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.

Zoster and HIV

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GMCarter - 30 Sep 2005 15:06 GMT
From NATAP http://natap.org/
_______________________________________________

The Incidence of, Risk Factors for, and Sequelae of Herpes Zoster
Among HIV Patients in the HAART Era

The incidence of herpes zoster is unchanged from the pre-HAART era.
Although the zoster complication rate remains high, antiviral agents
were frequently used to treat zoster reactivation, suggesting that
herpes zoster has considerable morbidity despite appropriate treatment
in HIV patients.

“…..This study has several important findings. Firstt, the incidence
rate of herpes zoster among our urban cohort of HIV patients, 3.2 per
100 PYs of follow-up, is unchanged from the pre-HAART era10 and is
nearly 10 times the incidence of 3.4 per 1000 PYs reported by
Hope-Simpson4 in the general population. Also, patients on HAART and
those with CD4 counts between 50 and 200 cells/mm3 seemed to be at the
highest risk of a herpes zoster event…. suggesting that moderate
degrees of immunodeficiency puts patients at an increased risk of
zoster, whereas profound immunodeficiency does not….. Finally, the
complication rate among incident cases, particularly of PHN, was
markedly higher than would be expected in an HIV-negative population
of similar age….

…… Neurologic complications were common in this study, affecting 27%
of all patients. PHN was the most common, occurring in 28 (18%) of
patients, whereas 7 patients (4%) had aseptic meningitis, transverse
myelitis, trigeminal neuralgia, or Ramsay-Hunt syndrome, which is
remarkably high compared with that in the general population.18 The
rate of PHN (post-hepatic neuralgia) is consistent with the pre-HAART
era… ¦

…. Our results are consistent with prior studies showing the
probabiility that an HIV-infected patient will have a recurrent zoster
episode within 1 year of the initial event is estimated at 12%....

…… Patients with MSM as an HIV risk factor were less likely ly to
develop complicated zoster than those with other HIV risk factors. One
possible explanation for these results is that MSM accessed the health
care system for their herpes zoster infection and began treatment more
quickly…..

….. More aggressive HIV patient-specific treatment guidelines, whichh
recognize that complications occur at a much higher rate and among a
much younger HIV population, may be necessary to prevent the important
complications of herpes zoster.�

JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes:  Volume 40(2)
1 October 2005  pp 169-174

Gebo, Kelly A MD, MPH*; Kalyani, Rita MD*; Moore, Richard D MD, MHS*;
Polydefkis, Michael J MD†

>From the *Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and †Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Univerrsity School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of herpes zoster in the general population is 1.5 to 3
per 1000, and it occurs 8 to 10 times more frequently in patients aged
60 years and older than in those aged less than 60 years.1-4 HIV
patients have been noted to have much higher zoster incidence rates
(up to 10 times higher) than the general population.5-7 Before the
introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), these
reported rates ranged between 29.4 and 51.5 per 1000 person-years
(PYs).6,7 The immune deterioration associated with progression of the
disease may mimic the age-associated immunosenescence observed in the
elderly population8 and may explain the increased zoster incidence
noted in the HIV population.

Previous studies have suggested that HIV patients manifest uniquely
dramatic and protracted herpes zoster infections compared with the
immunocompetent host.9 HIV patients tend to have recurrent zoster
episodes, multidermatomal involvement, and even systemic disease.
Before HAART, the incidence of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) in HIV
patients was the same compared with the general population but was
remarkable, considering the much younger age of the patients.10 Other
complications such as ocular involvement, bacterial superinfection,
myelitis, meningitis, and chronic atypical skin lesions have also been
reported to be higher in patients with advanced HIV disease.10

Since HAART became the standard of care in 1996, many changes have
been observed in the HIV epidemic that may be expected to have an
impact on the incidence of herpes zoster in this population. Patients
with HIV are living longer and may be more susceptible to developing
zoster through natural cell-mediated decline associated with aging.
The impact of HAART on the incidence of herpes zoster in HIV patients
is not fully understood. There are few reliable estimates of the
current incidence of zoster in the HAART era, although a recent study
in HIV-positive women demonstrated an increased risk of herpes zoster
in women with decreasing CD4 counts.5 The following study aims to
describe the incidence and clinical characteristics of herpes zoster
in the HIV-infected host, to delineate risk factors for initial zoster
further, and to evaluate the risk of developing complications from
zoster in the current era of HAART.

Abstract
Background: Whereas the incidence, risk factors, and clinical sequelae
of herpes zoster have been studied in the general population and in
HIV patients in the era before highly active antiretroviral therapy
(HAART), they have yet to be fully understood in the current era of
HAART.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients
enrolled in an urban HIV clinic between January 1, 1997 and December
31, 2001. Patients with an episode of herpes zoster during this period
were identified, and their charts were reviewed. A nested case-control
analysis was used to assess factors associated with an initial episode
of herpes zoster. Multivariate conditional logistic regression
analyses were used to assess risk factors for zoster. Logistic
regression was performed to assess factors associated with complicated
zoster.

DISCUSSION
This study has several important findings. First, the incidence rate
of herpes zoster among our urban cohort of HIV patients, 3.2 per 100
PYs of follow-up, is unchanged from the pre-HAART era10 and is nearly
10 times the incidence of 3.4 per 1000 PYs reported by Hope-Simpson4
in the general population. Also, patients on HAART and those with CD4
counts between 50 and 200 cells/mm3 seemed to be at the highest risk
of a herpes zoster event. Finally, the complication rate among
incident cases, particularly of PHN, was markedly higher than would be
expected in an HIV-negative population of similar age.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Zoster

The incidence of zoster in the HAART era has not been well described,
although our incidence is the same as that of a previously reported
study in the pre-HAART era.10 The 10-fold increased of risk of zoster
among HIV-negative and HIV-infected patients is consistent with
several other studies.5-7 These data are consistent with those of
others who have shown a constant incidence of some neurologic
complications of HIV14 but a decreasing incidence of other HIV
neurologic opportunistic infections, particularly cytomegalovirus
(CMV), in the HAART era as compared with the pre-HAART era.

Studies evaluating the association between CD4 cell count and risk of
zoster have yielded mixed results. Two previous studies5,7
demonstrated an increased risk with a decreasing CD4 cell count. In
contrast, a study in MSM in San Francisco and a study in Uganda
demonstrated no association between zoster and duration of HIV, which
presumably reflects a decreasing CD4 cell count.6,15 In our report,
the highest risk of zoster was in patients with a CD4 count between 50
and 200 cells/mm3, suggesting that moderate degrees of
immunodeficiency puts patients at an increased risk of zoster, whereas
profound immunodeficiency does not. This may signify that unlike other
opportunistic illnesses such as Pneumocystis jiroveci (PCP) pneumonia
or CMV that occur with profound immunosuppression, herpes zoster
occurs in patients with immunodysregulation. Potentially consistent
with this is the result of HAART being a risk factor for an initial
zoster episode. A similar finding was reported in 2 smaller
studies16,17 and might indicate that the improved immune function
associated with HAART places patients at increased risk. The increased
risk of zoster with recent initiation of HAART was thought to be
attributable to an increase in CD8 cell count.16,17 In our study,
there was no association with an increased risk of zoster or
complicated zoster with a recent start of HAART, defined as within 90
days of the zoster period; however, we did not have information on CD8
count at time of the zoster outbreak. Of note, HIV-1 RNA load was not
found to be associated with an increased risk of a zoster episode.

Zoster Complications

A broad spectrum of zoster-associated complications was seen in this
population. The 60-day risk of complicated zoster in this HIV
population was 32.3%, which is more than double the 60-day risk of
complicated zoster found in general population studies, where
estimates range between 11% and 13%,1,13 and contrasts with that of
HIV patients in the pre-HAART era (risk of 40%).10 This is consistent
with the hypothesis that HIV patients are more vulnerable to
developing complications from herpes zoster than the general
population.

Neurologic complications were common in this study, affecting 27% of
all patients. PHN was the most common, occurring in 28 (18%) of
patients, whereas 7 patients (4%) had aseptic meningitis, transverse
myelitis, trigeminal neuralgia, or Ramsay-Hunt syndrome, which is
remarkably high compared with that in the general population.18 The
rate of PHN is consistent with the pre-HAART era.10

An earlier pre-HAART study at our institution found bacterial
superinfection to be a common cutaneous complication of herpes zoster,
occurring in 11.5% of HIV patients.10 We found less bacterial
superinfection (4%) in our population, similar to the reported
incidence of 2.3% in the general population.13 There was no
association of complicated zoster with PCP prophylaxis or
mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) prophylaxis, which could potentially
decrease the risk of bacterial superinfection. It is possible that
bacterial superinfection was not as common in our study because
patients were not as susceptible to this complication while on HAART.
Although HAART is best known to restore cellular immunity, in vitro
data suggest that there is some improvement in B-cell function after
initiation of HAART as well,19 which may help to explain the lower
overall risk of bacterial infection.

The risk for patients with HIV of developing herpes zoster
ophthalmicus has been reported to be 6.6 times higher than that of the
general population.20 In this study, 16 patients (10%) had herpes
zoster ophthalmicus and 10 patients (6%) had other ocular
complications. This is consistent with what has been previously
reported in non-HIV patients, in whom there have been reports of
herpes zoster ophthalmicus in between 8% and 25% of zoster
cases.1,4,21-23

Our results are consistent with prior studies showing the probability
that an HIV-infected patient will have a recurrent zoster episode
within 1 year of the initial event is estimated at 12%.24 Of the
incident cases, we found that 8 patients (5%) had recurrent zoster
episodes within the first 6 months of the initial zoster event and
that 10% had recurrent episodes by 1 year. Rates of zoster recurrence
in HIV patients are high when compared with the general population,
where estimates range between 1% and 4%.25 In fact, of the 282 total
episodes of herpes zoster we found during the follow-up period, a
substantial proportion (44%) represented recurrent zoster events.

In contrast to previous work, there was no association between
advanced age13 or lower CD4 cell counts10 and complicated zoster.
Recent start of HAART was not associated with complicated zoster;
however, a lower viral load and being on HAART at zoster onset were
protective of complicated zoster. We believe that taken together,
these results suggest that patients who are achieving virologic
suppression on HAART may be less likely to develop other complications
because their immune system is more able to control the zoster
outbreak.

Patients with MSM as an HIV risk factor were less likely to develop
complicated zoster than those with other HIV risk factors. One
possible explanation for these results is that MSM accessed the health
care system for their herpes zoster infection and began treatment more
quickly. In addition, African-American patients were more likely to
develop complications than white patients in univariate analysis;
however, this result was no longer significant in multivariate
analysis. This suggests that the benefit of HAART is a stronger factor
than race in developing complicated zoster. Interestingly, unlike
previous work, age and gender were not associated with the development
of complicated zoster.1

In prior studies, multidermatomal involvement has been described as a
complication of zoster.25 Multidermatomal involvement was not included
as a complication of zoster in this study, however, because we wanted
to evaluate the association of multidermatomal involvement with the
development of subsequent complications. If multidermatomal
involvement had been included in our definition of complicated zoster,
84 patients would have been identified as having complicated zoster,
for an incidence rate of 53%.

There are several potential limitations to our study. First, our
results are based on patients from a single institution with a high
proportion of indigent patients and injection drug users. Our
institution is a tertiary referral center and may not be reflective of
all HIV clinics, although our findings may be generalizable to other
urban HIV care sites. In addition, because of the extensive use of
antivirals, we were unable to assess differences in complication rates
by antiviral use, although no specific agent or duration from time of
zoster prevention to initiation of antiviral was found to be
associated with complicated zoster. Of note, valacyclovir, the most
commonly used therapy in this study, is not approved for this use in
HIV-infected patients. Also, we were unable to assess the impact of
the varicella vaccine because immunization was uncommon in our clinic.
Clearly, future studies are needed to evaluate the impact of varicella
vaccination on the development of zoster. Finally, our study depended
on accurate documentation by health care providers and patients, and
therefore does not account for complications that may have occurred
without available documentation. This would underestimate our already
high complication rates, however.

This study has several important implications. The incidence of herpes
zoster is unchanged from the pre-HAART era. Although the zoster
complication rate remains high, antiviral agents were frequently used
to treat zoster reactivation, suggesting that herpes zoster has
considerable morbidity despite appropriate treatment in HIV patients.
Treatment guidelines for PHN were developed for the immunocompetent
patient older than 50 years of age, and current management of herpes
zoster in HIV patients is based on extrapolation of these results.
More aggressive HIV patient-specific treatment guidelines, which
recognize that complications occur at a much higher rate and among a
much younger HIV population, may be necessary to prevent the important
complications of herpes zoster.

Results

Two hundred eighty-two episodes of herpes zoster were identified in
239 patients. Of these episodes, 158 were new occurrences of zoster
and 124 were recurrent zoster events. The incidence of zoster during
the study period was 3.2 per 100 person-years of follow-up.

The incident cases reflected the clinic population, with most patients
being male (63%) and African American (77%) and having injection drug
use as their HIV risk factor (49%). The mean age of the patients was
41 years. Sixty-seven percent of patients had single dermatomal
involvement, and the thorax was involved in 41%.

In multivariate regression, being on HAART (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39,
95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65 to 3.49) and a CD4 count of 50 to
200 cells/mm3 (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.01) compared with a CD4
count less than 50 cells/mm3 were associated with an increased risk of
zoster.

Twenty-eight patients (18%) developed post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN),
and 29 patients (18%) had other complications. Male-to-male sex as an
HIV risk factor (P = 0.02) and being on HAART at a zoster episode (P =
0.03) were protective against complicated zoster.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that zoster infection rates have not
changed in the current HAART era but that a significant percentage of
patients develop complications, particularly PHN, which is quite
remarkable considering the young age of our population.

METHODS
Patient and Data Collection
The Johns Hopkins University AIDS Service provides comprehensive
primary and subspecialty care for HIV-infected patients. At the time
of registration in the clinic, patients undergo an evaluation by a
physician or physician's assistant and a social worker. The
clinic-based medical record maintains information on all confirmed
medical and surgical diagnoses, hospitalizations, and laboratory
information as well as a section for each visit to document prescribed
therapy by treatment name, dose, and number of refills. The records
are also updated when prescriptions are filled over the telephone or
mailed to patients.

An observational database has been maintained on clinic patients to
obtain extensive information about patients followed in our clinic.
Trained monitors use structured data collection forms to extract
extensive demographic, clinical, laboratory, pharmaceutic, and
psychosocial data as well as death information from patient charts and
from the hospital's automated databases at baseline and every 6 months
thereafter. Maintenance of our database and use of its contents for
analysis of patient outcomes are approved by the Institutional Review
Board of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Patients
receiving longitudinal primary HIV care who were enrolled in our
clinic were eligible for inclusion in our analysis.

For this study, we identified all new cases of zoster diagnosed
between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2001. Charts were
systematically reviewed by one of the authors (RK). The clinical
characteristics and sequelae of all new occurrences of zoster and the
CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA load at the time of the occurrence of
zoster or within 3 months were recorded.

Definitions
For our analysis, HIV transmission risk factors included injection
drug use (IDU), men who have sex with men (MSM), and heterosexual
transmission, which was defined as heterosexual activity with a
partner at high risk for HIV or sex with an HIV-infected individual.
Risk factor assignment was not mutually exclusive because patients
could have multiple HIV risk factors. HAART was defined as (1) 3 or
more nucleosides; (2) any use of 1 or more protease inhibitors (PIs)
or a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) in
combination with 2 or more nucleoside RTIs; or (3) a PI, nonnucleoside
RTI, or nucleoside RTI combination. Patients were considered to be on
HAART if they received any of these combinations. Immune
reconstruction was defined as an increase in CD4 count of at least 50
cells/mm3 over the CD4 nadir since on HAART therapy. Time on HAART was
defined as the amount of time between HAART initiation and date of
presentation of a zoster event. HAART initiated within 90 days of a
zoster event was considered a recent start. AIDS diagnosis was defined
by a prior AIDS-defining illness based on 1993 Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria, including a CD4 count less than
200 cells/mm3. HIV-1 RNA levels were dichotomized to <10,000 and
≥10,000 copies/mL.

Complicated zoster was defined as the occurrence of 1 or more of the
following conditions: an ocular, visceral, or neurologic complication
consistent with zoster and not attributable to another pathologic
process or a recurrent zoster episode within 180 days of an initial
zoster diagnosis. PHN was defined as pain for longer than 4 weeks
after the resolution of skin lesions.11,12

RESULTS
Between January 1997 and December 2001, 2543 patients were followed
for a total of 8777 PYs of follow-up. Two hundred ninety-one events
occurred in 248 patients during the study period. Nine patients who
had a documented episode of zoster noted in their medical records but
no documentation of the actual zoster at the time it occurred were
excluded from the analysis because related clinical characteristics
could not be assessed. The remaining 282 episodes of herpes zoster
occurred in 239 patients during the study interval and were used for
the following analysis. Of these, 124 were recurrent zoster events and
158 were incident cases. The incidence of zoster over the entire study
period was 3.2 per 100 PYs of follow-up.

Among incident cases, most patients were male (63%) and African
American (77%) and had IDU as their HIV risk factor (49%) (Table 1).
The mean patient age was 41 years (range: 23-58 years). These
demographics are similar to those of the entire clinic population.
More than 60% of patients used tobacco, approximately half had used
alcohol, and more than 40% had used illicit drugs in the month before
zoster occurrence.

The study population had advanced HIV disease, with 66% of patients
being AIDS defined. Of the 158 patients, 11 had no documented CD4 cell
count and 12 had no documented HIV-1 RNA level within 3 months of a
zoster event. Among the remaining patients, the median CD4 count at a
zoster event was 218 cells/mm3 and the median HIV-1 RNA level was 2251
copies/mL. Thirty-five patients (24%) had HIV-1 RNA loads less than
400 copies/mL, and 12 patients (8%) had HIV-1 RNA loads less than 50
copies/mL.

One hundred patients (63%) were on HAART at a zoster event for a
median of 517 days (range: 22-1727 days). Thirteen patients started
HAART within 90 days of a zoster event. Five patients who were seen at
an outside hospital for their zoster had unknown dermatomal
involvement. Among the remaining patients, two thirds had single
dermatomal involvement and the thoracic dermatome was the most
commonly involved site, affecting 41% of patients. Fifty patients
(33%) had multidermatomal involvement, and 14 patients (9%) had
involvement of 3 or more dermatomes.

One hundred thirteen patients (72%) had a comorbid condition. The most
prevalent comorbidities in the study population included depression
(43%), hepatitis C virus (37%), and hepatitis B virus (9%). We were
unable to obtain the records of 7 patients who were treated at an
outside hospital for their zoster event. Among the remaining 151
cases, 93% of patients were prescribed an antiviral drug for zoster
infection. The remaining 18 patients presented to the clinic after
rash healing, and therefore were given symptomatic or no treatment.
Valacyclovir was the most commonly prescribed medication, with 52% of
patients receiving this medication. Thirty-six patients (23%) were
hospitalized for zoster; of these, 33 patients (22%) were treated with
intravenous acyclovir.

In the case-control analysis, risk factors for an initial herpes
zoster outbreak included use of HAART at the herpes zoster outbreak
(OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.65 to 3.49) and a CD4 count of 50 to 200
cells/mm3 (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.01) at the zoster outbreak
compared with a CD4 count less than 50 cells/mm3 (Table 2). The
incidence of zoster in patients with a CD4 count greater than 200
cells/mm3 was not significantly different than in those with a CD4
count less than 50 cells/mm3. In multivariate regression, CD4 cell
count and HAART use remained significant predictors of zoster
outbreak. Age, race, HIV risk factor, HIV-1 RNA level, income, and
insurance were not associated with a zoster outbreak.

Among incident zoster cases, 51 patients (32%) experienced 59
complications. PHN was the most common complication, affecting 18% of
patients, which is greater than previously reported in HIV-negative
patients in the Rochester Minnesota Cohort (1945-1959)1 or the Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care Cohort (1990-1992).13 Twenty-three patients had
other complications, including ocular involvement, and 6 additional
patients had PHN as well as another complication as follows: ocular
involvement (2 patients), bacterial superinfection (2 patients),
zoster recurrence within 6 months of a zoster event (1 patient),
meningitis (1 patient), and Ramsay-Hunt syndrome (1 patient). Sixteen
patients (10%) had herpes zoster ophthalmicus, and 10 patients (6%)
had other ocular complications. Again, the incidence of these
complications was greater than for either of the previously reported
HIV-negative cohorts. The incidence of complicated zoster in this
study did not change between 1997 and 2001. Eight patients experienced
recurrent zoster within 6 months. Forty-four patients experienced
complications within 60 days of a zoster event, resulting in a 60-day
zoster complication risk of 27.8%. Seven patients experienced zoster
recurrence between 60 and 180 days of an initial zoster event.

In univariate analysis, the HIV risk factors of MSM (OR = 0.69, 95%
CI: 0.50 to 0.95) and being on HAART at the time of a zoster event (OR
= 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.92) were protective for complicated zoster.
There was a trend for African-American race (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 0.95
to 5.77) and an HIV-1 RNA level greater than 10,000 copies/mL to be
associated with complicated zoster (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 0.93 to 5.05).
All other variables evaluated, including age, gender, CD4 cell count,
time on HAART, recent start of HAART, immune reconstruction, location
and number of dermatomes involved, and type and route of antiviral
treatment, were not associated with complicated zoster.

In multivariate analysis, patients being on HAART (adjusted odds ratio
[AOR] = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.04) and with MSM status (AOR = 0.72,
95% CI: 0.52 to 0.99) were less likely to develop complicated zoster
than those not on HAART or those with other HIV risk factors.

_______________________________________________
NATAP HIV mailing list -- HIV@natap.org

This is an annoucement-only mailing list.  Do not reply.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to hiv-request@natap.org with a
subject of unsubscribe.  

For more information, see
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/hiv

_______________________________________________
Fondoo - 30 Sep 2005 17:21 GMT
  It is so hard to see the relivance of studies like this,how do you tell
what could be a virus and what could be AIDS drug effects.
  We really need to start asking for the 1000's of people that are HIV+
and refuse the drugs to be included in these types of things.
 Pick me Pick me my HIV status was changed to AIDS 12 years ago I do not
use AIDS drugs or street drugs.Prove to me that I have all this creepy
stuff going on.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Oct 2005 00:20 GMT
>   It is so hard to see the relivance of studies like this,how do you tell
>what could be a virus and what could be AIDS drug effects.

George's article is of interest and maybe useful to people with AIDS
who have had shingles.  People like me.  Did it even occur to you that
that, rather than an attempt to counter-arguing against dissidents,
might have been its purpose?

This was once a forum where people with AIDS and people who care about
somebody with AIDS could communicate together, and that is what George
just tried to use it for.

While you're rethinking, rethink what you're doing here.

Signature

David Canzi            "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

Fondoo - 15 Oct 2005 06:24 GMT
  I think that thought is relevant to a person with HIV.
 I am a person with an AIDS diagnosis and these questions come to mind
"what are the drugs responsible for?" without proper controls how do we
know?
 So I feel it is important not to give our positive test result more
power than it has earned in deciding our risk for AIDS and death.
 We all know that our beliefs can affect our mortality, so it is very
important to believe we are going to live a long and healthy life and be
very critical of these studies of HIV's power over our bodies.
GMCarter - 15 Oct 2005 11:13 GMT
>   I think that thought is relevant to a person with HIV.
>  I am a person with an AIDS diagnosis and these questions come to mind
>"what are the drugs responsible for?" without proper controls how do we
>know?

By the number of people who die without ever SEEING the drugs?

By the numbers who recover a lot of health and function after STARTING
the drugs....god, get out there in the world. Go to a hospital. What
city are you in? There's populations, like here in NYC, that think
they're immune to HIV. A lot of Dominicans think it's someone else's
trouble til they wind up in the ER with PCP and 5  T cells.

>  So I feel it is important not to give our positive test result more
>power than it has earned in deciding our risk for AIDS and death.
>  We all know that our beliefs can affect our mortality, so it is very
>important to believe we are going to live a long and healthy life and be
>very critical of these studies of HIV's power over our bodies.

Having a good attitude IS a damned good idea! No question. But don't
go all Louise Hay on us and think that's all you need.

        George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 15 Oct 2005 17:40 GMT
> Having a good attitude IS a damned good idea! No question. But don't
> go all Louise Hay on us and think that's all you need.

Love is all you need!!

B/
Fondoo - 15 Oct 2005 18:38 GMT
By the numbers who recover a lot of health and function after STARTING
the drugs....god, get out there in the world. Go to a hospital. What
city are you in? There's populations, like here in NYC, that think
they're immune to HIV. A lot of Dominicans think it's someone else's
trouble til they wind up in the ER with PCP and 5  T cells.

  I think you may  be giving this line of thought more credit then it's
due.
 People in risk groups are involved in risk behavior. Risk behavior
promotes desease.
 People in risk groups that find out they are HIV+/AIDS, well for most
the party is over. I think there is a great decline in risk behavior and
that tweaks the ARV #'s
  Educate people how risk behavior can lead to AIDS not just a bug.
Support the bodies of those in need with a holistic health aproach and I
believe AIDS would dry up. Hell I don't think it would be so hard to push
the HIV into AIDS envelope out to 50 years
Gary Stein - 17 Oct 2005 00:51 GMT
> By the numbers who recover a lot of health and function after STARTING
> the drugs....god, get out there in the world. Go to a hospital. What
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> believe AIDS would dry up. Hell I don't think it would be so hard to push
> the HIV into AIDS envelope out to 50 years

You can't be serious, how does the above explain AIDS in the thousands of
cases that never used street drugs, never used poppers, never had recurring
STD's other then HIV and yet still managed to die from AIDS?

Gary Stein
Fondoo - 17 Oct 2005 08:23 GMT
You can't be serious, how does the above explain AIDS in the thousands of
cases that never used street drugs, never used poppers, never had
recurring
STD's other then HIV and yet still managed to die from AIDS?

Gary Stein

  I feel these numbers are fraudulent. We have witnessed how fast doctors
jump to conclusions of an AIDS death based on a positive test. Hell the
corrupt mass media is making that case for me with Christine’s tragedy and
that death was based on the mothers test not her little girls. Also most
times the way risk behavior is documented is by asking the patients and
well some fib.
 I have met a great many positive people and have yet to find one
declining into aids without ARV's or risk group behavior. This is just my
personal experience but it sparks my intuition that people not involved in
risk behavior and not on chemotherapy are not the problem here. When you
need suspect government data and a mass media propaganda machine to tell
you that you have a problem well... You don't have "that" problem. My .02
  Gary I do not side with people at this time believing we are at no risk
for AIDS if we are not hurting ourselves with risk behavior or ARV's that
would not be prudent, but I am of the opinion that tradition Chinese
medicine and testing and treating oxidative stress sounds like a better
path for me.
  I am moving to Hawaii Nov 1st after that I will find a Chinese doctor
for general health and a western doc for oxidative stress and post my
experience.  

GMCarter - 17 Oct 2005 12:44 GMT
>You can't be serious, how does the above explain AIDS in the thousands of
>cases that never used street drugs, never used poppers, never had
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   I feel these numbers are fraudulent.

Darling. What numbers?

There are data that show that a lot of people never used a lot of
drugs. And just personal experience tells me that! You mean to tell me
you don't know lots of people who did drugs but didn't get AIDS? Or
never did ARV and wound up with AIDS?

        George M. Carter
Gary Stein - 17 Oct 2005 19:43 GMT
> You can't be serious, how does the above explain AIDS in the thousands of
> cases that never used street drugs, never used poppers, never had
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> times the way risk behavior is documented is by asking the patients and
> well some fib.

If you had been in Palm Springs CA in the early days of the epidemic you
would know without question that these deaths occurred and were devastating.
Just because your personal experience with HIV does not seem to be following
the expected path, what gives you the right to deny the deaths of so many of
my dear friends. I have tried hard to treat you with some respect but the
above statement makes that very difficult.

>  I have met a great many positive people and have yet to find one
> declining into aids without ARV's or risk group behavior. This is just my
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> for general health and a western doc for oxidative stress and post my
> experience.

Again I wish you much luck it all that you endeavor to accomplish, I just
wish that you would not be so dismissive of the suffering that AID's has and
is causing around the world.

Gary Stein
Fondoo - 17 Oct 2005 22:54 GMT
Just because your personal experience with HIV does not seem to be
following
the expected path, what gives you the right to deny the deaths of so many
of
my dear friends

Gary my personel experience is all I have, I am searching for more if you
could ever share the stories of your friends that you believe confirms the
orthodox and disproves the dissident that would help allot.
 I mean no disrespect, my attack on the AIDS science corruption is not
meant to belittle all the victims that have been listed as AIDS death and
especially not your friend’s man.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 18 Oct 2005 00:28 GMT
>  People in risk groups are involved in risk behavior. Risk behavior
>promotes desease.
...
>   Educate people how risk behavior can lead to AIDS not just a bug.

What risk behaviour was novel circa 1980?

Signature

David Canzi            "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

GMCarter - 01 Oct 2005 12:11 GMT
>   It is so hard to see the relivance of studies like this,how do you tell
>what could be a virus and what could be AIDS drug effects.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>use AIDS drugs or street drugs.Prove to me that I have all this creepy
>stuff going on.

You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out.
pauleewhiting - 01 Oct 2005 17:36 GMT
"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."

Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that we're
all gonna figure out we were wrong when we die.

That is more than just a little macabre...
Brian Mailman - 01 Oct 2005 18:40 GMT
> Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
> refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that we're
> all gonna figure out we were wrong when we die.

OK, some of you won't.  Better?

B/
pauleewhiting - 01 Oct 2005 19:18 GMT
"> Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that
we're all gonna figure out we were wrong when we die.

OK, some of you won't.  Better?"

Brian, I didn't realize that George was your sock puppet...
Brian Mailman - 01 Oct 2005 22:32 GMT
> "> Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
> refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Brian, I didn't realize that George was your sock puppet...

If you weren't such a fool, you wouldn't realize that at all--you
wouldn't even have to read path headers.

B/
pauleewhiting - 01 Oct 2005 23:03 GMT
"If you weren't such a fool, you wouldn't realize that at all--you wouldn't
even have to read path headers."

Wow, Brian.  Guess you showed me...
GMCarter - 02 Oct 2005 01:30 GMT
>"If you weren't such a fool, you wouldn't realize that at all--you wouldn't
>even have to read path headers."
>
>Wow, Brian.  Guess you showed me...

I sure did.
Brian
Brian Mailman - 02 Oct 2005 02:20 GMT
>>"If you weren't such a fool, you wouldn't realize that at all--you wouldn't
>>even have to read path headers."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I sure did.
> Brian

I thought it was our turn to be Marty.

B/
GMCarter - 02 Oct 2005 12:33 GMT
>>>"If you weren't such a fool, you wouldn't realize that at all--you wouldn't
>>>even have to read path headers."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>I thought it was our turn to be Marty.

We are Borg. Resistance is genotypic.
pauleewhiting - 02 Oct 2005 21:31 GMT
"We are Borg. Resistance is genotypic."

Okay, that was just FUNNY!
GMCarter - 02 Oct 2005 22:04 GMT
>"We are Borg. Resistance is genotypic."
>
>Okay, that was just FUNNY!

Well, I think we can agree laughter is good for the immune system!
pauleewhiting - 02 Oct 2005 21:03 GMT
"Wow, Brian.  Guess you showed me...

I sure did."

Yes, I stand in awe of your acerbic wit.
GMCarter - 01 Oct 2005 22:57 GMT
>"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."
>
>Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
>refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that we're
>all gonna figure out we were wrong when we die.

Subtle? What's subtle about that?

>That is more than just a little macabre...

Death is indeed macabre and mysterious and awaits us all.

Having watched SO many people die of AIDS over the years, I have
little doubt about the outcome for those who are so scared to face
their own death, they would refuse treatment or diagnostic evaluation.

Being that you are in that condition at the moment, I expect it will
not be long in the human scale of our short lives.

        George M. Carter
pauleewhiting - 01 Oct 2005 23:24 GMT
"Being that you are in that condition at the moment, I expect it will not
be long in the human scale of our short lives."

I'm tellin' ya, George, you are Hallmark material.
GMCarter - 02 Oct 2005 01:31 GMT
>"Being that you are in that condition at the moment, I expect it will not
>be long in the human scale of our short lives."
>
>I'm tellin' ya, George, you are Hallmark material.

OK...here's a little hint. Telling a joke twice in a day or so, the
humor begins to pall a bit.

Hey. Like "pall bearer."

Just thot I'd throw in a little morbid levity to cheer your day.
pauleewhiting - 02 Oct 2005 21:05 GMT
"Just thot I'd throw in a little morbid levity to cheer your day."

Thanks!  It warmed the cockles of my heart.
Fondoo - 03 Oct 2005 02:27 GMT
>"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."

The thing is this is ME this is MY STORY. Why the hell should I credit the
AIDS theory to define my reality? Should I stand by and let others be told
AIDS=Death is the truth to all?
 Word is getting out we don't all have to die of AIDS or Chemotherapy and
I believe with all my heart if I followed my doctors orders I would be
dead or dying of chemotherapy at this moment.
 Currently I am 39 in excellent health have a perfect 5 month old baby
girl and the institutions of this world can take THERE AIDS and shove it
up there A**.
 At the very least I want my test positive brothers and sisters to know
that there doctor and the six oh clock news is not the whole story

>"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."
>
>Ya know, George, I find it fascinating the way your "end argument" to
>refute the dissidents is usually the not-so-subtle implication that
we're
>all gonna figure out we were wrong when we die.

Subtle? What's subtle about that?

>That is more than just a little macabre...

Death is indeed macabre and mysterious and awaits us all.

Having watched SO many people die of AIDS over the years, I have
little doubt about the outcome for those who are so scared to face
their own death, they would refuse treatment or diagnostic evaluation.

Being that you are in that condition at the moment, I expect it will
not be long in the human scale of our short lives.

        George M. Carter
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 12:34 GMT
>>"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."
>
>The thing is this is ME this is MY STORY. Why the hell should I credit the
>AIDS theory to define my reality? Should I stand by and let others be told
>AIDS=Death is the truth to all?

Life is a short journey before we die. AIDS no more = death than being
born does. You will die. I will die. Your beautiful baby girl will die
-- but not, I hope, before she grows up to torture you with her
adolescent years! And I hope you will be around to see those years.

The issue, tho, is that HIV DOES tend to cause AIDS if not treated.
And AIDS generally DOES tend to kill people. But HIV's progression to
AIDS can be slowed--a simple multivitamin (a form of chemotherapy,
actually, technically as they are chemicals you use as a therapy)--a
multi can slow progression by 30%.

I think physicians sometimes tend to want to stuff people full of
drugs. This is not always a good idea. However, there IS a time when
antiretroviral therapy CAN prevent you from dying from AIDS. And even
from AIDS developing.

If you refuse that treatment, you will probably die of AIDS. And then
you're life, whether you like it or not, will have been defined by
that as our lives are defined by the full arc from birth to death.

And I fear, if it is true you have had an HIV diagnosis for 10+ years,
you will not be too likely to see your daughter grow up. Possibilities
always abound. Probabilities tend to curtail or minimize some of
those.

        George M. Carter
wilyretrovirus - 03 Oct 2005 14:21 GMT
"Life is a short journey before we die. AIDS no more = death than being
born does. You will die. I will die. Your beautiful baby girl will die
-- but not, I hope, before she grows up to torture you with her
adolescent years! And I hope you will be around to see those years."

"If you refuse that treatment, you will probably die of AIDS"

"And I fear, if it is true you have had an HIV diagnosis for 10+ years,
you will not be too likely to see your daughter grow up"

George Carter's death cult.  Care to join?
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 14:47 GMT
>"Life is a short journey before we die. AIDS no more = death than being
>born does. You will die. I will die. Your beautiful baby girl will die
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>George Carter's death cult.  Care to join?

Darling, if you are HIV+ and refusing treatment, you already have.
pauleewhiting - 03 Oct 2005 21:29 GMT
"George Carter's death cult.  Care to join?

Darling, if you are HIV+ and refusing treatment, you already have."

See how easy it is to join George's death cult?
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 21:52 GMT
>"George Carter's death cult.  Care to join?
>
>Darling, if you are HIV+ and refusing treatment, you already have."
>
>See how easy it is to join George's death cult?

Gosh, your repartee is so devastatingly clever.
pauleewhiting - 03 Oct 2005 23:18 GMT
"Gosh, your repartee is so devastatingly clever."

Golly!  But not nearly as clever as yours!
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 23:38 GMT
>"Gosh, your repartee is so devastatingly clever."
>
>Golly!  But not nearly as clever as yours!

Well, yes, I'd tend to agree with that....
pauleewhiting - 03 Oct 2005 19:50 GMT
"But HIV's progression to AIDS can be slowed--a simple multivitamin (a form
of chemotherapy,
actually, technically as they are chemicals you use as a therapy)--a multi
can slow progression by 30%."

Multivitamins are a form of chemotherapy, because "they are chemicals you
use as a therapy"?!?

So, vitamin nutrients are the same as a DNA Chain Terminator?

Beam me up, Scotty!
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 20:32 GMT
>"But HIV's progression to AIDS can be slowed--a simple multivitamin (a form
>of chemotherapy,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Multivitamins are a form of chemotherapy, because "they are chemicals you
>use as a therapy"?!?

Yep.

>So, vitamin nutrients are the same as a DNA Chain Terminator?

Gosh, is that what you think?

>Beam me up, Scotty!

Scotty's dead, sadly.

        George M. Carter
pauleewhiting - 03 Oct 2005 22:22 GMT
"So, vitamin nutrients are the same as a DNA Chain Terminator?

Gosh, is that what you think?"

No, that's what you said, George, because Chemotherapy *is* a DNA Chain
Terminator.

Didn't you know that, George?

So how, exactly, is a DNA Chain Terminator the same thing as a
multivitamin?

I can't *wait* to hear this explanation!
GMCarter - 03 Oct 2005 23:40 GMT
>"So, vitamin nutrients are the same as a DNA Chain Terminator?
>
>Gosh, is that what you think?"
>
>No, that's what you said, George, because Chemotherapy *is* a DNA Chain
>Terminator.

LOL. No. It ain't.

>Didn't you know that, George?

Chemotherapy means precisely that. Therapy by chemicals. Vitamins are
chemicals. AZT is a chemical. Fluconazole is a chemical. Water. Etc.

>So how, exactly, is a DNA Chain Terminator the same thing as a
>multivitamin?

It's not. I didn't say it was.

Indeed, the more traditional definition of chemotherapy in the context
of cancer doesn't necessarily mean "DNA Chain Terminator" either. Let
alone that not all HIV drugs fit that defintion.

So I have no idea where YOU came up with that remarkably silly idea.

        George M. Carter
pauleewhiting - 04 Oct 2005 19:13 GMT
"Indeed, the more traditional definition of chemotherapy in the context of
cancer doesn't necessarily mean "DNA Chain Terminator" either. Let alone
that not all HIV drugs fit that defintion.

So I have no idea where YOU came up with that remarkably silly idea."

4. Transcription and translation of viral nucleic acids and release of
virus

Most of the antiviral drugs now known act by inhibiting the replication or
transcription of viral nucleic acids.

b. Inhibitors of viral reverse transcriptase - ***AZT and the majority of
other compounds act as chain terminators.*** AZT triphosphate binds to and
inhibit virus RT more effectively than normal cellular DNA polymerases and
so some antiviral specificity is achieved. However, the compound is
certainly not comparable to acyclovir in terms of antiviral specificity.
This is reflected in the toxicity of AZT in clinical practice. This
cellular toxicity may be partly explained by the fact that normal cellular
enzymes phosphorylate AZT and is ***thus activated in both infected and
uninfected cells.***  [Emphasis mine.]

C. Some Commonly Used Antiviral Agents

6. Zidovudine (AZT)

AZT is a synthetic analogue of thymidine. It requires conversion to the
triphosphate form by cellular enzymes. It inhibits viral reverse
transcriptase by acting as a chain terminator. Viral reverse transcriptase
is 100 times more susceptible to inhibition by zidovudine triphosphate
than host cellular DNA polymerase. Once incorporated into the viral DNA
chain, viral DNA synthesis is terminated as no more phosphodiester bonds
could be formed. AZT is active in vitro [in an artificial environment
outside a living organism] against many human retroviruses, including
HTLV-I and HIV. AZT is currently indicated for the management of patients
with HIV infection who have impaired immunity. (T4 cell count of 400- 500
or less) AZT has been clearly shown to prolong the life of individuals
infected with HIV. It has also been shown to be of benefit for the
treatment of symptomless individuals although this is controversial.

From http://virology-online.com/general/Chemotherapy.htm

So, George, AZT is a DNA Chain Terminator.  It STOPS LIFE in your cells.
And it does't just target the "infected" cells, it targets all of them.
That's why it comes with a skull and cross bones on the label.  It's a
poison:

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."

Note the skull and bones on the label; the indication for a deathly
poison.

http://www.duesberg.com/articles/azt.html

So, I'm afraid, George, that AZT, which is a DNA Chain Terminator, is
***NOT*** just like a multivitamin, to say the least...

Afterall, do bottles of "One-a-Day" have a skull and cross bones on them
and warn you to wear suitable protective clothing?

-Paul Whiting
GMCarter - 04 Oct 2005 23:49 GMT
>"Indeed, the more traditional definition of chemotherapy in the context of
>cancer doesn't necessarily mean "DNA Chain Terminator" either. Let alone
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>4. Transcription and translation of viral nucleic acids and release of
>virus
snip

>So, I'm afraid, George, that AZT, which is a DNA Chain Terminator, is
>***NOT*** just like a multivitamin, to say the least...

Didn't say it was. I said that a multi, technically, is
"chemotherapy." AZT sure does have toxicities. No dispute there.

        George M. Carter
Gary Stein - 03 Oct 2005 18:56 GMT
> >"You know, it's sad. But you'll probably find out."
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I believe with all my heart if I followed my doctors orders I would be
> dead or dying of chemotherapy at this moment.

So what? The vast majority of those on ARV will say the exact same thing
about it's life saving effects. Making the statement is meaningless you have
to back your statement up with data that shows it to be true, sadly that is
something those with your point of view are simply not able to do.

Yet there are thousands of studies that prove the effectiveness of ARV.

Gary Stein
Fondoo - 04 Oct 2005 20:04 GMT
So what? The vast majority of those on ARV will say the exact same thing
about it's life saving effects. Making the statement is meaningless you
have
to back your statement up with data that shows it to be true, sadly that
is
something those with your point of view are simply not able to do.

Yet there are thousands of studies that prove the effectiveness of ARV.

Gary Stein

   Yes you are correct. This is exactly the dissident point as well THERE
ARE NO STUDIES SO THERE IS NO DATA. Our research and personal stories
would cost billions if proven. Big pharma likes there billions and they do
not care about a cure, they want EVERYONE to rent there life from them.
  There is a point where common sense over rides mountains of studies on
one tottering theory
Gary Stein - 05 Oct 2005 20:51 GMT
> So what? The vast majority of those on ARV will say the exact same thing
> about it's life saving effects. Making the statement is meaningless you
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   There is a point where common sense over rides mountains of studies on
> one tottering theory

It's to bad you don't understand the simple reality that common sense when
applied to most science will lead the laymen down a wild and woolly path of
misunderstanding, misconceptions, and faulty logic. Common sense will lead
one to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth are you saying that is
your belief? Common sense will lead one to believe that a heavy object will
fall faster then a light object if both objects have the same wind
resistance is this your belief? Common sense inexplicitly had most people
believing that the world was flat, contrary to the observable sight of ships
slowly fading from view from the bottom up as they moved over the horizon is
it your contention that the world is flat?

As you can see common sense is a pretty useless tool when discussing
scientific concepts and theories. That is why contrary to the denialist
claims that data is not important, in reality data is the only important
aspect when discussing scientific theories.

Gary Stein
wilyretrovirus - 05 Oct 2005 21:15 GMT
"As you can see common sense is a pretty useless tool when discussing
scientific concepts and theories. That is why contrary to the denialist
claims that data is not important, in reality data is the only important
aspect when discussing scientific theories."

Gary,
you've highlighted one of my arguments.  

Besides expecting us to throw common sense out the window (your "examples"
hardly make a case for what common sense is, actually).  You also expect
us to deny our very own personal experience with what is happening to our
bodies if that doesn't coincide with the data.  That is easily one of your
greatest errors in this fiasco.
Gary Stein - 05 Oct 2005 22:27 GMT
> "As you can see common sense is a pretty useless tool when discussing
> scientific concepts and theories. That is why contrary to the denialist
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> bodies if that doesn't coincide with the data.  That is easily one of your
> greatest errors in this fiasco.

If it is an error it is one you exhibit to a much larger degree then do I.
In that you want the people who have spent years on ARV to deny the evidence
of there own personal experience and agree with you that ARV kills. When in
fact they know it does not at least as far as they and everyone they know is
concerned. So who's error is more grave the one of a few thousand
contrarians claiming their personal experience has more validity or the
literally tens of thousands of patients that have been using ARV for a
decade and know that they would not be alive had they not done so?

What makes your personal experience more valid then the vastly larger
experience pool of the people who use ARV and credit it with saving there
life?

Gary Stein
wilyretrovirus - 06 Oct 2005 00:48 GMT
"In that you want the people who have spent years on ARV to deny the
evidence
of there own personal experience and agree with you that ARV kills."

Not at all, Gary.  I don't deny their personal experience, nor do I *want*
them to deny their experience.  They are free to think and do what they
like.  Also, you might have to search *really* hard to find a post of mine
where I say ARV kills. I highly doubt that I've said those words.

"When in  fact they know it does not at least as far as they and everyone
they know is concerned."

Not exactly selling me on your point, right there.

"What makes your personal experience more valid then the vastly larger
experience pool of the people who use ARV and credit it with saving there

life?"

I wouldn't say it's more or less valid, and I wouldn't begrudge those who
believe ARVs are saving their lives.  I *would* say that there's a near
media blackout on the types of people *I've* known, who've lived for 20
years past diagnosis with no AIDS drugs and are NOT experiencing an OI.
THOSE are the kind of experiences I'm talking about.

MY personal experience, btw, is testing HIV-negative, despite being in a
"risk" group.  THAT'S an experience that doesn't coincide with the data
very well, too.
Fondoo - 09 Oct 2005 09:12 GMT
Gary
    You are right my common sense leads me on a wild ride away from
sci-fi data.
Example
   My common sense tells me we have a incredibly powerful immune system
that can handle 1000's of bugs. Science is astray by always trying to
kill a bug with a toxin and not focusing on keeping the body and immune
system healthy to begin with.
 Common sense tells me there is a problem when 99% of all medical
research is spent on patentable drugs.
  Common sense tells me disease is not our natural state and there for
it's  man made from the toxins in our environment, the chemicals put in
food to make it more profitable, all the crap we get sold to rub on our
skin that has warnings not to eat (if I cant eat it I'm not risking it
in my blood) Drugs pushed on us for every little thing they can possibly
claim to treat or prevent and 100's of other examples of what our bodies
are exposed too.
  Common sense tells me that if a drug has warnings about side effects
it does everything is says it's going to do just in some more than
others.
  I have to make some investment choices common sense says big-pharma
can make me some dough but it also tells me that?s the path of the beast
so not one dime goes into big pharma
Gary Stein - 10 Oct 2005 23:29 GMT
> Gary
>     You are right my common sense leads me on a wild ride away from
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> kill a bug with a toxin and not focusing on keeping the body and immune
> system healthy to begin with.

There is a great deal of research done on ways to improve the effectiveness
of the natural immune system what on earth are you talking about?

>  Common sense tells me there is a problem when 99% of all medical
> research is spent on patentable drugs.

Your exaggerating of course but yes in a market economy corporate research
is done on things the company hopes to make a profit from. Why is it that
only in the medical field this is thought to be so sinister. It seems to
work just fine for most other products doesn't it? Yes there is a difference
between buying a car and buying medications one is an option the other often
is not so that is why the FDA exists and up to about 1990 it did a damn fine
job. There has been problems recently and hopefully when the Republicans get
there a.ses handed to them in 2006 and 2008 I foresee legislation that will
solve the current problems at the FDA.

>   Common sense tells me disease is not our natural state and there for
> it's  man made from the toxins in our environment, the chemicals put in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> claim to treat or prevent and 100's of other examples of what our bodies
> are exposed too.

So are you seriously saying that mankind never got sick prior to the
industrial age. Gee I seem to remember hearing about lots of plagues and
other diseases that occurred during Greek, Roman, Medieval times have you
forgotten about those facts?

>   Common sense tells me that if a drug has warnings about side effects
> it does everything is says it's going to do just in some more than
> others.

Do you honestly buy what you say above? If so please explain why the side
effects warned about on over the counter medications don't make those drugs
impossible to sell? Do you think people would continue to use them in the
millions if they all were experiencing side effects?

>   I have to make some investment choices common sense says big-pharma
> can make me some dough but it also tells me that's the path of the beast
> so not one dime goes into big pharma

Can't argue you with you there, I have problems with the outrageous pricing
of drugs and the ability of that industry to blithely consign the poor to
death if they can not pay those prices.

Gary Stein
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 11 Oct 2005 05:48 GMT
>   Common sense tells me disease is not our natural state and there for
>it's  man made from the toxins in our environment, the chemicals put in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>claim to treat or prevent and 100's of other examples of what our bodies
>are exposed too.

Diseases are natural.  Death is natural.  People and animals have been
getting sick and dying young for thousands of years, long before the
first patented drug or artifical food additive was invented.

Signature

David Canzi            "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

j.umber@ac-nancy-metz.fr - 09 Oct 2005 12:39 GMT
We deny not the evidence that ARV (zidovudine or stavudine + lamivudine
or emtricitabine + lopinavir or abacavir) can save lives vs monotherapy
with zidovudine. More, lamivudine or emtricitabine reacts with
zidovudine, giving a much less harmfull stuff as himself, for instance
stavudine.

Gary Stein a écrit :

> > "As you can see common sense is a pretty useless tool when discussing
> > scientific concepts and theories. That is why contrary to the denialist
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Gary Stein
jspreen - 05 Oct 2005 21:51 GMT
>>>As you can see common sense is a pretty useless tool when discussing
scientific concepts and theories.<<<

YEAH! So that's the reason why sometimes stubborn scientists continue to
hang on to ideas everybody else has thrown away. Total lack of common
sense, there you go. The sky is definitely clearing here.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.