 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005A denialist's child ... DEAD
Clearly there is a lot of blame to go around here. But shame on the doctors for not even considering P. carinii pneumonia as a differential diagnosis in the child of an HIV+ mom who had acute respiratory distress. By the way, can any of the "dissidents" <snort> on this board produce a single reference to P. carinii pneumonia in a child who did not have a serious underlying immune dysfunction....such as those caused by HIV or other immunodeficiency diseases? See if you can produce a single one, and then tell me more about the likelihood of the Ms. Maggiore's child dying of PCP if she were not HIV-infected. It's one thing for internet trolls/pundits (you know who you are) to question the etiology of a deadly disease. But to the extent that they influence real people with real children....who suffer and die....they are criminal. > Clearly there is a lot of blame to go around here. But shame on the > doctors for not even considering P. carinii pneumonia as a differential > diagnosis in the child of an HIV+ mom who had acute respiratory > distress. Seems to me that would be a slam dunk, since they've been handing slam dunks around like candy lately. I'd be surprised if someone didn't lose a license. B/ I didn't read anywhere in the article that an HIV antibody test was done on the daughter. Was one done? If so, it most certainly was done post mortum. Does anyone know how much this factor may affect (in)validity of the test? Jeff Well, I may as well take up the mantle of being an internet troll/pundit, for what it's worth. I would say that it is true that PCP does not occur in children who are in peak health. PCP was quite common in children in the pre-AIDS era in resource poor environments (I have read this some where, would have to dig into articles to find references). In the post-AIDS era, however, I am of the opinion that PCP is grossly misdiagnosed, usually when the doc (in this case coroner) knows the patient is/may be HIV "pos". The fact is that PCP is terribly difficult to diagnose and even presence of the fungus is not proof that it caused the disease. Remember the fungus is in everyone, only in healthy people it has no chance to thrive. Also, PCP, as an AIDS indicator disease in resource rich settings been mainly seen in homosexual men. I must admit that I don't know if many HIV "pos" children die of PCP regularly. PCP is a highly unusual disease in resource rich settings and considering the fact that the child had not been ill before, it seems unlikely that PCP would quickly set in (in a few weeks) and then kill the child. I'm not a trained medical expert, but it sounds to me that a lot of supposition was going on here and not enough searching for indisputable evidence. Troll, yes......pundit, no. Of course PCP does not occur in children who are in "peak health" as you put it. But it does spontaneously develop in immunodeficient individuals. Guess what - kids with HIV can appear perfectly healthy on the outside, but immunologically can be like an accident waiting to happen. This is a common presentation in those who have never suspected they were infected with HIV - first thing they know, something bad hits them out of left field. Just like EJ. The rest of your ramble is full of admissions of ignorance, which at least you have the grace to admit ("I have read this somewhere.....I don't know....It sounds to me...") Spare us all more examples of your ignorance This forum is like an aching tooth: You should leave it alone but you just can't stop touching it. I'm more of a silent reader but this time it's too much and I feel I must write something. The specialist humbug about existing or non-existing viruses, well, I can't judge and although I must admit that sometimes the so-called "denialists" do seem to make a point, I stick to my opinion that it's highly unlikely regular science be wrong in it's overall approach. But what's happening lately over the death of Mrs Maggiore's child, well, I don't have words to describe my disgust and I am shocked by the postings of some of the anti-denialists, if that's what you would call them. If ever I come to a total review of my opinion about hiv and aids, then the basics of my new approach will certainly be rooted in what I've been reading the last couple of days. The contributions in which Mrs Maggiore is accused seem to me just, what would you call it..... pieces of filth filled with hatred. I don't know who you are, you who dare to use the death of a child in your crazy Don Quichotte mission to help people get on to their regular drugs, but certainly you are very poor representatives of sciences. C.H. Fortean Jean First of all, I echo your sentiments about the crass way in which "anti-denialists" have reacted to the EJ affair. I would like to challenge you (in a friendly way, of course) regarding your inclination that "I stick to my opinion that it's highly unlikely regular science be wrong in it's overall approach." I put it to you that there are a plethora of instances where organised medicine, in particular, has gotten things HORRIBLY wrong. I would encourage you to do some research into things like the SMON fiasco, the pellagra, scurvy and beriberi stories. In these cases an infectious cause was ascribed to conditions which were later found to be non-infectious and environment related. One of the main reasons that I am incredibly sceptical of the HIV/AIDS paradigm is the stark similarities between the abovementioned conditions and what is called AIDS. At the time, all these conditions were vehemently defended by the medical establishment as having infectious aetiology. Pellagra is particularly illuminating because it only happened in the first part of last century. For years thousands of children in the US South were ripped out of their homes and stuck in pellagrine hospitals. All sorts of "treatments" were tried out on these children. After much malignment, one doctor EVENTUALLY managed to convince the medical dunderheads that the cause of the disease was a lack of a B vitamin. But for years the docs insisted that that was bullshit theory. The medical history is also a wrecking yard of abandoned treatments that at the time of their use were considered to be "standards of care". Take the treatment of syphilis with arsenic, for example (a treatment that was only discontinued in the 1930's!). And what about the practice of lancing to remove "bad blood" as a treatment for anaemia! Tellingly, one of the establishment's most respected medical journals, The Lancet, is named after the instrument that was used to lance blood out of people. It is extremely arrogant of our current medical experts that after centuries of medicine bunging it up royally, on a regular basis, to assume that they are incapable of screwing up again. So, in conclusion, I would say that you may want to re-examine your position regarding the likelihood that the "scientists" have got it all wrong. They've got it wrong in the past (lots), and there's no reason to believe they won't get it wrong again. Regards Greg >I would say that you may want to re-examine your position regarding the likelihood that the "scientists" have got it all wrong. They've got it wrong in the past (lots), and there's no reason to believe they won't get it wrong again. A conversation between Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (both comedians) Moore: "You're a bleeding nutcase!" Cook: "Hah! They said that about Galileo." Moore: "They also said it about a lot of nutcases." http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html Well David, once again I think you missed the gist of my post. Once again, I will admit that I am not a medical expert, so I have to rely on the hopefully unbiased opinion of souls like yourself. You said: "This is a common presentation in those who have never suspected they were infected with HIV - first thing they know, SOMETHING bad hits them out of left field." What I, in my extreme ignorance would like to know is, if there is evidence that this happens with PCP in particular? Have their been other cases, just like EJ, where PCP has struck an otherwise healthy three year old (let's assume for the moment, HIV infected child) with the same suddenness? Your learned application to this question would be most appreciated. Happy to oblige. See Graham SM, Gibb DM. HIV disease and respiratory infection in children. Br Med Bull. 2002;61:133-50. >Quote: "In resource-rich countries, the presentation of respiratory infection with pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) may be the first indicator of HIV infection if the maternal status was not recognised in pregnancy." and "There is now robust evidence from autopsy and clinical studies that PCP is a common cause of severe pneumonia and death.." The review makes it clear PCP can be the first (but not only) indication of unrecognised HIV infection in children. Another very pertinent point - PCP in infants is often a primary infection, rather than a reactivation as it is for adults with HIV. Primary infections (cf herpes as a good example) are often much more severe than reactivation. "Happy to oblige." Yes, David, I bet you *are* quite *happy*. Anything to say about the artice, which explains how severe respiratory illnesses can strike out of the blue? No, I thought not. Just pretend the evidence does not exist, since it does not conform to your preconceptions. Even Iconoclaster seems not to be able to respond to this one. You know, he was the chap who said he would hunt me down wherever I posted so as to refute my statements. Thank you David I am more than willing to accept that if it is the case. Thank you for sourcing the reference. However, even with that information in mind, I still think that it is premature to subject Christine Maggiore to what amounts to an online kangaroo court. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that this was not a cut and dried AIDS death. And I think it is irresponsible and unfair of you to convict and sentence the parents before we have all the facts. In any event, even if the mother and child are shown to be HIV positive, it is true to say that the HIV orthodoxy cannot offer anything better than a premature death of the disease. In these circumstances, I believe it is still the prerogative of the parent to determine if their child gets the "therapy" or not. In the light of its demonstrated a) toxicity and b) acknowledged inability to "cure" this is only logical. I realise that many feel strongly about "enforced" therapy of infants just born to HIV-positive mothers. It is a very emotive area, and involves child protection issues which are interpreted/regarded much more harshly by the authorities in the USA than in other parts of the world. >I believe it is still the prerogative of the parent to determine if their child gets the "therapy" or not. In the light of its demonstrated a) toxicity and b) acknowledged inability to "cure" this is only logical. Perhaps. Just imagine now that we are talking about diabetes istead of HIV. If the infants who stood a 25% chance of developing and dying from diabetes in later life could be identified and given a short course of insulin after birth which could virtually guarantee to prevent this happening, would this not be logical? (Especially if as adults they posed a risk of passing on diabetes to others such as partners and children?) Or, alternatively, in the light of the therapy's (insulin's) "demonstrated a) toxicity and b) acknowledged inability to "cure", would you say it is logical to leave the decision up to the parents as to whether insulin is given only for the neonatal period? >In the >post-AIDS era, however, I am of the opinion that PCP is grossly >misdiagnosed, usually when the doc (in this case coroner) knows the >patient is/may be HIV "pos". The fact is that PCP is terribly difficult to >diagnose and even presence of the fungus is not proof that it caused the >disease. Many difficult diagnoses become easy when there is no need to avoid killing the patient. That's cold, but that's the nature of the coroner's work. >PCP is a highly unusual disease in resource rich settings and considering >the fact that the child had not been ill before, it seems unlikely that >PCP would quickly set in (in a few weeks) and then kill the child. I'm not >a trained medical expert, but it sounds to me that a lot of supposition >was going on here and not enough searching for indisputable evidence. You know nothing about the coroner's methods, and nothing about the nature of the evidence that led him/her to diagnose "AIDS-related pneumonia". Yet you have no trouble accusing a trained medical professional with a sharp scalpel and direct access to a dead body of making a diagnosis based on suppositions, oblivious to the fact that your accusations are themselves suppositions by somebody who hasn't been within smelling distance of any actual physical evidence.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber |
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.