Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005
Zoster and HIV
|
|
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.
â
..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
â¦
. 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 quicklyâ¦..
.. 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.â?
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 â¥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.
|
|
|