Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Denialism Kills

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
>pharma’s 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.