snip) > I would invite everyone who - like me - was diagnosed as "HIV-positive" to > simply read every piece of dissident literature you can get your hands > on. I am so sorry to hear that you were diagnosed HIV positive, am glad that you are still healthy and hope that you remain so. I will be interested to see what you have to say about the HIV=AIDS debate when your health starts to fail. > Simply ask yourself, "What have I got to lose?" Well if you are persuaded by the propaganda, lies, half truths and personal opinions on the rethinkers websites to avoid ARV what you have to lose is your health and then your life. > It's just information, folks! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then, take your ARVs and enjoy your immune reconstitution disease. Your misuse of "immune reconstitution disease" is an other obvious sign of your ignorance about ARV. In that immune reconstitution disease only happens to those who were in late stage AIDS before they started ARV not in patients who begin therapy following the standard of care currently advised. > Otherwise, if you don't know what your "enemy" knows, how will you ever > know whether what they are saying is true? Good question I wish you would apply it to yourself. You obviously have spent no time reading the websites of the CDC, NIH, NAIADS, or even WEBMD. Your posts show a complete lack of knowledge on the topics of HIV, AIDS, ARV, or the clinical care of HIV or AIDS patients. > Now, everyone in the "dissident camp" already know what those in the > "apologist camp" know, because it's been shoved down our throats for the > odd twenty years. To bad you've totally ignored it or you might have reached a level of understanding that would let you make fact based decisions on how best to protect your own health. > But we know something that you don't. > > And what I came here to do – specifically - is to get all of you > "HIV-positives" interested in exploring the dissident views because, I > believe, if you really examine the dissident view, just like I did, it > will make SO MUCH MORE SENSE TO YOU than the apologist view. Been there done that many times over the years and have found the dissident views to be so completely lacking in data, logic, honesty and consistency that in my opinion the only people they convince are those with some predisposition for beliefs in evil conspiracies, or those stuck in the bargaining stage of grief management. > That is why I started this debate! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's your life. As it's your life as well, and while I fully support your right to believe in what ever you want to it saddens me that you have chosen to follow so many of your fellow rethinkers down the path that at sometime in the future you will find yourself on. That path is not one I would wish on even my worst enemy dieing from untreated AIDS is a horrible painful way to die. Gary Stein "As it's your life as well, and while I fully support your right to believe in what ever you want to it saddens me that you have chosen to follow so many of your fellow rethinkers down the path that at sometime in the future you will find yourself on. That path is not one I would wish on even my worst enemy dieing from untreated AIDS is a horrible painful way to die." Gary, Has anyone ever died from the "life-saving" medications with the "not-so-life-saving" side effects, which include liver failure? Would you consider that a horrible way to die? And would you like to let those who are on the ARVs know if there has EVER been a placebo controlled clinical study showing that people taking the antiretroviral drugs live longer or at least better lives than a similar group of people not taking the drugs? Cause the ARVs weren't INTRODUCED as having "life saving" properties compared to nothing, were they? I mean, at some point, there had to have been randomized and double blind placebo controls, otherwise, how would any study have determined IN ADVANCE that they were "effective treatments?" How does Chris, then, make statements such as: "The clinical studies of HAART do have controls. They are not placebo controlled. Ethical issues prohibit placebo controlled studies where effective treatments exist" with a straight face? How were they determined to be more "effective" than NO treatment, if they were NEVER compared to having no treatment? So, what, HIV "science" is exempt from EVER conducting randomized and double blind placebo controls and they simply ASSIGN that drug the title "effective treatment" so they can rationalize not using a placebo control? That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? That doesn't sound terribly “scientific,” does it? -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon >We are, above all else, social animals. We are naturally drawn to groups >of individuals with whom we share our same values, beliefs, understandings [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So, I believe, it's natural for people to identify themselves with one or >more groups of other people with whom they share similarities. And yet... AIDS dissidents need a name for themselves and we don't. I became an atheist in Catholic school, and remained an atheist while attending Catholic schools for 5 more years. I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people to reassure me that I'm right. >Thus, those who support the HIV theory of AIDS - the "apologists" - share >the same beliefs. And those who question the HIV theory of AIDS - the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >support our belief system and we only see the evidence that supports our >paradigm. We know many things today that we didn't know 100 years age: penicillin, DNA, semiconductors, nuclear chain reactions. Every discovery of new knowledge is a counter-example to your claim that belief precedes evidence. But perhaps what you really mean to claim is that an already accepted belief causes us to see only the evidence supporting it and not to see evidence against it. I can give you two personal counterexamples. At the age of 10 I was shocked when the teacher told us in a disgusted tone that there are people, called atheists, who don't believe in God. Incredible, I thought, how could anybody believe that? It's OBVIOUS that God exists. I started to think about why it was obvious, and the more I thought about it the less obvious it became. The belief was there, no evidence showed up, and I eventually changed my belief. On vacation in 1995, with my eyes closed while showering in an Ottawa hotel room, I noticed something odd about the appearance of the extreme left visual field of my right eye. After I finished showering, I sat on the edge of the bed facing toward a corner of the room. On the wall to my right there was a curtained window. Next to the wall on my left, there was a lamp. When I looked at the lamp with my left eye I could see the right edge of the window curtains in my peripheral vision. When I looked at the right edge of the curtains with my right eye, I couldn't see the lamp. Then I suspected I had CMV retinitis, and it was confirmed by my ophthalmologist after I returned home. I had been tested for CMV several years before, and the result was negative. Believing I was safe from CMV retinitis didn't prevent me from seeing the evidence for it when it happened. You claim everybody sees only the evidence that confirms their beliefs. That may be true of you, but it isn't true of me, and maybe not true of most people. If there was a Top 10 list of the dumbest mistakes people make, assuming everybody reasons and rationalizes the same way you do would be on it. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "If there was a Top 10 list of the dumbest mistakes people make, assuming everybody reasons and rationalizes the same way you do would be on it." David, Would that include asking "unreasonable" and "irrational" questions like "Why have there NEVER been double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies done to prove this medication is more effective than taking nothing?" when that medication has a warning label like this: "TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing." WEAR SUITABLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING?!? And people are INGESTING this medication based on the BELIEF that ARVs are better than not taking anything at all, DESPITE THE VERY CLEAR FACT that there have NEVER BEEN clinical studies with a PLACEBO control PROVING that AZT is a more "effective treatment" than taking nothing. I sure as hell wouldn't want to swallow something that comes with a SKULL AND CROSS BONES on its label. Yeah, I could see why you think asking questions like this are a mistake... -Paul Whiting > Would that include asking "unreasonable" and "irrational" questions like > "Why have there NEVER been double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies > done to prove this medication is more effective than taking nothing?" It is another one of your questions where the basic premise is false. Remember the: why did gallo announce his findings at a press conference before it was peer-reviewed? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=3299089&query_hl=2 The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT) in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185-91. 19 placebo recipients died during the trial whereas only 1 in the AZT group died. The benefits of AZT monotherapy in payients with full-blown AIDS is evident. If you want to read about the toxicities of AZT then read the companion piece. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=3299090&query_hl=2 The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):192-7. Chris Noble "It is another one of your questions where the basic premise is false. Remember the: why did gallo announce his findings at a press conference before it was peer-reviewed?" You're absolutely right, Chris! And that was due to the fact that I understood peer review process to *include* the "duplication process" not just publication in a peer review journal. So, you’ll remember that I revised my question to state: "Are you saying then that Gallo did NOT, in fact, steal Montangier's work and claim it as his own, which is *why* the HIV theory was announced at a press conference prior to the "duplication process," as you call it, showing that Montagnier's findings and conclusions were valid?" Thank you, Chris for finding this information! I stand corrected! I would now like to ask you the following questions: 1) Is this the only double-blind placebo controlled study ever done for AZT? 2) Is this the clinical study upon which the FDA approval of AZT was based? 3) Finally, have there ever been any long-term placebo controlled studies done*** to show whether AZT is more effective than nothing, or to address “questions about possible adverse effects and efficacy associated with AZT's long-term use.” Now, for you folks reading at home, please read the following comments from the Jan. 16, 1987 AZT ADVISORY MEETING, which are based on the above study and that also makes references to a previous study in September 1986: "FDA's Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee met today to consider safety and efficacy data bearing on the AIDS drug azidothymidine (AZT). The committee, made up of non-FDA experts, meets routinely to review and evaluate available data for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and to make appropriate recommendations to FDA." "While the committee's recommendations are not binding, the recommendations will be given due consideration by FDA in its review of Burroughs Wellcome's application to market AZT." "Initial clinical trials of AZT were sponsored by Burroughs Wellcome Company of Research Triangle Park, N.C., and the National Cancer Institute under a conventional Investigational New Drug Application (IND). The later multicenter, placebo-controlled trial was ***terminated ahead of schedule*** in September 1986 after preliminary data strongly suggested that AZT prolonged short-term survival in AIDS patients who received it." "The Committee believes that the data from the controlled clinical trial sponsored by Burroughs Wellcome demonstrates AZT's ability to prolong the short-term survival of AIDS patients with recently diagnosed PCP and certain advanced patients with ARC." "The Committee, however, notes that there are no clinical data on the long-term effects of AZT's use. Therefore, if FDA approves AZT for treatment of AIDS patients as defined above the Committee recommends that FDA consider requiring thorough and extensive post-approval patient monitoring and reporting by Burroughs Wellcome to resolve important questions about possible adverse effects and efficacy associated with AZT's long-term use. "FDA notes the committee's finding that many questions still remain concerning AZT's long-term effects and the committee's call for extensive post-marketing monitoring." http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00331.html >"If there was a Top 10 list of the dumbest mistakes people make, assuming >everybody reasons and rationalizes the same way you do would be on it." > >Would that include asking "unreasonable" and "irrational" questions like >"Why have there NEVER been double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies Clumsy change of subject noted. Didn't find anything in my article to disagree with, eh? SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber “Clumsy change of subject noted. Didn't find anything in my article to disagree with, eh?” David, You caught me! Yes, that was an entirely sloppy change of subject! Please accept my apologies for that one! Anyway, if you were referring to the article where you state, "Every discovery of new knowledge is a counter-example to your claim that belief precedes evidence," I would respond with the following questions: Where did the term "retrovirus" come from? More precisely, what does "retro" refer to in the term "retrovirus?" And is the model of the relationship between DNA and RNA, upon which the term "retrovirus" is based, still considered valid? Here's a little hint for ya: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/02/10/humangenome.02/ -Paul Whiting >Anyway, if you were referring to the article where you state, "Every >discovery of new knowledge is a counter-example to your claim that belief [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And is the model of the relationship between DNA and RNA, upon which the >term "retrovirus" is based, still considered valid? Before the discovery of retroviruses, biologists believed that genetic information always flows from DNA to RNA, then to protein. Contrary to this, retroviruses transcribe RNA back to DNA. What's your point? >Here's a little hint for ya: > >http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/02/10/humangenome.02/ The web broswer's search within page function didn't find any occurrences of the word "retrovirus". SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber > I sure as hell wouldn't want to swallow something that comes with a SKULL > AND CROSS BONES on its label. http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/WA/warfarin.html http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682277.html Chris Noble >> I sure as hell wouldn't want to swallow something that comes with a SKULL >> AND CROSS BONES on its label. > >http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/WA/warfarin.html >http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682277.html http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/Ne-25_N-3150+20691966_nr-1_bt-2 SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber Chris, does this prove that medications with skulls and crossbones are *good* for us? Looks like a person would have to be walking on eggshells when they take this stuff...with all of the things you're not supposed to eat/ingest while on Warfarin. My mother may actually be taking this. She had a mild stroke recently. She was having a very slow heartbeat for a long time, which obviously was of great concern. She went to the doctor, and their first course of action was to open her up and stick in a pacemaker. Well, maybe the FIRST thing they should have done was check out her high-blood pressure meds and see if there might be a problem there. No, she told me. That was NOT even discussed. She gave me the names of her various medications. I went to a completely standard, non-alternative health site to check out side affects of her medications. A side affect of one of the medications was SLOW HEARTBEAT. Strange. Wouldn't it have been easier to just look at THAT first, and maybe adjust her meds, instead of opening up her chest and sticking in a pacemaker? Back to the warfarin. So, are you trying to tell us that skulls and crossbones mean absolutely nothing? Just swallow the damned meds, and don't ask questions? Maybe that's how medicine works these days, but I'M going to ask questions. Unfortunately, my mother isn't going to ask a lot of questions from the medical deities. Now, she's got this device in her chest, and wonders if it really could have been as simple as changing her meds. From the sounds of it, she may be on this warfarin as well. She tells me all the things she's not supposed to have...greens, garlic, etc.. But, unlike her, I'll question people with degrees, because they are not gods, and they're not always motivated by altruism. > "This difference has deep implications. What we believe is our opinion. > What they believe is their identity." > > David, > > What do you, who support the HIV theory of AIDS, prefer to be called? "Brian," usually.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.