Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005
Denialism Kills
|
|
Thread rating:  |
GMCarter - 26 Sep 2005 21:13 GMT http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eliza24sep24,0,1725776.story?page=1&coll =la-home-headlines September 24, 2005 latimes.com : California
A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death By Charles Ornstein and Daniel Costello, Times Staff Writers
Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when she explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe HIV caused AIDS.
The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus.
"Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may seem, are extremely well-founded."
Seven weeks later, Eliza Jane was dead.
The cause, according to a Sept. 15 report by the Los Angeles County coroner, was AIDS-related pneumonia.
These days, given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any young child to die of AIDS. What makes Eliza Jane's death even more striking is that her mother is a high-profile, charismatic leader in a movement that challenges the basic medical understanding and treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Even now, Maggiore, a 49-year-old former clothing executive from Van Nuys, stands by the views she has espoused on "The Ricki Lake Show" and ABC's "20/20," and in Newsweek and Mothering magazines. She and her husband, Robin Scovill, said they have concerns about the coroner's findings and are sending the report to an outside reviewer.
"I have been brought to my emotional knees, but not in regard to the science of this topic," said Maggiore, author of an iconoclastic book about AIDS that has sold 50,000 copies. "I am a devastated, broken, grieving mother, but I am not second-guessing or questioning my understanding of the issue."
One doctor involved with Eliza Jane's care told The Times he has been second-guessing himself since the day he learned of the little girl's death.
Dr. Jay Gordon, a Santa Monica pediatrician who had treated Eliza Jane since she was a year old, said he should have demanded that she be tested for human immunodeficiency virus when, 11 days before she died, Maggiore brought her in with an apparent ear infection.
"It's possible that the whole situation could have been changed if one of the doctors involved one of the three doctors involved had intervened," said Gordon, who himself acknowledges that HIV causes AIDS. "It's hindsight, Monday-morning quarterbacking, whatever you want to call it. Do I think I'm blameless in this? No, I'm not blameless."
Mainstream AIDS organizations, medical experts and ethicists, long confounded and distressed by this small but outspoken dissident movement, say Eliza Jane's death crystallizes their fears. The dissenters' message, they say, is not just wrong, it's deadly.
"This was a preventable death," said Dr. James Oleske, a New Jersey physician who never examined Eliza Jane but has treated hundreds of HIV-positive children. "I can tell you without any doubt that, at the outset of her illness, if she was appropriately evaluated, she would have been appropriately treated. She would not have died.
"You can't write a more sad and tragic story," Oleske said.
It is a story not just about Maggiore and her family but about failures among child welfare officials and well-known Los Angeles County doctors.
Among the physicians involved in Eliza Jane's care was Dr. Paul Fleiss, a popular if sometimes unconventional Los Feliz pediatrician who gained some publicity in the 1990s as the father of the notorious Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. He was sentenced to three years' probation for conspiring to shield the profits from his daughter's call-girl ring from the IRS, among other things.
"I don't understand it," Fleiss said of Eliza Jane's death, "because I've never seen her sick or with anything resembling what she supposedly died of
. I don't believe I could have done anything to change this outcome."
Fleiss, who said he could be "convinced either way" on whether HIV causes AIDS, has known the family since before Eliza Jane was born. In 2000, the county Department of Children and Family Services investigated Maggiore and Scovill after a tipster complained that Charlie was in danger because he hadn't been tested for HIV and was breast-fed.
The department found no evidence of neglect, based partly on reassurances from Fleiss, according to an official report reviewed by The Times.
Now, with the death of Eliza Jane, authorities say they are poised to act.
Los Angeles police are investigating the couple for possible child endangerment, said Lt. Dennis Shirey, the officer in charge of the child protection section. DCFS officials say they have opened an investigation to determine whether the parents should be forced to test Charlie, now 8.
Maggiore said that she has spoken with police and expects to meet with the child welfare agency early next week. Scovill would not comment in detail.
Before Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore said she had tested neither of her children. Since then, in anticipation of the visit by child welfare officials, she has had Charlie tested three times, and he was negative each time, she said.
"Would I redo anything based on what happened?" she asked rhetorically during an interview this week. "I don't think I would. I think I acted with the best information and the best of intentions with all my heart."
'Doing a Good Thing'
Maggiore said she once bought the standard line.
HIV would evolve into AIDS. And AIDS, she firmly believed, would kill her.
For months after her condition was diagnosed in 1992, she was depressed and reclusive. Then she plunged into AIDS volunteer work: at AIDS Project Los Angeles, L.A. Shanti and Women at Risk.
Her background commanded attention. A well-spoken, middle-class woman, she owned her own clothing company, with annual revenue of $15 million. Soon she was being asked to speak about the risks of HIV at local schools and health fairs. "At the time," said Maggiore, a slight woman who looks years younger than her age, "I felt like I was doing a good thing."
All that changed two years later, she said, when she spoke to UC Berkeley biology professor Peter Duesberg, whose well-publicized views on AIDS including that its symptoms can be caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition place him well outside the scientific mainstream.
Intrigued, Maggiore began scouring the literature about the underlying science of HIV. She does not know how she became HIV-positive, but she came to believe that flu shots, pregnancy and common viral infections could lead to a positive test result. She later detailed those claims in her book, "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?"
Maggiore started Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a nonprofit that challenges "common assumptions" about AIDS. Her group's website and toll-free hotline cater to expectant HIV-positive mothers who shun AIDS medications, want to breast-feed their children and seek to meet others of like mind. One of her tips: Mothers should share their wishes only with trusted family members and doctors who will support their decision to avoid HIV/AIDS drugs and interventions.
She has stayed healthy, she said, despite a cervical condition three years ago that would qualify her for an AIDS diagnosis. In a 2002 article for Awareness magazine, she facetiously refers to it as "my bout of so-called AIDS," saying it coincided "perfectly with the orthodox axiom that we get a decade of normal health before our AIDS kicks in."
During a March interview in her orderly, well-lighted home, Maggiore seemed, if anything, an exceptionally devoted mother. She served homegrown vegetables and fresh pasta to Eliza Jane, listening attentively as the healthy-looking little girl chattered happily about her two imaginary friends. At one point, when Eliza Jane wanted to swipe away a spider, her mother urged respect for the tiny creature. "He is part of our family," she said.
What set Maggiore apart became clear only when she talked about her views on medicine.
She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.
Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.
She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.
Scovill apparently shares her beliefs. Last year, he produced and directed a contrarian documentary, "The Other Side of AIDS," which won a special jury prize at the AFI Los Angeles International Film Festival.
Maggiore estimates that 50 HIV-positive women have come around to her point of view. The Times interviewed nine who said she helped them plot medical and legal strategies to avoid being forced to have their children tested.
Lori Crawford, a child welfare worker in Tempe, Ariz., said Maggiore helped her avoid an HIV test in North Carolina when she was pregnant with her daughter three years ago. Crawford said Maggiore informed her that North Carolina didn't have mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women and suggested she decline the test if health authorities in that state recommended it.
"Christine and her book saved my life," said Crawford.
A Big Victory In the 25-year history of AIDS, there have been many advances but few victories. Prevention of infections and deaths among young children is one.
"This is one of the biggest public health and medical successes in the United States," said Margaret Lampe, a health education specialist with the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The number of children found to have AIDS continues to plummet, even as the overall number of new AIDS cases in the United States remains stuck at more than 40,000 per year.
In 2003, only 59 children under age 13 nationally were found to have AIDS, according to the CDC. That's down from 952 cases in 1992, officials said.
Health officials attribute the decline to regular testing of pregnant women and the use of antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT, during pregnancy and childbirth.
A 1994 study found that one quarter of pregnant HIV-positive women passed the virus to their babies when they did not take AZT. Subsequent studies found that the risk could be lowered to less than 2% when mothers received prenatal care, took a combination of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy and labor, and allowed their infants to be given AZT in their first six weeks.
Federal health officials and AIDS experts say that HIV unquestionably causes AIDS, although it can take more than a decade to develop. HIV tests detect antibodies to the virus and are accurate predictors of who is infected, they say.
Dr. Peter Havens, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said that contrarian HIV theories promoted on about 400 websites are "bogus baloney."
"It's all pseudoscience," he said. "They choose one paper and deny the existence of 100 others."
Crumpled Like a Doll
The first hint that Eliza Jane was ill came at the end of April, when she developed a runny nose with yellow mucus, Maggiore told a coroner's investigator.
On April 30, Maggiore took her daughter to a pediatrician covering for Fleiss. That doctor found the girl had clear lungs, no fever and adequate oxygen levels, the coroner's report said.
Five days later, Maggiore sought a second opinion from Gordon. In an interview, Gordon said he suspected an ear infection but believed it could be resolved without antibiotics. In a follow-up call, he said, Eliza Jane's parents told him she was getting better.
Maggiore then asked Denver physician Philip Incao, who was visiting Los Angeles for a lecture, to examine her, the mother told the coroner's investigator. He found fluid in Eliza Jane's right eardrum.
On May 14, Incao examined her again and prescribed amoxicillin, Maggiore told the coroner.
Incao is not licensed to practice medicine in California.
The next day, Eliza Jane vomited several times and her mother noticed she was pale. While Maggiore was on the phone with Incao, the little girl stopped breathing and "crumpled like a paper doll," the mother told the coroner. She died early the next morning, at a Van Nuys hospital.
Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional approaches to medicine. Gordon and Incao are staunch opponents of mandatory vaccination of children; Fleiss is a vocal critic of male circumcision. Incao did not return repeated phone calls this week.
Alerted to the case by The Times, several medical experts said that doctors who knew Maggiore's circumstances that she was HIV-positive, hadn't been treated during pregnancy and had breast-fed her children should have pushed for the child to be tested.
If she refused, they should have referred the matter to authorities.
According to interviews and records, Gordon and Fleiss have long known Maggiore's HIV status and that she breast-fed her children.
Experts also said that when the girl became ill, any doctor who saw her should have treated her as if she were HIV-positive. That would have meant giving her a stronger antibiotic, such as Bactrim, instead of the relatively low-powered amoxicillin.
"If you look away from something you're supposed to be looking for, that's called willful blindness," said Michael Shapiro, an ethicist and law professor at USC, "and willful blindness is one aspect of determining the negligence."
In an interview this week, Fleiss said it would have been wrong to force Maggiore to test her daughter. "This is a democracy," said Fleiss, who has treated the daughter of pop star Madonna.
Gordon said he wishes he had tested Eliza Jane when she was ill in early May, but he doesn't believe he had sufficient reason to test her earlier.
"When it comes to HIV testing, I think that it's still legally a gray area," he said, depending on whether one believes the child's life is in danger. In Eliza Jane's case, he said, he did not.
David Thornton, executive director of the Medical Board of California, said his agency probably would investigate to determine whether the doctors erred, for example, in failing to report potential child neglect.
"If I would punish anybody," said Nancy Dubler, bioethics director at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, who learned of the case from The Times, "I would punish the pediatricians."
The Focus Turns
Now that authorities have settled on the cause of Eliza Jane's death, the focus has turned to the parents and their remaining child, Charlie.
Even when a child dies because he or she did not receive adequate medical treatment, the law is not at all clear about who, if anyone, should be held responsible. There are few precedents, and courts traditionally give parents and doctors wide discretion.
In two U.S. cases involving HIV-positive mothers who refused testing and treatment neither of which involved a child who died the courts appear to have issued conflicting opinions.
"There's no easy answer," said Dubler.
What is clear is that child welfare authorities had been told that Maggiore was HIV-positive in 2000 and that her son was at risk for the virus, according to agency records.
An investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services visited the home, according to a copy of the case report reviewed by The Times, but she did not have Charlie tested for HIV or talk to outside experts. She instead relied on her own observations and the assurances of Fleiss.
"Parents appear appropriate and extremely focused on child's well-being in every aspect," caseworker Rebecca McCauley wrote in February 2000.
Dr. Charles Sophy, medical director for the DCFS, acknowledged that his department may have erred.
He said the caseworker tried to do her job but relied entirely on Fleiss because the department, at the time, did not have its own medical experts to consult. But even with Eliza Jane's death, Sophy said, it's not entirely clear that Charlie is being neglected.
Legal experts said the problem lies in the official definition of neglect.
"DCFS is used to your prototypical neglect case where the house is filthy and the mother doesn't care," said Thomas Lyon, a USC law professor and expert in child abuse litigation. "They're just not accustomed to the kind of neglect where you have an otherwise healthy, good parent."
Word Is Getting Out Since Eliza Jane's death, Maggiore and her husband have kept a relatively low profile, her friends said. But word is slowly reaching HIV dissidents around the country.
Though shaken, most of them say they continue to support Maggiore and her contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
For her part, Maggiore said that her daughter's death has taken a toll on her health; she's had trouble eating, sleeping and, this past summer, simply breathing. She's treated her symptoms with Chinese herbs, walked five miles a day and practiced yoga, and is now feeling better, she said.
She went to a sympathetic doctor, she said. "If I had gone to a regular AIDS doctor and told them I was HIV-positive, I have no doubt they would have blamed it on that."
In the weeks after Eliza Jane's death, her parents created a website, http://www.ejlovetour.com , in her memory. Maggiore wrote lovingly of her daughter, wavering between despair at her loss and acceptance that Eliza Jane had simply chosen, as Maggiore put it, to "go home."
She struggled most with the whys.
"Why our child so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she wrote. "How come what we offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street, extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables will happily stay?"
montygram - 27 Sep 2005 04:27 GMT Great, so you should be more than willing to take me up on my offer to do my version of the "Duesberg Challenge" (the one where you have to pay a little for your crimes).
I am waiting...
Iconoclaster - 29 Sep 2005 01:20 GMT Mr. Carter, please don't start a new thread on this topic. We are already slaughtering you in the other thread. No need for duplication.
Brian Mailman - 29 Sep 2005 04:01 GMT > Mr. Carter, please don't start a new thread on this topic. We are already > slaughtering you in the other thread. No need for duplication. "We," queen? You got a mouse in your pocket?
GMCarter - 29 Sep 2005 12:19 GMT >Mr. Carter, please don't start a new thread on this topic. We are already >slaughtering you in the other thread. No need for duplication. Ha! What a f.cking arrogant, hubristic a.shole you are.
You couldn't slaughter a fly, you miserable f.cking moron.
greg78 - 29 Sep 2005 13:02 GMT Oh god, Carter. Please spare us the hysteria. "Denialism", besides not being anything really, does not kill, or do anything else. What has very definite killing capacity are the drugs that Eliza Jane would have been put on if HIV doctors had gotten hold of her.
Why do you make a point of gloating in the death of someone else? This demonstrates that you are a heartless person. A reasonable evaluation of the incomplete evidence that is available is that this was not CONCLUSIVELY and AIDS-related incident. We know that the child had not exhibited any ill health up until the period just before her death. You know that this is INCONSISTENT with an AIDS death. So why do you make statements like "Denialism kills"? Have you no sympathy for what Christine Maggiore must be going through? Because she doesn't believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS do you believe her to be subhuman? You are not on this debate because you want make any kind of difference to the way you or anyone else thinks. You're here because you're a bully and a nasty, nasty person.
DavidT - 29 Sep 2005 13:11 GMT No it is not actually inconsistent with a sudden death from an AIDS-related illness. If you had any medical experience of the conditions concerned you would know this. It's pretty clear that the child became unwell over several days, was not managed correctly by the doctors involved, and deteriorated acutely. This is entirely consistent with conditions like PCP. You do not have to be unwell in the lead up to an event of this kind.some people first present with Tcell counts of single figures, having been to all intents and purposes asymptomatic.
DavidT - 29 Sep 2005 13:11 GMT No it is not actually inconsistent with a sudden death from an AIDS-related illness. If you had any medical experience of the conditions concerned you would know this. It's pretty clear that the child became unwell over several days, was not managed correctly by the doctors involved, and deteriorated acutely. This is entirely consistent with conditions like PCP. You do not have to be unwell in the lead up to an event of this kind.some people first present with Tcell counts of single figures, having been to all intents and purposes asymptomatic.
greg78 - 29 Sep 2005 14:49 GMT No, David, you are right, I am not a doctor so I do not have direct medical experience. However, I do possess some common sense and I have done a *fair amount* of research into this topic. In another post on this board I have detailed ALL my reasons for why I maintain that the weight of evidence that we have indicates that this was not an AIDS related incident. And, believe it or not, this is not because I am a "denialist" to use that religious term. Personally, I'm not HIV positive, so whether you're right or I'm right is actually inconsequential to me. The reason I say the things I do is because it is the answer that makes the most logical sense to me.
As an analogy. I don't know if you're aware of the AIDS activist in South Africa, Zachie Achmat. Well, he started taking AIDS drugs about 18 months ago. About three months ago he suffered a near fatal heart (or HAART?) attack (He is in his early 40's). His doctors, of course immediately denied that it had anything to do with his treatment. We did not hear an uproar about the fact that the meds he is on are documented to induce a greater incidence of heart attacks. Why was that? Could it be because it is obvious to anyone that it is "possible" that the drugs caused his attack, but we don't know. In the case of Elisa Jane, we don't really know, but that hasn't stopped some people from saying VERY nasty things.
DavidT - 29 Sep 2005 18:46 GMT Yes, I know about Zachie. He deliberately deferred starting AIDS meds until he could make the Goverment promise to provide meds for his suffering fellow-countymen. He got pretty sick whilst waiting for this, but fortunately managed to go onto meds before it was too late. He is now doing well, because of the meds, not despite them.
And what if the has had a side effect from his meds? These drugs are no picnic, I know, but the disease is far worse. You are attributing his attack to his drugs with no evidence, just like you accuse us of blaming HIV for EJ's death (except there we do have a lot of indirect circumstantial evidence..). Perhaps he was on celebrex?? Ask Zachie if he'd prefer to be a heart attack survivor or an AIDS fatality.
You can't chop down trees with a feather, you have to use an axe, and we all know that these can be a bit dangerous to use, no?
wilyretrovirus - 29 Sep 2005 22:40 GMT David, David, George, Brian,
I think you may want to take note of the words written by Jean013.
Your desperation to go after Christine at all costs is looking more and more obvious to the casual reader.
Whether the "denialists" are right about the AIDS paradigm, or the "apologists" are correct, the way you're pursuing this is definitely ugly.
I very much believe this is going to blow up in your faces, because you are all so desperate for it to work out the way you want it to.
Here are a couple of things Jean013 wrote, in case you've skipped past her post.
"...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."
"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."
Maybe you guys want to "rethink" how you're reacting to this situation.
greg78 - 30 Sep 2005 08:31 GMT Hear, hear, wily.
I agree wholeheartedly! The way the orthodox have reacted to this is sickeningly reprehensbile. And as someone who they are trying to "convince" to come back into the Holy See of belief in HIV, I would say that they really are like the rotten Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. How can they expect anyone to have ANY respect for them when they carry on in such are disgusting, insensitive fashion?
DavidT - 30 Sep 2005 18:26 GMT And whose sock puppet is Jean?
I have seen no hatred spouting forth for Maggiore, or attempts to use the death of EJ to get people onto regular drugs.
The point was that if Christine had acted appropriately, she could have virtually guaranteed her child would not have HIV. There would be no need for EJ to ever go near an HIV drug regimen again for the rest of her life.
Iconoclaster - 30 Sep 2005 23:46 GMT >"And whose sock puppet is Jean?" I wouldn't know, Master David. She's probably an original. A one and only. You see, there are plenty of people who smell a rat when it comes to HIV. And by the way, whose sock puppet are you? I'm getting worried. One or two of you must be very busy by now, to keep up with all your critics.
Iconoclaster - 30 Sep 2005 23:56 GMT >"The point was that if Christine had acted appropriately, she could have virtually guaranteed her child would not have HIV. There would be no need for EJ to ever go near an HIV drug regimen again for the rest of her life."
Right. In case of a positive test (you can't predict, given the wacky nature of antibody tests), Eliza Jane would have been given HIV drugs right after birth, and died within the first year of her life. If you don't believe it, just check the death statistics of HIV+ children (under treatment, because placebo tests are not done). The first year is the most risky for a newborn child.
DavidT - 01 Oct 2005 08:28 GMT Iconoclaster said:
>In case of a positive test (you can't predict, given the wacky nature of antibody tests), Eliza Jane would have been given HIV drugs right after birth, and died within the first year of her life. If you don't believe it, just check the death statistics of HIV+ children (under treatment, because placebo tests are not done). The first year is the most risky for a newborn child.
You are revealing your ignorance. Antibody tests are not used for diagnosis. Even If EJ was found to be infected, there is a good chance she would not have required HIV treatment for a long time. In case you didn't know - this is only started when there is clinical or immunological evidence of progressive disease.
I am well aware of the bimodal presentation of HIV disease in kids. Some progress rapidly within the first year of life- some don't do so until later. In both instances HIV therapy has been proven to delay progression/death.
Perhaps you may wish to see this study which shows that preHAART12% infants had died by 18 months, but with HAART all infected infants survived to beyond this age Faye et al 2nd IAS Conference onHIV Pathogenesis and treatment 2003.
wilyretrovirus - 01 Oct 2005 15:15 GMT "I am well aware of the bimodal presentation of HIV disease in kids. Some progress rapidly within the first year of life- some don't do so until later."
"HIV disease": The most pliable "disease" known to mankind.
"HIV": always hard at work fulfilling researchers' expectations.
pauleewhiting - 01 Oct 2005 20:07 GMT "'HIV': always hard at work fulfilling researchers' expectations."
Not to mention, lining their pocketbooks...
Brian Mailman - 01 Oct 2005 18:23 GMT > Iconoclaster said: >>In case of a positive test (you can't predict, given the wacky nature of antibody tests), Eliza Jane would have been given HIV drugs right after birth, and died within the first year of her life. If you don't believe it, just check the death statistics of HIV+ children (under > treatment, because placebo tests are not done). With good reason. Pay attention to the relevant paragraph, Dr. Mengele:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1112444,00.html?cnn=yes
B/
Iconoclaster - 02 Oct 2005 02:04 GMT >"With good reason. Pay attention to the relevant paragraph, Dr. Mengele:" Mr. Mailman, could you please point out what a paper about medicines against schizophrenia have to do with the topic we were discussing? Besides, most of the article supports my views on pharmaceutical drugs. (In my book, aspirin is still much better and less harmful that other pain killers). Dr. Mengele? He was a nazi doctor who loved to experiment on his victims. It is I who criticize the (American) doctors of today for experimenting too much on their patients with the new creations from the pharma industry. If you want to call me names, check with your partner in crime, Mr. Carter. He's much better at it.
Brian Mailman - 02 Oct 2005 02:23 GMT >>"With good reason. Pay attention to the relevant paragraph, Dr. > Mengele:" > > Mr. Mailman, could you please point out what a paper about medicines > against schizophrenia have to do with the topic we were discussing? Apparently, Dr. Mengele, your reading comprehension is on a par with your scientific education.
> Besides, most of the article supports my views on pharmaceutical drugs. > (In my book, aspirin is still much better and less harmful that other pain > killers). No doubt.
> Dr. Mengele? He was a nazi doctor who loved to experiment on his victims. > It is I who criticize the (American) doctors of today for experimenting > too much on their patients with the new creations from the pharma > industry. It is you who wish to provide pain, and a horrible death for those living with HIV.
> If you want to call me names, check with your partner in crime, Mr. > Carter. He's much better at it. I've asked you many times to not address me as "Mr. Mailman" in that mocking, pseudo-formal way. If you don't like what comes back at you, then stop it.
B/
> Iconoclaster - 10 Oct 2005 00:57 GMT Brian Mailman Wrote:
> > It is you who wish to provide pain, and a horrible death for thos > living with HIV. This is exactly the kind of talk that is used to scare the livin daylights out of poor victims who have just tested "HIV+". You make i sound as if there is no fate more horrible than dying of AIDS. I kno one that is far more horrible: Dying of Antiretrovirals. My cheerful motto has always been: "It's better to live with HIV tha to be dead with AZT."
> > I've asked you many times to not address me as "Mr. Mailman" in that > mocking, pseudo-formal way. If you don't like what comes back at you, > then stop it. I don't know if that's a plea or a threat. Anyhow, I don't mind what' coming back at me. I can take it. But if it really bothers you, could stop it. Please tell me the how you want to be addressed in th future. (I must be getting soft; what have you done for me lately?
-- Iconoclaste
Fondoo - 10 Oct 2005 07:52 GMT You are revealing your ignorance. Antibody tests are not used for diagnosis. Even If EJ was found to be infected, there is a good chance she would not have required HIV treatment for a long time. In case you didn't know - this is only started when there is clinical or immunological evidence of progressive disease.
DavidT this is the worst piece of misinformation I have seen you post. It is so bad that I know you did not have any bad intent, or it would have been better. David have you not read my posts about what my family went thru at the hospital this year? Please before you post about our countries little ones for gods sake read our governments 2005 treatment guidelines. http://www.womenchildrenhiv.org/wchiv?page=wx-resource&rid=342-42112&typ e=prtm&topic=ch&topicx=ch&stopic=ch1&post=1
There are some great highlights that include urging docs to recruit babies in trials, informing docs not to worry about the lack of phase III trials in pediatric AIDS drugs, hit it hard and early WITH COMBINATION DDI, AZT, do not let the fact that your patients may have large numbers of t-cells and show no signs of ill health stop you. Hell I had the doctor trying to shove bacterium in our baby in case she had undiagnosable AIDS. Holy crap how many papers do you got to read before this idea alone becomes sane. Hey and many of you would read them and say ?Oh that?s why? and buy it. I look a little deeper and found out that 80% of the mommies they studied where IV drug users and the AZT side received PRENATAL CARE! You think giving vitamins and other standard prenatal care to junkies may help there babies?? I f.cking do, yet they claim all the #?s show it?s AZT helping the babies. You see why I am not impressed with your f.cking studies you all are so damn proud of? I read the above document with great interest as a father so please bud inform yourself before trying to tell me it's safe for a HIV+ mom to give birth in a hospital in this country. My wife agrees that after our experience we would have our child in a barn loft rather than risk another baby at the hands of the HIV ghouls My baby is 6 months old I lived this one boys. This and my other posts on pediatric AIDS is a report from the trenches. From a middle class white man with good insurance in a top hospital (CHOC) Give me a midwife and a barn loft any freaking day of the week. You all with your lofty ideas of how the established ideas are all for the better have no clue about this one, not a F***ING CLUE
DavidT - 10 Oct 2005 12:05 GMT Fondoo - too much to respond too in one go, but I'll try. Firstly, I have had another look at the guidelines - thanks for linking them. I realise you are concerned with pediatric issues, particularly infants, in view of your own experience.
I had said: "Antibody tests are not used for diagnosis. Even If EJ was found to be infected, there is a good chance she would not have required HIV treatment for a long time. In case you didn't know - this is only started when there is clinical or immunological evidence of progressive disease."
For some reason you think this is misinformation, but it is consistent with what the guidelines say. Firstly let me say that the course of HIV disease in an infcted infant is much less predictable and the outcome much worse than for older children or adults, leading to many people to adopt a more proactive stance regarding therapy. The guidelines make this clear. The figures are revealing- Figure 1,2,3,4 show how in young infants the burden of disease is substantial. For a 6 month old with a CD4 count of 5% at 6 months the risk of AIDS is 65% and the risk of death is 50%. These data support the recommendation that treatment is recommended for those with as I put it "clinical or immunological evidence of progressive disease."
They guidelines state: "The Working Group *recommends* initiation of therapy for infants under age 12 months who have clinical or immunologic symptoms of HIV disease, regardless of HIV RNA level, and *consideration* of therapy for HIV-infected infants under age 12 months who are asymptomatic and have normal immune parameters .
The guidelines go to great length explaining areas of uncertainty, areas where there is too little data to make clear recommendations, and discuss potential advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches.
I cannot see sections stating hit hard and early with AZT/DDI. These drugs may be part of a viable combination regimen. The guidelines state that of the NNRTI backbones that they recommend once treatment is definitely going to start, AZT/DDI are one of the 3 choices they recommend.
Quote "The most experience in children is with combination ZDV/3TC, ZDV/ddI, and d4T/3TC, which are the Strongly Recommended dual NRTI combinations for inclusion in initial therapy regimens in children. Alternative dual NRTI combinations include ZDV/ABC, 3TC/ABC, and ddI/3TC."
Remember by strongly recommended they mean recommended if treatment is required, which it may not be. Other regimens are less tried/tested. I cannot find anything in the guidelines specifically "urging doctors to recruit babies into trials". That is a very emotive way of saying doctors wish for further studies in this area, which anyone would agree is the only way to find whether better therapies/strategies exist. 20 years ago they were asking parents to help in studies about childhood leukaemia. As a result, we now have a 60% cure rate of what was a previously fatal condition. If no-one had helped with drug trials in the past, I doubt if we would both exist today to be discussing their necessity.
The guidelines say studies are a priority: "Additionally, the conduct of clinical trials to define the pharmacokinetics, safety, and effectiveness in ameliorating the pediatric-specific manifestations of HIV infection of current and new antiretroviral agents is a priority; studies of new drugs should be conducted coincident with or soon after initial studies have been completed in adults." I see nothing wrong with this statement.
You say "I look a little deeper and found out that 80% of the mommies they studied where IV drug users and the AZT side received PRENATAL CARE! You think giving vitamins and other standard prenatal care to junkies may help there babies?? I f.cking do, yet they claim all the #'s show it's AZT helping the babies. You see why I am not impressed with your f.cking studies you all are so damn proud of?"
I guess you are referring to the use of antenatal treatment in Moms and 4-6 weeks post natal AZT in the baby to avert infection in the baby. This principle is now so well established from unequivocal data that it is not even an area for scientific debate - all they are doing now is try and find the best/least toxic regimen. I am afraid giving the mother vitamins will not cut the transmission rate to babies from 20-25% (35-40% if you add on the breast feeding component) to around 1%, as it has been shown to do with therapy. I know Vitamin A has been espoused as something to help, but overviews do not show it has any significant benefits http://www.aidsrestherapy.com/content/2/1/4 http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003648.html
I appreciate you have had a bad time at the hands of the AIDS-gestapo, and perhaps the ends do not justify the means. But I am surprised that with all the information that has emerged about Maggiore and the risks she exposed her children to that you have taken such a stance. I do wonder if, whatever EJ is shown to have died of, Christine would admit to even herself that maybe she did the wrong thing, and given another chance she might have done things differently. It is hard to let my genuine feelings on these issues come across in print without either seeming critical or patronising, but please believe me that I only want you and your wife to do what is right, for you as well as any future kids.
I too have "been there", but from the other side- I have seen people get ill because they have been dissuaded from taking their medication, and seen people become infected because they were led to believe there was no risk from a non-existent virus. I haven't yet seen a pregnant mother who has refused therapy and her child has become infected as a result, and hope I don't have to.
Fondoo - 10 Oct 2005 18:42 GMT I have made interpretations based on what results come from these guidelines. May we both never see a baby poisoned with AIDS drugs that only sign of disease is a positive test. This happens every single day to a great many babies. Big pharma has there corrupt hand in every aspect of medicine and I am surprised everyone cannot see the horrific results.
Gary Stein - 10 Oct 2005 21:12 GMT >I have made interpretations based on what results come from these > guidelines. May we both never see a baby poisoned with AIDS drugs that > only sign of disease is a positive test. This happens every single day > to a great many babies. Big pharma has there corrupt hand in every > aspect of medicine and I am surprised everyone cannot see the horrific > results. What evidence do you have that AZT in the doses currently used in infants is "poison"?
GAry Stein
pauleewhiting - 10 Oct 2005 23:51 GMT "What evidence do you have that AZT in the doses currently used in infants is 'poison'?"
Lemme just go out on a limb, here...
The label on an AZT bottle from the Sigma Co. The AZT advisory on the label reads:
"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."
"WARNING: RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) [=AZT] MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR [=AZT] HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES, INCLUDING RETROVIR AND ZALCITABINE, AND ARE POTENTIALLY FATAL (SEE WARNINGS)."
- from Glaxo Welcome AZT product information
Definitions of toxic on the Web:
Harmful; having to do with poison. aspin.asu.edu/geneinfo/glos-t.htm
a poisonous substance. www.gla.ac.uk/services/seps/chemical_emergencies/090.html
Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life. www.buzzardsbay.org/glossary.htm
having the characteristic of causing death or damage to humans, animals, or plants; poisonous. www.wef.org/publicinfo/newsroom/wastewater_glossary.jhtml
Relating to a harmful effect by a poisonous substance on the human body by physical contact, ingestion or inhalation. www.connyankee.com/html/glossary.html
Harmful, destructive or deadly to living things. www.education.melbournewater.com.au/content/glossary/
Of, relating to, or caused by a poison. www.deh.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/glossary.html
A chemical that can harm or kill you (like pesticides). www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/envirokids/Glossary/default.htm
The ability to have a harmful or deadly effect on individuals, animals, plants, or the environment, in general. www.ecohealth101.org/glossary.html
refers to the ability to kill or damage cells. www.ariusresearch.com/glos.html
Producing or containing a poisonous substance that may be harmful or deadly. www.pca.state.mn.us/gloss/glossary.cfm
Any substance that can cause death, abnormalities, disease, mutations, cancer, deformities, or reproductive malfunctions in an organism. ohioline.osu.edu/b873/b873_8.html
Substance which causes adverse effects in the body like a poison. www.howtocleananything.com/hca_glossay.htm
harmful, poisonous, deadly www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/glossary.html
poisonous; a substance that is "very toxic" or "highly toxic" can harm your health, even if you only take in very small amounts. www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/SOLV8.HTM
Poisonous; for example, cytotoxic drugs poison cells www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Cancertype/Childrenscancers/General/Sometermsexplained
That last definition is my favorite!
-Paul Whiting
Gary Stein - 11 Oct 2005 00:29 GMT And you say the mainstream folks are fear mongers what is it that your trying to do hear Pauly?
Warning labels that the FDA requires do NOT mean that the warned about side effects occur in every patient. Quite the opposite in fact is the case or the drug would never be approved in the first place.
Here is an example for you. In the spring of 1996 I had my third and most severe case of PCP, I was in the hospital for almost a month and only during the final week were the doctors able to find a treatment that brought the PCP under control. I underwent a bronchoscopy, a needle biopsy, and finally a surgical biopsy of the PCP mass in my upper right lung as the doctors tried to find a medication that would bring it under control.
A doctor came into room one morning and asked me if I wanted to try IV Trimetrexate, oral Leucovorin, (IV Amphotericin B, and oral Flucytosine) to try and get the PCP under control. Let me tell you it was a scary experience to see the nurse walk into my room later that morning wearing a full biohazard suit the Trimetrexate was labeled as chemotherapy of the most toxic kind requiring high levels of protection for the health care workers that administer it.
Now if the nurse had to wear a biohazard suit just to administer the drug don't you think it should have killed me instantly Paul. I mean if you saw that kind of warning label you would immediately call the drug a killer in just the same manner you do AZT.
When in fact that is not the case at all, the reason for the nurse wearing a biohazard suit is that if she was exposed to Amphotericin and did not receive Flucytosine then she would be in danger. Being that the health care worker is not a patient they do not have the same level of attention paid to there blood work so prolonged work place exposure to the drug could pose a serious health risk that would not be discovered quickly. The patient on the other hand is taking Flucytosine which prevents the dangerous side effects of Amphotericin in the vast majority if patients, and gets daily blood tests to monitor for any problems. Thus the drug is actually safe and effective for the treatment of advanced PCP.
Gary Stein
> "What evidence do you have that AZT in the doses currently used in infants > is 'poison'?" [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > -Paul Whiting pauleewhiting - 11 Oct 2005 02:07 GMT "And you say the mainstream folks are fear mongers what is it that your trying to do hear Pauly?"
I am trying to get those who are reading this debate to question the HIV theory of AIDS and to *decide for themselves* what the think is true and what they think is false.
I want the "HIV-positives" out there to question, question, question what they are being told.
And I - especially - want them to question ME.
Don't take my word for this, folks!
Read, read, read the literature *yourself* and, then, decide *for yourself* what makes sense and what doesn't...
And that, Gary, is what I am trying to do - as I have said over and over and over again.
-Paulee
Brian Mailman - 11 Oct 2005 18:23 GMT > And I - especially - want them to question ME. Then why don't you answer, and discuss your answers fully without semantic trickery?
B/
pauleewhiting - 12 Oct 2005 04:31 GMT "Then why don't you answer, and discuss your answers fully without semantic trickery?"
Brian, let's go over this again...
I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own.
I want them to start reading whatever information they can get their hands on - be it orthodox or dissident - and, then, *decide for themselves* whether they think this theory "crows corn."
It's their life. It's their choice.
They can dismiss the "denialists" if they wanna. Or they can see that, maybe - just maybe - there may be some validity to what the dissidents say...
What I truly care about is getting them to *question* what they've been fed about this piping hot crock of sh.t theory. And the "semantic trickery" that I use is called *re-framing.* I am putting things into a different light to assist others in *seeing them* in a different light.
If they don't agree with what I am saying, they can simply ignore it - just like you can!
Because, if I am as crazy as you say I am, then the best way to get rid of me is to not pay any attention to me...or, for that matter, to not pay attention to what any dissident says.
But, you *must* pay attention because - if you don't - all this dissenting will grow beyond your control and you can't *afford* that. That's why, not matter how much you say the dissidents are full of sh.t, you can't *NOT* refute what we say...otherwise your big lucrative theory is in grave danger.
So, keep on keeping on, boys! This is, seriously, the most fun I've had in a L-O-N-G time!
-Paul Whiting
GMCarter - 12 Oct 2005 12:04 GMT >"Then why don't you answer, and discuss your answers fully without semantic >trickery?" > >Brian, let's go over this again... > >I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own. f.cking bullshit. You're here to convince yourself everything's fine and you don't have a potentially fatal disease.
wilyretrovirus - 12 Oct 2005 20:52 GMT >>I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own.
>f.cking bullshit. You're here to convince yourself everything's fine and you don't have a potentially fatal disease.
<sound of beating drums>... with George saying in rhythm to the drums: die Paul die, die Paul die, die Paul die.
Try as hard as you like, George. You're not able to hex Paul to get sick.
Also, why would Paul come *here* to "convince" himself that he doesn't have a potentially fatal disease? You boys are a far cry from supportive on that notion.
GMCarter - 12 Oct 2005 22:32 GMT >>>I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] ><sound of beating drums>... with George saying in rhythm to the drums: >die Paul die, die Paul die, die Paul die. Hey--there's what it is. You're a right wing psycho xtian fundy who wants paul to believe your bullshit. And then he will probably die. Just like Pasquarelli did.
So we can impugn each other's motives all we like--it hardly matters. Either the rest of the world is correct about HIV and its role in AIDS, or your tiny little enclave of denialists is correct. The horrible weight of the evidence ain't on your side tho.
>Try as hard as you like, George. You're not able to hex Paul to get >sick. Darling, I'm trying to get him to wake up to the risk he faces so he'll take care of himself.
>Also, why would Paul come *here* to "convince" himself that he doesn't >have a potentially fatal disease? You boys are a far cry from supportive >on that notion. Because he's in denial. Just like you are.
On the most optimistic note, you could say our motives are ALL to stay well and alive. In your worldview, you and Paul believe nothing is wrong, all is fine. No virus, etc.
In mine, if you have an HIV+ diagnosis, you have a major set of challenges to face. And they kinda suck. But there are also MANY things you can do to delay the need for ARV, stay well, manage ARV when it's necessary and live a good long life.
Time will tell. For you. For Paul. It's just that here we've SEEN it happen. Many, many times. Too many times.
George M. Carter
pauleewhiting - 13 Oct 2005 05:21 GMT >Brian, let's go over this again... > >I am here to get others to question the HIV >theory of AIDS on their own.
"f.cking bullshit. You're here to convince yourself everything's fine and you don't have a potentially fatal disease."
George, let's go over this again...
I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own.
I want them to start reading whatever information they can get their hands on - be it orthodox or dissident - and, then, *decide for themselves* whether they think this theory "crows corn."
It's their life. It's their choice.
They can dismiss the "denialists" if they wanna. Or they can see that, maybe - just maybe - there may be some validity to what the dissidents say...
GMCarter - 13 Oct 2005 11:37 GMT >I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own. Paul, let's go over this again...
"f.cking bullshit. You're here to convince yourself everything's fine and you don't have a potentially fatal disease."
Fondoo - 14 Oct 2005 08:34 GMT I'm here because people just like you George think they have all the knowledge any HIV positive could want. Being an HIV positive myself I would know. HIV+ with AIDS? I'm not sure about the AIDS anymore I would have to get out my decoder ring and check the definition flavor of the month. But the bottom line you do not have all the information we want nor does the community you worship. We want the whole story not just the big pharma’s take on it. You got that buddy?
GMCarter - 14 Oct 2005 12:04 GMT > I'm here because people just like you George think they have all the >knowledge any HIV positive could want. I don't make any such claim for myself.
> Being an HIV positive myself I would know. HIV+ with AIDS? I'm not sure >about the AIDS anymore I would have to get out my decoder ring and check >the definition flavor of the month. The definition hasn't changed in 12 years.
> But the bottom line you do not have all the information we want nor does >the community you worship. We want the whole story not just the big >pharmas take on it. > You got that buddy? Buddy, dearest, I don't worship any community. You don't know me in the slightest. I have never claimed to have "all the information." But I do have a message.
It does not matter a goddamn what you or I say about HIV or AIDS. You do not need to believe me--but I hope you will. There is a LOT you can do to not die from AIDS and to extend the chance of living a healthy long life. And I hope that you are able to do so.
George M. Carter
Fondoo - 14 Oct 2005 17:48 GMT "The definition hasn't changed in 12 years."
I thought they added cancer of the cervix since then?
I agree George there is a lot we all can do to protect our health but I believe AIDS drugs should only be considered in the most dire emergency. Promoting toxic drugs as our only chance for health in this country is shameful. I'm not just talking about AIDS, example I seldom watch TV but my wife had it on and I seen a drug commercial targeting old people. It went something like "Even though you may feel good and younger than your age you still may have osteoporosis so ask your doctor about xxxx" seeing stuff like this makes me sick
GMCarter - 14 Oct 2005 18:03 GMT >"The definition hasn't changed in 12 years." > > I thought they added cancer of the cervix since then? Nope. 1993. http://www.aegis.com/topics/definition.html
> I agree George there is a lot we all can do to protect our health but >I believe AIDS drugs should only be considered in the most dire >emergency. What would you consider a dire emergency? Actually, there are data that kinda refute this. In general, it seems better to take ARV if your CD4 count is between 200-350. And only if your CD4 percentage is below 17% and your CD4 count is above 350.
For below 200, that's an emergency. ARV should be started by then. But the problem is that the nadir (lowest ever) CD4 count is predictive of how well it can work.
>Promoting toxic drugs as our only chance for health in this >country is shameful. Hmf. Well, I think an overarching problem is that drugs are promoted to treat anything and everything and very often where it is not indicated or needed. There's definitely that which I agree is shameful. Pharma should be prohibited from advertising.
>I'm not just talking about AIDS, example I seldom >watch TV but my wife had it on and I seen a drug commercial targeting >old people. It went something like "Even though you may feel good and >younger than your age you still may have osteoporosis so ask your doctor >about xxxx" seeing stuff like this makes me sick Me too. It's f.cking despicable. If you care for a laugh at the abject propaganda of it all, watch the evening network news. Every other ad is some bullshit drug ad.
George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 14 Oct 2005 20:16 GMT > I believe AIDS drugs should only be considered in the most dire > emergency. OK, so it seems you're saying "AIDS drugs" are helpful in some circumstances. To you, what's a "most dire emergency?"
> Promoting toxic drugs What drug isn't toxic? The same drug that's used for heart patients is also an ingredient in rat poison.
> as our only chance for health in this > country is shameful. I'm not just talking about AIDS, example I seldom > watch TV but my wife had it on and I seen a drug commercial targeting > old people. It went something like "Even though you may feel good and > younger than your age you still may have osteoporosis so ask your doctor > about xxxx" seeing stuff like this makes me sick On the other hand, it may bring someone to ask their doctor about the condition itself and it might kick the doctor into doing some testing. I'll agree the drug ads are merely an end-run around doctors to market them directly to the public (for example, there's very little difference between prescribed Nexium and Prilosec you can get OTC), and they *vastly* undermention/underplay the side effects of many of them, especially the statins.
B/
Gary Stein - 12 Oct 2005 17:53 GMT > "Then why don't you answer, and discuss your answers fully without > semantic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own. That's very convenient for you isn't it Paul you get to ask your loaded questions but in your mind you bear no responsibility to answer any your self. Or for that matter to even reply when your questions are answered in ways that disprove your premise.
Gary Stein
pauleewhiting - 13 Oct 2005 05:46 GMT "That's very convenient for you isn't it Paul you get to ask your loaded questions but in your mind you bear no responsibility to answer any your self."
My questions are loaded in order to fire warning shots across the bow of the SS HIV to tell those on board, who may not even realize their predicament, that they are on a slave ship.
"Or for that matter to even reply when your questions are answered in ways that disprove your premise."
I will let those aboard the SS HIV, who've heard my warning shots, decide if the return fire from the crew consitutes a damaging blow...
And, yet, here I stand without a scratch.
Brian Mailman - 12 Oct 2005 18:12 GMT > "Then why don't you answer, and discuss your answers fully without semantic > trickery?" > > Brian, let's go over this again... > > I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own. I don't believe so. You don't have any answers without semantic trickery.
> If they don't agree with what I am saying, they can simply ignore it - > just like you can! Yes, this is called Standard Advice in news.groups. How to deal with trolls.
> Because, if I am as crazy as you say I am, then the best way to get rid of > me is to not pay any attention to me...or, for that matter, to not pay > attention to what any dissident says. Yes, Standard Advice is "don't feed the trolls."
> So, keep on keeping on, boys! This is, seriously, the most fun I've had > in a L-O-N-G time! Admission of trollery noted.
B/
pauleewhiting - 13 Oct 2005 06:34 GMT > "Then why don't you answer, and discuss your > answers fully without semantic trickery?" > > Brian, let's go over this again... > > I am here to get others to question the HIV > theory of AIDS on their own.
I don't believe so. You don't have any answers without semantic trickery.
> If they don't agree with what I am saying, they > can simply ignore it - just like you can!
Yes, this is called Standard Advice in news.groups. How to deal with trolls.
> Because, if I am as crazy as you say I am, then > the best way to get rid of me is to not pay any > attention to me...or, for that matter, to not
> pay attention to what any dissident says. Yes, Standard Advice is "don't feed the trolls."
> So, keep on keeping on, boys! This is, > seriously, the most fun I've had in a L-O-N-G > time! Admission of trollery noted.
Excellent, Brian, then stop replying to what I say, stop commenting on what I quote and, most importantly, stop answering my "loaded" questions.
I am sure those reading this debate will clearly side with the apologists' "sanity," once you stop acknowledging the dissidents' "insanity."
So, walk the talk and try to ignore us!
That is, if you can afford to...
Gary Stein - 11 Oct 2005 19:05 GMT > "And you say the mainstream folks are fear mongers what is it that your > trying to do hear Pauly?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And I - especially - want them to question ME. Then why didn't you address the question I raised about your blatent lies about the dangers of AZT?
Gary Stein
pauleewhiting - 12 Oct 2005 04:41 GMT "Then why didn't you address the question I raised about your blatent lies about the dangers of AZT?"
Gary, let's go over this again...
I am here to get others to question the HIV theory of AIDS on their own.
I want them to start reading whatever information they can get their hands on - be it orthodox or dissident - and, then, *decide for themselves* whether they think this theory "crows corn."
It's their life. It's their choice.
They can dismiss the "denialists" if they wanna. Or they can see that, maybe - just maybe - there may be some validity to what the dissidents say...
What I truly care about is getting them to *question* what they've been fed about this piping hot crock of sh.t theory. And the "blatent lies" that I raise about the dangers of AZT are all based on information available to anyone if they just start "paying attention to the man behind the curtain."
If they don't agree with what I am pointing out, they can simply ignore it - just like you can!
Because, if I am as crazy as you say I am, then the best way to get rid of me is to not pay any attention to me...or, for that matter, to not pay attention to what any dissident says.
But, you *must* pay attention to us because - if you don't - all this dissenting will grow beyond your control and you can't *afford* that. That's why, no matter how much you say the dissidents are full of sh.t, you can't *NOT* refute what we say...otherwise your big lucrative theory is in grave danger.
So, keep on keeping on, boys! This is, seriously, the most fun I've had in a L-O-N-G time!
-Paul Whiting
Gary Stein - 12 Oct 2005 17:58 GMT > "Then why didn't you address the question I raised about your blatent lies > about the dangers of AZT?" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > maybe - just maybe - there may be some validity to what the dissidents > say... Well being that you've yet to post a single valid counter to the simple fact that HIV exists, it is the etiologic cause of AIDS and that ARV is the currently most effective treatment for those infected with HIV.
So the only person you've managed to convince so far is yourself and those you bring with you from denialist land. Your so called movement has been stagnant and devoid of new ideas for decades yet you plow ahead desperately trying to convince yourself that your not sick and have nothing to be worried about. Well I can't say sticking your head up your a.s ever does much good but it does seem to work for you so stay with it boy I hope you continue to receive the medical benefits from that approach for years to come.
Gary Stein
wilyretrovirus - 12 Oct 2005 21:03 GMT yet you plow ahead desperately trying to convince yourself that your not sick and have nothing to be worried about. Well I can't say sticking your head up your a.s ever does much good but it does seem to work for you so stay with it boy I hope you
continue to receive the medical benefits from that approach for years to come.
Aaaahhhh...compassion. Feel it.
DavidT - 11 Oct 2005 09:19 GMT Still busy I see.
Please can you name one single medicine or drug (one will do) that does not in some way fit your definition of toxic/poisonous?
I thought not.
pauleewhiting - 12 Oct 2005 03:37 GMT "Please can you name one single medicine or drug (one will do) that does not in some way fit your definition of toxic/poisonous?"
Can I play too?
How about the ones ***WITHOUT*** a skull and cross bones on the label?
That's just a ***wild*** guess, though...
DavidT - 12 Oct 2005 09:12 GMT Again:
Please can you name one single medicine or drug (one will do) that does
not in some way fit your definition of toxic/poisonous?
If you can't answer because you know nothing whatsoever about prescription medicines, we will understand your refusal.
pauleewhiting - 13 Oct 2005 05:01 GMT "Again:
Please can you name one single medicine or drug (one will do) that does not in some way fit your definition of toxic/poisonous?"
David,
My definition of a toxic/poisonous drug is one with a skull and cross bones on the label.
That is the kind of "life-saving" drug being given to those who've been handed a death sentence based on non-specific tests...
If "HIV-positives" were being told by their doctor to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning," I really wouldn't give a sh.t.
But aspirin - though entirely DEADLY when given in the proper quantity - does NOT come with a skull and cross bones on the label.
And I would venture a guess that many - if not most - prescription medications also *don't* have Jolly Roger gracing their bottles... Do you know *why* pirates chose that particular symbol for their flags? Was it to convey the idea of "life saving"?
Do you know *why* certain substances have that symbol emblazoned on their labels? Is it to convey the idea of "life saving"?
-Paul
GMCarter - 13 Oct 2005 11:39 GMT >"Again: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >My definition of a toxic/poisonous drug is one with a skull and cross >bones on the label. Then you should go back to googling definitions. Because this is inaccurate.
If you drink a very large volume of water over say the course of a day in a desert environment, it can kill you.
George M. Carter
DavidT - 13 Oct 2005 13:12 GMT Again, I did not ask your definition of toxic, I simply asked you to NAME a drug that ISN'T toxic.
You cannot even do this....Pathetic!
Fondoo - 14 Oct 2005 08:00 GMT Again, I did not ask your definition of toxic, I simply asked you to NAME a drug that ISN'T toxic.
You cannot even do this....Pathetic!
Not sure what the point is here. Are we talking about the difference between a doctor saying take an aspirin a day to protect your health and one saying take these DNA and Protease terminators everyday to protect your health?
DavidT - 13 Oct 2005 14:24 GMT >My definition of a toxic/poisonous drug is one with a >skull and cross bones on the label.
>And I would venture a guess that many - if not most >prescription medications also *don't* have >Jolly Roger gracing their bottles... Correct, PRESCRIPTION medicines do not- including 3TC, ddC, d4T, ABC, TFV, FTC, EFV, NVP, Fuzeon, TPV, RTV, SQV, IDV, LPV, ATV etc.....all of which you therefore regard as non toxic, I suppose.
Oh, and neither does prescription AZT... Only the Sigma chemical supply of the drug does - This was standard for their supplies of certain raw chemical compounds in differing concentrations for LABORATORY use and are therefore labelled as NOT for ingestion as medication. You already know this, so don't pretend its news to you. We are sick of your disinformation.
Currently, Sigma pharmaceuticals give their AZT chemical product a hazard coding of "Xn" (harmful) http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIGMA/A2169
This is the same as for aspirin http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIAL/27301
So, I'm still unsure what you think..... Are prescription drugs are either all non toxic, or are they all toxic?
GMCarter - 13 Oct 2005 21:16 GMT snip
>This is the same as for aspirin >http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIAL/27301 There you have it!! ASPIRIN CAUSES AIDS!!
DavidT - 14 Oct 2005 08:55 GMT Yup, thats what mohamed al Bayati says....
"The inhalation of "poppers" at sufficient amounts causes methemoglobinemia and severe headaches, which is then treated with aspirin. The heavy use of aspirin and alcohol cause thrombocytopenia. As well, AZT and proteases inhibitors also cause thrombocytopnea, peripheral neuropathy, and bone marrow depression. Thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy are classified by the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as an AIDS indicator" http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7427/1306-c#43382
Use poppers, get headache. Take aspirin for headache, get thrombocytopenia. Have someone tell you this means you have AIDS - .......et Voila!
GMCarter - 14 Oct 2005 12:06 GMT >Yup, thats what mohamed al Bayati says.... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Have someone tell you this means you have AIDS - >.......et Voila! LOL...who is going to tell you that thrombocytopenia and a headache are AIDS? They are not. Stop the poppers, the headache goes away, the platelets recover.
AIDS-related ITP is a different animal--and it is not taken in isolation. Bayati is not very bright, apparently.
George M. Carter
Fondoo - 10 Oct 2005 18:50 GMT P.S. Christine?s tragedy has only clarified the situation to me. After my experience at the hospital I understand her and support her completely. I can say this as an HIV+ family man who until this year never doubted medical authority and couldn't care less about politics and big pharma. All that has changed now, sometimes I wish I could see the Emperors cloths again and not the true world we live
Gary Stein - 10 Oct 2005 21:12 GMT > P.S. Christine's tragedy has only clarified the situation to me. After > my experience at the hospital I understand her and support her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All that has changed now, sometimes I wish I could see the Emperors > cloths again and not the true world we live Fondoo, I know you have had bad experiences with the medical system but the above statement scares me pissless. What makes you believe that Christine's baby did not die from PCP, what evidence do you have to back up that belief?
Why do you think your child will have a more successful outcome then Christine's? Please I am not trying to start an argument but being unable to have a child my self children are very important to me and I just don't understand that you do not believe your child is at risk, if you don't have tests done or if you do have tests done but then do not respond to there results by initiating treatment?
Gary Stein
Brian Mailman - 11 Oct 2005 02:13 GMT > P.S. Christine’s tragedy has only clarified the situation to me. After > my experience at the hospital I understand her and support her > completely. Let's see... you support the idea that several physicians killed EJ by neglect?
B/
Iconoclaster - 02 Oct 2005 01:54 GMT >"You are revealing your ignorance. Antibody tests are not used for diagnosis."
Really? Where did I say they were? For newborn babies they use PCR. You mean amplifying rndom pieces of RNA and calculating with how much "HIV" that would correspond is a reliable method?
>"Even If EJ was found to be infected, there is a good chance she would not have required HIV treatment for a long time. In case you didn't know - this is only started when there is clinical or immunological evidence of progressive disease.
Now this is something I simply don't believe. The atrocities of the Uganda study (nevirapine) tell another story. You only say this to trick mothers who have just given birth into letting their babies be tested. The ugly consequences come after that. Ther are still too many doctors believing in "Hit hard, hit early".
GMCarter - 29 Sep 2005 22:54 GMT >Oh god, Carter. Please spare us the hysteria. Hysteria? Nah. Just a simple great big f.ck YOU.
> "Denialism", besides not >being anything really, does not kill, or do anything else. You bet it does. It killed that little girl. I feel bad for Christine for that--it's horrible. She was duped.
But denialism most assuredly kills.
George M. Carter
greg78 - 30 Sep 2005 08:36 GMT Oh, Georgie. Your powers of persuasion overwhelm me! And how grown up and mature you are! And I hear you are the head of some (dodgy) AIDS org. Well, I'm really surprised you guys can't come up with a solution for this "disease" - with intellectual giants of you calibre at the helm.
GMCarter - 30 Sep 2005 13:10 GMT >Oh, Georgie. Your powers of persuasion overwhelm me! NOTHING will persuade you.
Not even dying of AIDS from HIV--at least not til those last moments perhaps.
That's the point here. I do NOT believe any of you denialists give a flying f.ck about science or the research or about helping people with HIV. You want to live with your head so FIRMLY planted up your a.s it shuts your eyes and ears off.
Your life. But I've dealt with you fundamentalist denialist fools long enough to know that you will not be persuaded.
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 30 Sep 2005 23:39 GMT >"That's the point here. I do NOT believe any of you denialists give a flying f.ck about science or the research or about helping people with HIV. "
On the contrary, Mr. carter. I care a lot about science and research. I just want to stop you from sending people to an early grave by propagandizing toxic drugs.
GMCarter - 01 Oct 2005 12:49 GMT >>"That's the point here. I do NOT believe any of you denialists give a >flying f.ck about science or the research or about helping people with >HIV. " > >On the contrary, Mr. carter. I care a lot about science and research. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a f.cking joke.
You have blundered and babbled and dithered and made SO many mistakes while pompously asserting your hollow credentials that this comment is not to be believed.
While the issues are myriad and complex and EVERYONE is likely to make some errors, yours have been so basic and fundamental that they show you know less than jack sh.t about the topic you so airily pronounce upon.
George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 02 Oct 2005 01:44 GMT >"While the issues are myriad and complex and EVERYONE is likely to make some errors, yours have been so basic and fundamental that they show you know less than jack sh.t about the topic you so airily pronounce upon."
The issues are myriad and complex because you choose to make them so, Mr. Carter. You're like the ant having sex with a lady elephant and asking "Am I hurting you, dear?" The very point I'm stressing all the time is that your fundamentals are wrong. Writing thousands of papers on the basis of a false assumption is a worthless endeavor. And you are really the very least qualified to defend the orthodox assumptions.
|
|