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 / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Getting there--but still a dangerous road

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GMCarter - 20 Jan 2006 13:53 GMT
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/2006/011706_a.html
Fewer HIV Patients Are Currently Dying of HIV-related illnesses and
Deaths Are Increasingly Due to Cardiac Disease, Trauma and Liver
Disease

HIV death rates have declined dramatically since the availability
HAART and effective prophylaxis for opportunistic infections. Given
increasing antiretroviral-related complications and resistance,
however, whether this decrease in deaths will be sustained is debated.
Some studies continue to describe high rates of death attributable to
AIDS-defining conditions. A relatively recent study found that most
deaths occurred among patients with a CD4 count of <200 cells/mL and
that a leading cause of death remained Pneumocystis carinii (jiroveci)
pneumonia (PCP) [MK Jain et al. Clin Inf Dis 36. 2003].

Other studies have shown an increasing proportion of deaths
attributable to non-HIV-related conditions, especially to liver
failure. In some cohorts, liver disease now accounts for greater than
50% of the deaths among patients with a CD4 count >200 cells/mL or an
undetectable HIV viral load.

Divergent results regarding the cause of death are likely related to
the underlying characteristics of the study populations, including
injectible drug use, coinfection with hepatitis B and C, medication
adherence, and the availability of antiretrovirals. In addition,
patients with private insurance have been shown to receive more
intensive drug regimens and to have lower mortality rates.

A study among patients with open access to medical care as well as a
low rate of drug use and hepatitis C coinfection may provide some
insight regarding the effects of these barriers on overall mortality.
Researchers at several US military medical centers (primarily naval
hospitals) evaluated such a population, US military beneficiaries, to
assess causes of death and mortality rates in this cohort during the
years 1990 through 2003.

Data collected during this HIV natural history study were
retrospectively analyzed for causes of death and annual death rates.
The investigators compared death-related variables during the 3 eras.

Results  The number of deaths declined over the study period, with 987
deaths in the pre-HAART era, 159 deaths in the early HAART era
(1997-1999), and 78 deaths in the late HAART era (2000-2003) (P <
0.01).

The annual death rate peaked in 1995 (10.3 per 100 patients) and then
declined to <2 deaths per 100 persons in the late HAART era (P <
0.01).

The proportion of deaths attributable to infection decreased, but
infection remained the leading cause of death in this cohort, followed
by cancer.

Of those who died, there was an increasing proportion of
non-HIV-related deaths (32% vs. 9%; P < 0.01), including cardiac
disease (22% vs. 8%; P < 0.01) and trauma (8% vs. 2%; P = 0.01) in the
post-HAART versus pre-HAART era.

Despite the absence of intravenous drug use and the low prevalence of
hepatitis C coinfection in our cohort, an increasing proportion of
deaths in the HAART era were attributable to liver disease, although
the numbers are small.

In closing, the authors write, "Despite increasing concerns regarding
antiretroviral resistance, the death rate among HIV-infected persons
in our cohort continues to decline. Our data show a lower death rate
than that reported among many other US HIV-infected populations; this
may be the result of open access to health care."

"A shift in the causes of death toward non-HIV-related causes suggests
that a more comprehensive health care approach may be needed for
optimal life expectancy; this may include enhanced screening for
malignancy and heart disease as well as preventive measures for liver
disease and accidents."

Discussion
These data show that deaths from HIV infection declined in this cohort
similar to the trend seen across the United States since the
introduction of HAART. With improvement in HIV treatment,
proportionally fewer patients are currently dying of the typical
HIV-related illnesses.

AIDS-defining causes of death declined to 56%, whereas non-HIV-related
conditions have increased to 32% of the causes of deaths in this
cohort. This is similar to other studies, which have shown that
AIDS-defining illnesses as a cause of death are rapidly falling.

Deaths during the post-HAART versus pre-HAART era are proportionally
more often attributable to cardiac disease, trauma, and liver disease.
The authors of the present study also noted increasing cholesterol
levels in the post-HAART era; this finding may be related to the
introduction of protease inhibitor therapy and may be an important
factor in the increasing rate of cardiac disease. Other studies have
also noted an increased number of deaths attributable to
non-HIV-related diseases, including liver disease, drug overdose,
non-AIDS-defining malignancy, cardiac disease, obstructive lung
disease, suicide, homicide, and trauma.

This cohort study is ongoing.
01/17/06

Reference
N Crum and others. Comparisons of Causes of Death and Mortality Rates
among HIV-Infected Persons: Analysis of the Pre-, Early, and Late
HAART (Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy) Eras. Journal of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndromes 41(2):194-200, February 1, 2006.
DavidT - 20 Jan 2006 16:35 GMT
"The number of deaths declined over the study period, with 987 deaths
in the pre-HAART era, 159 deaths in the early HAART era (1997-1999),
and 78 deaths in the late HAART era (2000-2003) (P < 0.01)."

"The annual death rate peaked in 1995 (10.3 per 100 patients) and then
declined to <2 deaths per 100 persons in the late HAART era (P <
0.01)."

Yet more clear proof the toxic drugs are killing people - don't let the
massive drop in mortality fool you - they are just numbers and must be
wrong! They are lying!
Obviously all the researchers have got their dates mixed up, and it is
not that in 1995 that 10% were dying each year and only 2% now, but the
other way round.
wilyretrovirus - 20 Jan 2006 17:28 GMT
Getting there (meeting your maker)--but still a dangerous road (thanks to
HAART on both counts).

George,
thanks for the "HIV" cheerleading.  This article sure has a "yay,team!"
vibe going for it.  I suppose you and your buddies could use a little
cheerleading...so put on that pleated skirt and get out those pom-poms!

"Deaths during the post-HAART versus pre-HAART era are proportionally more
often attributable to cardiac disease, trauma, and liver disease."

It's nice of them to come right out and say that HAART is what's causing
the cardiac disease, trauma, and liver disease.  It's a breath of fresh
air.  Thanks, George.
DavidT - 21 Jan 2006 08:22 GMT
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where they said that all the deaths
were due to HAART.

HAART is causing trauma?  Get off it!
They state:
"The authors of the present study also noted increasing cholesterol
levels in the post-HAART era; this finding may be related to the
introduction of protease inhibitor therapy and may be an important
factor in the increasing rate of cardiac disease. Other studies have
also noted an increased number of deaths attributable to
non-HIV-related diseases, including liver disease, drug overdose,
non-AIDS-defining malignancy, cardiac disease, obstructive lung
disease, suicide, homicide, and trauma."

So, HAART is contributing to cardiac deaths, sure - not causing them
all, just contributing. (remember these are a cohort of middle aged men
- contrary to your silly claims, men of this age do actually get things
like ischaemic heart disease!)

Liver disease is multifactorial, with the main component being
underlying Hepatitis C and B (and not HAART, though this will
contribute a small proportion).

Please give your references to show that HAART can cause "drug
overdose, non-AIDS-defining malignancy, obstructive lung disease,
suicide, homicide, and trauma."

I'll make it less taxing for you - just give one reference citation for
each claim and I will be satisfied.
GMCarter - 21 Jan 2006 12:33 GMT
>I'll make it less taxing for you - just give one reference citation for
>each claim and I will be satisfied.

I think one of the salient features of this and other studies has been
that DESPITE taking lots of ARV, people tend to live longer and do
better than without the drugs. SMART certainly showed that. This
utterly debunks the patently foolish Duesberg hypothesis that "drugs
cause AIDS."

However, I think it is ALSO very important to understand the
toxicities, side effects and so forth so that we can further limit the
suffering and whatever mortality risk there is by investigating means
to help liver, heart, kidney, pancreatic and nerve function be
sustained and as healthy as possible.

        George M. Carter
DavidT - 21 Jan 2006 13:39 GMT
wilyretrovirus - 21 Jan 2006 13:43 GMT
"Deaths during the post-HAART versus pre-HAART era are proportionally more
often attributable to cardiac disease, trauma, and liver disease."

David,
it's right here.  These little moments of honesty in AIDS research have
their ways of coming out.  
DavidT - 21 Jan 2006 14:20 GMT
Yes - AIDS researchers are honest - unlike you.
No-one has ever denied the drugs have risks, but compared with the
consequences of not taking drugs, its a no-brainer.

Do you know what the term "proportionally" means, Wily? Call it
"relatively" if that makes it easier for you. I'll go through the
stats, very simply.

Take 100 AIDS patients.
PreHAART say 20 die per year, 15 from AIDS related complications, 1
from trauma, 2 from heart disease, and 2 of liver disease.
As a proportion, only 0.1 (or 10% if you prefer) of deaths are due to
liver disease.

PostHAART, 100 AIDS patients.
Only 10 deaths per year, 2 from AIDS related complications, 2 from
trauma, 3 from heart disease and 3 from liver disease.
30% of deaths are now due to liver disease (but remember, most of these
are actually due to Hepatitis and not HAART itself!)

And yes, PROPORTIONALLY more deaths are due to liver disease.

Result - denialists get excited - "THREE TIMES AS MANY DEATHS NOW DUE
TO LIVER DISEASE!!!"  "HAART KILLS!!"

The denialists sit whispering in their little huddles -"Lets just
forget that the AIDS-related death rate has plumeted shall we chaps -
just keep on shouting "liver deaths up!" and we can continue trying to
con the public that the drugs are poison!"
wilyretrovirus - 21 Jan 2006 14:31 GMT
"Result - denialists get excited - "THREE TIMES AS MANY DEATHS NOW DUE
TO LIVER DISEASE!!!"  "HAART KILLS!!""

I don't get excited over things like that.  I think it's quite terrible,
honestly.
DavidT - 21 Jan 2006 14:23 GMT
Please give your references to show that HAART can cause "drug
overdose, non-AIDS-defining malignancy, obstructive lung disease,
suicide, homicide, and trauma." as you have claimed.
wilyretrovirus - 21 Jan 2006 14:36 GMT
Now you're just playing games, David.

I didn't claim any of those things.

I DID cite this little nugget of honesty from the researchers:  "Deaths
during the post-HAART versus pre-HAART era are proportionally more
often attributable to cardiac disease, trauma, and liver disease."
DavidT - 22 Jan 2006 08:04 GMT
Well you did imply those things, since the study's conclusions were
twisted by you to justify your claim that the drugs do the damage.

And I explained what is meant by "proportionally" as opposed to
"absolute" so you won't make the same mistake or claim again (tho
somehow I doubt it)
Iconoclaster - 23 Jan 2006 00:51 GMT
If claims are exaggerated in the beginning, it's easier later on to show
that the numbers are getting smaller.  I see that you're still using
"Hep-C" as an excuse to explain the hepatic failure caused by toxic drugs,
Master David.

I get the distinct impression that the apologists are trying to withdraw
as gracefully as possible from the battlefield.  In a few years, nobody
will be talking about AIDS anymore (It never existed as a distinct disease
anyway).  But the apologists will claim that they "cured" it.
DavidT - 23 Jan 2006 13:14 GMT
And I get the distinct impression that when all the HIV patients are
living normal life spans (thanks to the drugs), the denialists will be
blaming the drugs for the fact that people are still dying from heart
disease and cancer.

I can see the headlines now:

SHOCK, HORROR!
103 year-old patient with HIV dies!
Toxic drugs claim yet another victim!
Iconoclaster - 26 Jan 2006 01:16 GMT
>"And I get the distinct impression that when all the HIV patients are
living normal life spans (thanks to the drugs),..."

In your dreams.  These drugs work better the less you take of them.  These
days, with 600 mg of AZT you live longer than people used to, with 1200 or
1800 mg/day.  Maybe if we take the daily amount down to 0.6 mg per day, we
can approach a normal life span.
DavidT - 27 Jan 2006 13:15 GMT
>"These drugs work better the less you take of them. "

What are you - a homeopathic apologist?

This statement of yours ranks as one of your more stupid utterances
which reveal your ignorance about drugs and therapy.

Some of the drugs work much better when their levels are specifically
boosted to higher concentrations.

Apart from AZT (taken at a 60% level of originally recommended doses,
and used now only as one of a combo) can you name one single HIV drug
that has had a dose reduction?
wilyretrovirus - 27 Jan 2006 15:08 GMT
>>"These drugs work better the less you take of them. "

>What are you - a homeopathic apologist?

>This statement of yours ranks as one of your >more stupid utterances
>which reveal your ignorance about drugs and >therapy.

>Some of the drugs work much better when their >levels are specifically
>boosted to higher concentrations.

>Apart from AZT (taken at a 60% level of >originally recommended doses,
>and used now only as one of a combo) can you >name one single HIV drug
>that has had a dose reduction?

I don't think Iconoclaster was being so literal when he said that, I'm
quite sure of that.  I bet YOU know what he meant as well.

I'm SO glad I'm not taken in by your (collective) bullshit.  I feel
genuinely sorry for the people that ARE taken in by it.  It's profoundly
sad and disturbing the efforts you guys make to destroy people's minds and
bodies via the "HIV/AIDS" boogeyman.
DavidT - 27 Jan 2006 17:58 GMT
And I'm "so" disappointed that once again neither you nor your sock
puppet can answer a trivial question by naming a drug other than AZT
which is now recommended to be taken at a lower dose than originally
prescribed.

Your fantasy world where viruses are vesicles is unravelling ever more
rapidly.
wilyretrovirus - 27 Jan 2006 18:28 GMT
"And I'm "so" disappointed that once again neither you nor your sock puppet
can answer a trivial question by naming a drug other than AZT
which is now recommended to be taken at a lower dose than originally
prescribed."

"Apart from AZT (taken at a 60% level of originally recommended doses, and
used now only as one of a combo) can you name one single HIV drug that has
had a dose reduction?"

=============================================
Once again, you're missing the point and/or being willfully ignorant.  

I think Iconoclaster is going to have to explain to you what he meant.
What *I* think he meant was: the less drugs a person takes for a
make-believe virus, the better.  
Brian Mailman - 27 Jan 2006 20:15 GMT
> "And I'm "so" disappointed that once again neither you nor your sock puppet
> can answer a trivial question by naming a drug other than AZT
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> What *I* think he meant was: the less drugs a person takes for a
> make-believe virus, the better.  

Say, I'm not taking any meds for smallpox and I DON"T HAVE IT.
WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW..... it works.

B/
Iconoclaster - 31 Jan 2006 01:20 GMT
Oh, wow!  You're on the right track now!  You surprise me.  Now transfer
this thought to AIDS: Don't take the meds AND YOU DON'T HAVE IT AND DON'T
GET IT.  Now, that wasn't so difficult, was it?
GMCarter - 31 Jan 2006 10:57 GMT
>Oh, wow!  You're on the right track now!  You surprise me.  Now transfer
>this thought to AIDS: Don't take the meds AND YOU DON'T HAVE IT AND DON'T
>GET IT.  Now, that wasn't so difficult, was it?

And a number of people have died believing that bullshit.
Iconoclaster - 31 Jan 2006 23:27 GMT
>"And a number of people have died believing that bullshit."

Maybe.  If so, they died of real killer diseases such as heart disease or
cancer.
On the other hand, you are party to sending gullible people to their
deaths by advocating toxic ARV's.
And... How many lives did you save in Nepal, thus far?
GMCarter - 01 Feb 2006 12:35 GMT
>>"And a number of people have died believing that bullshit."
>
>Maybe.  If so, they died of real killer diseases such as heart disease or
>cancer.
>On the other hand, you are party to sending gullible people to their
>deaths by advocating toxic ARV's.

There is no evidence to support that statement. To the contrary.

ARVs cause AIDS? They do not.

>And... How many lives did you save in Nepal, thus far?

More than you.

And not nearly enough.

        George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 02 Feb 2006 23:04 GMT
>"ARVs cause AIDS? They do not."

Oh, maybe they don't cause AIDS-82, or AIDS-87, or AIFDS-93.  They just
kill people, that's all.
GMCarter - 03 Feb 2006 00:52 GMT
>>"ARVs cause AIDS? They do not."
>
>Oh, maybe they don't cause AIDS-82, or AIDS-87, or AIFDS-93.  They just
>kill people, that's all.

The data show a DRAMATIC decline in death rates among HIV+ people
using ARV compared to those earlier years.
Iconoclaster - 03 Feb 2006 02:13 GMT
>"The data show a DRAMATIC decline in death rates among HIV+ people using
ARV compared to those earlier years."

Of course.  In the earlier years they used 1200 mg AZT monotherapy.
GMCarter - 03 Feb 2006 13:13 GMT
>>"The data show a DRAMATIC decline in death rates among HIV+ people using
>ARV compared to those earlier years."
>
>Of course.  In the earlier years they used 1200 mg AZT monotherapy.

From 87 to maybe 89 or 90. Basically since about 89, it's been 600 mg.
It could probably be 300 mg.

But AZT doesn't cause AIDS. People mostly started taking it after
their immune systems were disrupted by HIV infection--and had a CD4
count near zero.

And indeed--NOW you know this. You had to be taught this when you
first started swaggering around here with your loud-mouted, bullshit
bellicosity.

        George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 00:57 GMT
Where did you get the idea that I have said AZT causes AIDS, Mr. Carter?
People already came down with PCP and Kaposi sarcoma when AZT was still
mouldering on the shelf, waiting for Burroughs-Wellcome to buy it up.
What I am saying is that these young, very sick men were not helped in any
proper medical way.  They were finished off with AZT.  Some of them may
even have been friends of yours.

I'm in a rotten mood tonight, so don't YOU give me any trouble!  I see
Chris Noble has a lot to say at the end of this thread (can't be anything
good), so I'd better go after him...
Chris Noble - 27 Jan 2006 20:58 GMT
<snip>
> I think Iconoclaster is going to have to explain to you what he meant.
> What *I* think he meant was: the less drugs a person takes for a
> make-believe virus, the better.

If some people were to to conduct double blind trials comparing
combinations of 2 ARVs against 3 ARVs or 3 ARVs vs 4 ARVS which
combination would you expect to see the lower mortality rates in? Those
taking fewer drugs or those taking more?

Go ahead make a prediction based on your theory.

Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 27 Jan 2006 21:44 GMT
Chris,

why don't you just show us the particular studies you've got at the ready,
that I'm sure will show that more drugs equals less mortality.  You know
you want to...
DavidT - 30 Jan 2006 10:21 GMT
>why don't you just show us the
>particular studies you've got at the
>ready, that I'm sure will show
>that more drugs equals less
>mortality.

I'll pick up on this one.

ACTG 175 (monoAZT clinically inferior to AZT/ddI or AZT/ddC [with AZT
in all arms being given as 600mg/d])

N Eng J Med 1996; 335:1081
N Eng J Med 1996;335: 1091
J Inf Dis 1998; 177:  617
JAIDS 2000; 24:316
AIDS 1998; 12:2425

CPCRA (similar to above)
N ENg J Med 1996: 335:1099

Delta 1 and 2 - prolonged survival and reduced mortality of combo vs
AZT alone.
Lancet 1996; 348:283
AIDS 1999; 13: 565
AIDS 1999; 13:57
HIV Med 2001; 2:181
Lancet 1997; 350:983

NUCA 3001
NUCB 3001
NUCB 3002
NUCA 3002 (equivalent safety, improved virologic and immunological
outcomes - AZT vs AZT-3TC, AZT-ddC)
N Eng J Med 1995: 333:1662
AIDS 1996; 10:975
JAMA 1996; 276:118
JAMA 1996: 276:111
Ann Int Med 1996; 125:161

Or how about 2NRTIS vs triple therapy using an additional PI?

Starting with Indinavir....
ACTG 320
ACTG 372
AVANTI 2
MERCK 035

AIDS 2000;14:367
N Eng J Med 1997; 337:725
Ann Int Med 2001; 135:954
J Clin Micr 2002;40:2089
Clin Inf Dis 2004:39:426
Antivir Ther 2003; 8:507
N Eng J Med 1997:337:734
JAMA 1998:280:35
ANN Int Med 2000 133:35
AIDS 2003; 17:2345

OK...... I know you won't even bother trying to see these references.
I'll stop there, but I could go on, including trials showing
superiority over dual therapy of  the other protease inhibitors in
turn, and the superiority of triple therapy with an NNRTI over dual
NRTI etc...but I have an inbuilt limit to giving posts that extend to
more than 150 lines of text or so.
wilyretrovirus - 30 Jan 2006 15:27 GMT
Thanks, Chris <wink>
Iconoclaster - 31 Jan 2006 01:45 GMT
<chuckle>  I heard this one coming with the lightfooted tread of a
brontosaurus.  That's the favorite battlecry of the apologists.  After
murdering thousands of poor victims with AZT monotherapy, they had to come
up with something that gave the public the impression that they were
actually doing something beneficial.  They cut the amount of AZT in half,
which all by itself lowered the mortality, and started to add other
drugs.
Example:  Combivir contains zidovudine (AZT) and lamivudine.  But the
latter contains a sulfur-containing ring that can be opened, which
produces an anti-oxidant that can counteract the oxidizing power of the
azido group of AZT.

I guess they will be adding more and more drugs to the cocktails they try
out on unsuspecting patients, just as they have been doing for many years
in cancer chemotherapy.  Gullible hospital patients are very similar to
lab rats.
DavidT - 31 Jan 2006 09:16 GMT
I knew you wouldn't bother reading the studies.
You couldn't even read the single sentence I posted at the begining -
The comparison trials that showed triple therapy to be superior to dual
therapy ALL USE AZT IN THE SAME DOSE - ie 600mg/d.

As for your laughable theory that 3TC somehow acts as an antioxidant -
even if it did and this was in someway relevant, why do combinations of
AZT/3TC plus another drug do better than dual AZT/3TC?
Since you are unlikely to answer, I'll tell you - 3 drugs are better
than 2.
wilyretrovirus - 31 Jan 2006 14:21 GMT
I knew you wouldn't bother reading the studies.
You couldn't even read the single sentence I posted at the begining -
The comparison trials that showed triple therapy to be superior to dual
therapy ALL USE AZT IN THE SAME DOSE - ie 600mg/d.

As for your laughable theory that 3TC somehow acts as an antioxidant -
even if it did and this was in someway relevant, why do combinations of
AZT/3TC plus another drug do better than dual AZT/3TC?
Since you are unlikely to answer, I'll tell you - 3 drugs are better
than 2.

==================================================David,
that's just super!  I'm glad that you and your pharma buddies have got
things all worked out.  

Here's just one little reason I have for questioning and doubting your
bullshit.  It's from Liam Scheff's article on Dr. Fishbein.

"'Science has become so severely politicized that one has to be skeptical
of nearly every research result that is reported.' Says Dr. Jonathan
Fishbein, once and future NIH employee."

Maybe that's why the results of "studies" seem to so often favor those
with the most money and power, the pharmaceutical companies.  

I highly doubt that Dr. Fishbein's experience at the NIH was an anomaly.
I'd be much more inclined to believe that it's par for the course.
Hopefully, more people will wake up and see that their health has nothing
to do with "studies", it's just the pharmaceutical companies looking for
the results that suit them.  
DavidT - 31 Jan 2006 16:50 GMT
>I highly doubt that Dr. Fishbein's
>experience at the NIH was an anomaly.
>I'd be much more inclined to believe that
>it's par for the course.

We already know you are prepared to believe anything.
Its quite amazing that Fishbein, poor victimised fellow that he is,
seems to be alone in coming up with these speculative accusations.
Do you have any idea the ratio of succesfully trialled drugs that make
it into clinical practice compared to those that fail at all the
preceeding hurdles? Why do 99.5% of drugs that even make it off the
drawing board get scrapped?
Is it because Big Pharma forgets 99.5% of the time to bribe their
paymasters and the politicians, or because only 0.5% of drugs are
actually good enough to make it through proper clinical trials?
Companies regularly spend $millions on promising drugs, only to have
the rug pulled from under their feet at the last minute (think
chemokine receptor blockers as an example). Generally speaking, drugs
that eventually make it do so because they are better/less toxic than
those currently available, and not because of some political
shenanigans or bribery.
wilyretrovirus - 31 Jan 2006 18:27 GMT
"We already know you are prepared to believe anything."

If I "believed anything", I'd believe the crap that comes out of you.

"Do you have any idea the ratio of succesfully trialled drugs that make it
into clinical practice compared to those that fail at all the
preceeding hurdles?"

"Companies regularly spend $millions on promising drugs, only to have the
rug pulled from under their feet at the last minute (think
chemokine receptor blockers as an example)."

Who's the victim now, David?  Waaah-booh.  Sounds like those poor
pharmaceutical companies are the victims according to you.  

Poor dears, how do they manage to scrape by?  All that pharmaceutical
altruism. Somehow I'm not able to see it.
Iconoclaster - 01 Feb 2006 00:40 GMT
>"Why do 99.5% of drugs that even make it off the
drawing board get scrapped?"

I wonder where you get this 99.5% figure.  That would suggest that the
pharma industry has an abundance of new drugs at all times.  So why did
Burroughs-Wellcome need to buy up the formula for an  old drug that had
shown to be unsuitable for cancer chemotherapy (you know I'm taking about
AZT).
That same drug was shown to be unsuitable for AIDS chemotherapy too
(Cincorde study).  Yet, it was approved by the FDA, and is still present
in every cocktail used today.
GMCarter - 01 Feb 2006 12:01 GMT
>>"Why do 99.5% of drugs that even make it off the
>drawing board get scrapped?"
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>(Cincorde study).  Yet, it was approved by the FDA, and is still present
>in every cocktail used today.

Once again--you, who claim to be some sort of credentialed teacher
which I find utterly incomprehensible, have made yet another erroneous
claim. A whole series of them embedded in a message that shows you are
a disingenuous lying sack of sh.t.

        George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 02 Feb 2006 23:14 GMT
>"Once again--you, who claim to be some sort of credentialed teacher which
I find utterly incomprehensible, have made yet another erroneous
claim."

Please take center stage, Mr. Carter, and explain to the class, in your
usual bumbling fashion, where I have made an erroneous claim.
Chris Noble - 02 Feb 2006 23:51 GMT
> >"Once again--you, who claim to be some sort of credentialed teacher which
> I find utterly incomprehensible, have made yet another erroneous
> claim."
>
> Please take center stage, Mr. Carter, and explain to the class, in your
> usual bumbling fashion, where I have made an erroneous claim.

To start with:

RNA viruses don't generally mutate.

No virus varies significantly in size.

Chris Noble
GMCarter - 03 Feb 2006 00:54 GMT
>> >"Once again--you, who claim to be some sort of credentialed teacher which
>> I find utterly incomprehensible, have made yet another erroneous
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>No virus varies significantly in size.

Next: claiming that HIV particles are transport vesicles.

Making erroneous claims about the dosage of AZT used in cocktails.

It's really just an endless list of lies, deceptions, and profound
ignorance only exceeded by your arrogance.

        George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 03 Feb 2006 02:10 GMT
>"RNA viruses don't generally mutate."

That's not what I stated.  The simpler ones (picorna viruses) may very
well mutate, but you will never find the mutants, because they are not
viable.
Plant viruses are genetically very stable.
RNA viruses with a multi-threaded genome (flu) can produce stable mutants
by recombination or reassortment.
The frequent mutation-on-demand of a retrovirus (as is claimed for HIV) is
something only the village idiot could believe in.

>"No virus varies significantly in size."

That's correct.  Viruses self-assemble according to strict geometrical
rules.  Structure and size of the capsid are always the same for a
particular virus type.  The enveloped viruses take part of the cell
membrane and maybe some other cell material with them when they bud fom
the cell.

>"claiming that HIV particles are transport vesicles."

There are no HIV particles, not even on Mars.  What is branded about is
images of transport vesicles.
wilyretrovirus - 03 Feb 2006 02:29 GMT
"The frequent mutation-on-demand of a retrovirus (as is claimed for HIV) is
something only the village idiot could believe in."

Tell that to Seth Berkeley.  He was a guest on a radio program here not
too long ago.  I asked him a couple questions about HIV and vaccines.  One
of his answers was "HIV is constantly mutating".  Constantly, huh?  Yeah,
I believe that.
Chris Noble - 03 Feb 2006 03:36 GMT
> "The frequent mutation-on-demand of a retrovirus (as is claimed for HIV) is
> something only the village idiot could believe in."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of his answers was "HIV is constantly mutating".  Constantly, huh?  Yeah,
> I believe that.

What is the error rate for reverse transcriptase?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2
460924&dopt=Abstract


What is the probability of the reverse transcriptiion of a 9 kbp genome
with 0, 1, 2, or 3 substitution errors?

Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 03 Feb 2006 17:44 GMT
From your wikipedia link...

"Reverse transcriptase has a high error rate (up to about 1 in 2,000
bases) when transcribing RNA into DNA. This high error rate allows
retroviruses to mutate rapidly."

Ok, Chris, let's work with that for now.

So.  What they're telling us is that retroviral mutation is simply based
on errors.  At least this reference doesn't say anything about
retroviruses mutating in response to external stimuli.  We're just talking
about mutation as a result of errors.

I could be wrong, but error-based mutation vs. mutation in response to
stimuli are two different things.  

If "HIV" is mutating so rapidly, simply based on errors, well that sounds
like it could be a GOOD thing!  Of course, you'll disagree as you need to
keep the dogma firmly in place.  But all this free-wheelin',
helter-skelter mutation could easily produce an "HIV" that is unable to do
what it's alleged to do...reduce t-cell counts.
Chris Noble - 03 Feb 2006 21:35 GMT
> From your wikipedia link...
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I could be wrong, but error-based mutation vs. mutation in response to
> stimuli are two different things.

That is because the only people that talk about HIV mutating in
response to stimuli are Denialists. Denialists present a strawman
version of evolution so that they can have fun knocking it down.

This is exactly the same as "Creation Scientists"  saying that
Darwinists claim that giraffes chose to mutate in response to a lack of
food at ground level. This is a strawman version of evolution.
Creationists  use these tricks in their futile attempts to discredit
evolution and make room for the "God did it" theory.

> If "HIV" is mutating so rapidly, simply based on errors, well that sounds
> like it could be a GOOD thing!  Of course, you'll disagree as you need to
> keep the dogma firmly in place.  But all this free-wheelin',
> helter-skelter mutation could easily produce an "HIV" that is unable to do
> what it's alleged to do...reduce t-cell counts.

You are getting somewhere now. A high mutation rate means that RNA
viruses can cope with a wide range of selective pressures. They have a
wide range of variations that can be selected for. The cost of this is
that a high percentage of all virions are not viable. This places a
fundamental limit on the mutation rate. This is called the error
threshold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/21/13374

Viruses like poliovirus and HIV operate very close to the error
threshold. They still produce enough viable virions to maintain
infection but they also produce a wide variety of mutations to ensure a
high evolution rate.

It can also be used in order to treat viral infections. If the the
mutation rate is increased (by ribavirin for example) then the virus
can be driven over the error threshold. Too few new virions will be
viable and the infection will die out.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/12/6895

Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 03 Feb 2006 22:16 GMT
"You are getting somewhere now. A high mutation rate means that RNA viruses
can cope with a wide range of selective pressures. They have a
wide range of variations that can be selected for."

Can you tell me what you mean by your last sentence?  It sounds like we're
moving away from random events and into something more deliberate.

"Viruses like poliovirus and HIV operate very close to the error
threshold. They still produce enough viable virions to maintain
infection but they also produce a wide variety of mutations to ensure a
high evolution rate."

Don't know about polio, but that sounds oh so convenient for "HIV".  "To
ensure a high evolution rate"...sounding deliberate again.

The "funny" thing about all this "rapid" or "constant" mutation is that
"HIV" is so good at mutating in a way that ends up being beneficial for
the drug companies.  Funny how that works out.  I'm a bit cynical though.
Chris Noble - 04 Feb 2006 00:49 GMT
> "You are getting somewhere now. A high mutation rate means that RNA viruses
> can cope with a wide range of selective pressures. They have a
> wide range of variations that can be selected for."
>
> Can you tell me what you mean by your last sentence?  It sounds like we're
> moving away from random events and into something more deliberate.

There is nothing deliberate or puposeful about evolution no matter how
much Creationists will try to confuse you. The first part is mutation
which creates a number of variations. This could be a variation in the
length of proto-giraffe's necks. There is nothing deliberate or
directed about the mutation. The second part is the selective pressure.
This could be the competition from other animals for food at ground
level. This could give a relative advantage for the proto-giraffes with
longer necks. These are selected for and are more likely to pass these
genes onto progeny. Over time giraffes with longer and longer evolve.
There is nothing deliberate about this. The giraffes do not
deliberately evolve. There is a direction but that is provided by the
environment.

> "Viruses like poliovirus and HIV operate very close to the error
> threshold. They still produce enough viable virions to maintain
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Don't know about polio, but that sounds oh so convenient for "HIV".  "To
> ensure a high evolution rate"...sounding deliberate again.

It is very inconvenient for polio. The high mutation rate of poliovirus
means that live vaccines can sometimes regain neurovirulence. This has
happened when live vaccines have been used in under-vaccinated
populations. People given live polio vaccines excrete infectious
poliovirus. If family members are not vaccinated they can become
infected with the vaccine strain and so on. During the days or weeks
when the virus infects multiple people the virus can regain
neurovirulence.

> The "funny" thing about all this "rapid" or "constant" mutation is that
> "HIV" is so good at mutating in a way that ends up being beneficial for
> the drug companies.  Funny how that works out.  I'm a bit cynical though.

There is nothing funny or "funny" about drug resistance in
tuberculosis. If you want to be cynical you might see this as being
beneficial for drug companies. I see it as a major problem for the
world.

RNA viruses have mutation rates (per base pair per replication) around
a million times higher than bacteria This is not a special trick. the
error correction mechanisms in eukaryotic organisms that reduce the
mutation rate are the special trick.

High mutation rates are observed in poliovirus, influenza virus etc.
You are setting yourself up against vast bodies of scientific
literature if you reject this.

On the other hand you can believe Iconoclaster with his "because I say
so"  and everybody else is a "dumbfuck" or a "village idiot".

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 02:51 GMT
>"There is nothing deliberate or puposeful about evolution no matter how
much Creationists will try to confuse you."

Helloooo!  We're over here.  And the Creationists are... well, over there
somewhere.  Who's talking about strawman arguments?

>"It is very inconvenient for polio. The high mutation rate of poliovirus
means that live vaccines can sometimes regain neurovirulence. This has
happened when live vaccines have been used in under-vaccinated
populations."

Don't even go there.  You're opening a can of worms.  Polio vaccines are
more controversial than the war in Iraq.  It was quite a race, half a
century ago, to come out with the first vaccine.  And the devil may know
what they put in there. In any case, there were a lot of dead people.
Funny they try to explain the moneygrabbing away again now with a wild
mutation theory.
Polio virus has only a puny genome, compared to flu viruses.  So don't
expect any miracles, mutation-wise.  But in your beloved cell cultures...
Oh yes, especially in a soup enriched with mitogens and mutagens anything
is possible.

>"There is nothing funny or "funny" about drug resistance in tuberculosis.
"

No, that's right.  There isn't.  But <oh please, don't let this be!>  you
don't really want to compare drug resistance in tuberculosis with what
certain idiots call "drug resistance of HIV", no?
Please, Mr. Noble!  Please don't let me believe you're that dumb!
Bacteria are real micro-organisms.  They have their own metabolism, and
the drugs that are used attack the bacteria directly.  Now the same story
you told, so very inappropriately, about Polio and HIV, does apply to
bacteria.  If they get a chance to mutate before they are all eradicated,
it may happen by chance that a mutant materializes that is resistant to
the drug that is killing off its friends.
But a virus is NOT a micro-organism.  Has no metabolism, and cannot be
attacked by the drugs. The drugs work at the level of the host cell, and
cause more harm there than discomfort to the virus.  And the virus can
mutate its a.s off, but it won't make any difference to the cell mechanism
that's supposed to help it replicate.  So a "drug-resistent virus" is a
joke.
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 06:01 GMT
> >"There is nothing deliberate or puposeful about evolution no matter how
> much Creationists will try to confuse you."
>
> Helloooo!  We're over here.  And the Creationists are... well, over there
> somewhere.  Who's talking about strawman arguments?

You use exactly the same arguments against evolution and science as
Creationists. I am saying you are a Creationist just that your tactics
are similar.

> >"It is very inconvenient for polio. The high mutation rate of poliovirus
> means that live vaccines can sometimes regain neurovirulence. This has
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Oh yes, especially in a soup enriched with mitogens and mutagens anything
> is possible.

What is it about the term "spontaneous mutation rate" that you don't
understand. The experimental results that I have cited many times do
not use mutagens to enhance the mutation rate.

http://tinyurl.com/c67nn

> >"There is nothing funny or "funny" about drug resistance in tuberculosis.
> "
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> that's supposed to help it replicate.  So a "drug-resistent virus" is a
> joke.

The only joke is you. Have you managed to convince any of your former
colleagues at Leiden about this?

I will attempt to explain it slowly enough.

Viruses have enymes such as reverse transcriptase that are vital for
replication.

Drugs like AZT are nucleoside analogs that work by competively binding
to the active site of RT. They then stop further transcription.

Retroviruses (and poliovirus) exist as a quasispecies. That means that
in a given population of virions there will be a large number of
mutants all centred around a consensus sequence. This means that some
virions will have an inactive RT enzyme. These virions will not
reproduce and their mutations will not be selected for. Other virions
will have mutations in the RT gene that maintain activity. Some virions
may have a mutation that modifies the active site of the enzyme so that
the the nucleoside binds with a higher affinity than the
nucleoside-analog. This mutation will be selected for when this
nucleoside-analog is used as an ARV. This is not rocket science. It is
just common sense.

In science what really counts is experimental evidence and replication.

You can order a series of drug resistant HIV samples and test them
yourself.

http://www.aidsreagent.org/

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 02:22 GMT
>"Viruses like poliovirus and HIV operate very close to the error
threshold. They still produce enough viable virions to maintain infection
but they also produce a wide variety of mutations to ensure a
high evolution rate."

Oof!  There may be something to it in the case of Polio.  But for HIV (OK,
that doesn't exist, but let's say: A retrovirus)?  Only someone with the
irrational stance of an HIV apologist would have the nerve to compare
Polio with HIV.  Polio merrily reproduces, and produces lots of virus
particles.  But a retrovirus produces a proviral DNA that gets integrated
into the genome of the cell.  The main reproduction method of retroviruses
is vertical, through mitosis, from mother to daughter cell.
But that's the trouble with HIV.  Because it doesn't have a personality of
its own, they must borrow all kinds of behavior from other (unrelated)
viruses.
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 03:21 GMT
> >"Viruses like poliovirus and HIV operate very close to the error
> threshold. They still produce enough viable virions to maintain infection
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> its own, they must borrow all kinds of behavior from other (unrelated)
> viruses.

All RNA viruses have high mutation rates. HIV does not have to borrow
anything from other viruses. No virus has a personality except in
strawman arguments from Denialists.

All RNA viruses have high mutation rates simply because they have no
proof-reading mechanisms.

Only a twit like you would try to deny such a blatantly obvious fact.

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 01:56 GMT
>"What is the error rate for reverse transcriptase?"

Right.  And what makes you think any of these mutants are viable, or even
produce <hahahaha!> "drug-resistant strains", or <groan> a "super-virus"?
Death - 07 Feb 2006 03:14 GMT
"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message

Someone asked

> >"What is the error rate for reverse transcriptase?"
>
> Right.  And what makes you think any of these mutants are viable, or even
> produce <hahahaha!> "drug-resistant strains", or <groan> a "super-virus"?

(HIV) infections are characterized by a high degree of viral variation. The genetic variation
is thought to be a combined effect of a ~high error rate~ of reverse transcriptase,
viral genomic recombination,
the selection forces of the human immune system,
the requirement for growth in multiple cell types during pathogenesis,
and persistent immune activation associated with HIV disease.

This hypermutability gives the virus an ability to escape mechanisms of innate immune
surveillance and therapeutic interventions.
Chris Noble - 03 Feb 2006 03:27 GMT
> >"RNA viruses don't generally mutate."
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The frequent mutation-on-demand of a retrovirus (as is claimed for HIV) is
> something only the village idiot could believe in.

You mean "village idiots" like Howard Temin?

I have provided you with several papers showing that the mutation rate
in HIV is similar to other RNA viruses such as influenza and polio. So
far your entire reply has been "Is not".

> >"No virus varies significantly in size."
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> membrane and maybe some other cell material with them when they bud fom
> the cell.

Maybe you have no idea about the way enevloped viruses are formed. You
have not demonstrated that you have any idea. I have provided
references showing experimental evidence that at least 3 retroviruses
other than HIV vary significantly in size. Your reply "is not".

> >"claiming that HIV particles are transport vesicles."
>
> There are no HIV particles, not even on Mars.  What is branded about is
> images of transport vesicles.

Vesicles with gp120 spikes and opaque cone shaped RNA contating cores?
Can you show me an EM of vesicles with these characteristics from a
non-HIV (and HTLV-I/II) infected culture?

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 01:51 GMT
>"You mean "village idiots" like Howard Temin?"

I don't think it's your place to even mention the name of Howard Temin.

>"I have provided you with several papers showing that the mutation rate
in HIV is similar to other RNA viruses such as influenza and polio."

It's impossible you have shown me papers that demonstrate the mutation
rate of a virus nobody has ever isolated.  I remember what you showed me,
but it was just the usual crap.

>"I have provided references showing experimental evidence that at least 3
retroviruses other than HIV vary significantly in size. Your reply "is
not"."

Vary in size from each other?  Quite possible.  But not within one and the
same species.  But, as I mentioned, the cores take membrane- and other
material with them in their envelope when they bud from the cell.  And
with 2 capsids in one envelope, the total may be a little bigger.  But the
capsids must always be the same size.

>"Vesicles with gp120 spikes and opaque cone shaped RNA contating cores?
Can you show me an EM of vesicles with these characteristics from a
non-HIV (and HTLV-I/II) infected culture?"

No.  But can you show me an EM of HIV with gp120 spikes and opaque cone
shaped RNA-containing cores?  Why don't you guys just admit you don't know
what the hell's going on in your cultures?
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 03:18 GMT
> >"You mean "village idiots" like Howard Temin?"
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> rate of a virus nobody has ever isolated.  I remember what you showed me,
> but it was just the usual crap.

You haven't read the citations or you are being dishonest.

> >"I have provided references showing experimental evidence that at least 3
> retroviruses other than HIV vary significantly in size. Your reply "is
> not"."
>
> Vary in size from each other?  Quite possible.  But not within one and the
> same species.

That is exactly what the papers showed. Individual virions of  Rous
Sarcoma Virus vary significantly in size from each other - the same
species.

You are demonstrating that you have read none of the papers I cited.

> But, as I mentioned, the cores take membrane- and other
> material with them in their envelope when they bud from the cell.  And
> with 2 capsids in one envelope, the total may be a little bigger.  But the
> capsids must always be the same size.

And all swans are white!

> >"Vesicles with gp120 spikes and opaque cone shaped RNA contating cores?
> Can you show me an EM of vesicles with these characteristics from a
> non-HIV (and HTLV-I/II) infected culture?"
>
> No.

That is because vesicles don't look like this. You have absolutely no
evidence to support your claims.

> But can you show me an EM of HIV with gp120 spikes and opaque cone
> shaped RNA-containing cores?  Why don't you guys just admit you don't know
> what the hell's going on in your cultures?

There were some in the papers I cited.

Again you are being dishonest.

Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 03 Feb 2006 05:27 GMT
> >"RNA viruses don't generally mutate."
>
> That's not what I stated.

But it is what you stated.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/c561e316f7f32a6c?dmode=source

"Viruses DON't generally mutate."

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 02:08 GMT
You only picked out the part that suits you, Mr. Noble. The complete quote
is:

"Viruses DON't generally mutate.  You can get them to do that in the lab,
but in vivo there is no real evidence that it happens."

Most viruses (also RNA viruses) are genetically very stable.  There may be
several strains of one and the same virus, but the idea of a
mutation-happy virus that mutates to avoid therapeutic drugs is so funny
it will be the death of me.
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 06:00 GMT
> You only picked out the part that suits you, Mr. Noble. The complete quote
> is:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Most viruses (also RNA viruses) are genetically very stable.

You still either fail to grasp the distinction between mutation rate
and evolution rate. A high mutation rate does not necessarily mean a
high evolution rate. Plants do not have an active immune system. Plant
viruses are not under the same evolutionary pressure.

RNA viruses such as polio and influenza have high evolution rates. I am
talking about genetic drift/point mutations not genetic
shift/rearrangements.

Neuraminidase and hemagglutinin genes of influenza and  the vp1 gene of
poliovirus have evolution rates of around 1-2% per year. Genomes that
vary by 1-2% per year are not genetically stable.

http://tinyurl.com/e3z3y

"Polioviruses are among the most rapidly evolving viruses known. The
most important mechanism for the rapid evolution of RNA viruses is a
high rate of base misincorporation by the viral RNA polymerases, which
generally lack 35 exonuclease proofreading mechanisms (8, 9).
Base misincorporation rates in the range of 105 to 104 per base
pair per replication have been reported for numerous poliovirus alleles
(7, 9, 44). The high mutability of poliovirus genomes, coupled with the
frequent occurrence of genetic bottlenecks (8) during poliovirus
replication in the human intestine (21, 31), results in exceptionally
rapid rates of evolution (102 substitutions per site per year)
during person-to-person transmission (J. Jorba, L. De, J. Kim, and O.
M. Kew, Abstr. 18th Annu. Meet. Am. Soc. Virol., p. 148, 1999). Most of
this evolution appears to be random genetic drift, as >80% of
nucleotide substitutions within the coding region generate synonymous
codons (14, 31, 36, 40; Jorba et al., Abstr. 18th Annu. Meet. Am. Soc.
Virol., 1999)."

> There may be several strains of one and the same virus, but the idea of a
> mutation-happy virus that mutates to avoid therapeutic drugs is so funny
> it will be the death of me.

Here we go with the Creationist type strawmen again. Viruses do not
mutate with any purpose. The mutations are essentially random. Some
mutations for instance ones that give the active site of RT a greater
affinity for the natural nucleoside rather than the nucleoside-analog
will be selected for by the pressure of ARV treatment.

Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 03 Feb 2006 05:27 GMT
> >"RNA viruses don't generally mutate."
>
> That's not what I stated.

But it is what you stated.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/c561e316f7f32a6c?dmode=source

"Viruses DON't generally mutate."

Chris Noble
GMCarter - 03 Feb 2006 13:15 GMT
snip
>>"No virus varies significantly in size."
>
>That's correct.  

Demonstrably untrue. God, you are SOO f.cking STUPID!

>>"claiming that HIV particles are transport vesicles."
>
>There are no HIV particles, not even on Mars.  What is branded about is
>images of transport vesicles.

So--by all means. Show us some photos and citations that support this
ludicrous claim.

        George M. Carter
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 01:18 GMT
>"Demonstrably untrue. God, you are SOO f.cking STUPID!"

Well, then demonstrate, Mr. Carter.

>"So--by all means. Show us some photos and citations that support this
ludicrous claim."

About what?  That there are no HIV particles on Mars?  Well, the last time
NASA showed us pictures of Mars, I didn't see any HIV particles.
Or, maybe, you mean particles budding from a cell membrane?  They are
always vesicles, until YOU prove otherwise.
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 01:22 GMT
> >"Demonstrably untrue. God, you are SOO f.cking STUPID!"
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Or, maybe, you mean particles budding from a cell membrane?  They are
> always vesicles, until YOU prove otherwise.

Can Iconoclaster show us an electron micrograph of a vesicle that has a
conical core and gp120 spikes?

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 07 Feb 2006 03:02 GMT
>"Can Iconoclaster show us an electron micrograph of a vesicle that has a
conical core and gp120 spikes?"

What's happening?  I got the same question from George Carter.  Did he cry
on your shoulder, or on your pillow?  My answer, in case you missed it,
is:
NO.

(But can you show me an EM of an HIV virion with gp120 spikes and a
conical core?)
Chris Noble - 07 Feb 2006 04:02 GMT
> >"Can Iconoclaster show us an electron micrograph of a vesicle that has a
> conical core and gp120 spikes?"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is:
> NO.

In that case you have absolutely no basis for claiming that the EMs
that have been shown to you many times are simply of vesicles.

> (But can you show me an EM of an HIV virion with gp120 spikes and a
> conical core?)

Yes. I have posted this reference many, many times. Read it look at
figure 2. Look at virions with spikes and conical cores.

http://tinyurl.com/82udz

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 31 Jan 2006 23:48 GMT
>"ALL USE AZT IN THE SAME DOSE - ie 600mg/d."

Right.  Where did I ever claim anything different?  It's stupid, but yes,
they still include 600 mg daily of AZT, and they always will, even if they
add 99 other drugs.  And, according to your kind of reasoning, 100 drugs
must be better than 99.

So you thought I wouldn't answer, huh?  Please tell me, in what respect
are 3 drugs better than 2?  Does the patient feel better?  Oh, no!  You
and the doctors who perform these infernal clinical experiments on their
patients don't give a sh.t.  The well-being of the patient is unimportant,
as long as his CD4 level goes up and his Viral Load goes down.  THAT's
what is considered  "a good result".  And if these artificial markers
don't do what is expected, the boneheads start to talk about a
"drug-resistant" mutant.  And that's so profoundly stupid that the old
Alchemists did sensible work by comparison.
But anyhow, since HAART, less patients die from AIDS-like diseases, caused
by AZT, anymore.  They now die of liver failure.  Have we made progress?
Chris Noble - 01 Feb 2006 00:20 GMT
> >"ALL USE AZT IN THE SAME DOSE - ie 600mg/d."
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> So you thought I wouldn't answer, huh?  Please tell me, in what respect
> are 3 drugs better than 2?  Does the patient feel better?

The patient is alive. The studies posted show increased *survival* when
the number of drugs is increased.

> Oh, no!  You
> and the doctors who perform these infernal clinical experiments on their
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> don't do what is expected, the boneheads start to talk about a
> "drug-resistant" mutant.

Increased survival is not an "artificial marker".

Read the studies or shut up.

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 01 Feb 2006 00:58 GMT
>"Increased survival is not an "artificial marker".

Indeed it isn't.  But do you really believe that's what's happening on
these drug cocktails?  Ever heard of "grade 4 events"?
Chris Noble - 01 Feb 2006 01:23 GMT
> >"Increased survival is not an "artificial marker".
>
> Indeed it isn't.  But do you really believe that's what's happening on
> these drug cocktails?  Ever heard of "grade 4 events"?

Read the studies and comment on the findings or shut up!

Chris Noble
Iconoclaster - 03 Feb 2006 00:53 GMT
>"Read the studies and comment on the findings or shut up!"

I've read enough studies on the subject.  They're covering up the grade 4
events, while they are as important as the AIDS events.
wilyretrovirus - 01 Feb 2006 01:40 GMT
Iconoclaster,
can you define for us "grade 4 events"?
Death - 01 Feb 2006 05:41 GMT
"wilyretrovirus" <purfling@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

> can you define for us "grade 4 events"?

Liver Adverse Events are Most Common in HIV

 Grade 4 Events Are as Important as AIDS Events in the Era of HAART

AIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2003; 34(4):379-386

Ronald B. Reisler, MD, MPH; Cong Han, PhD; William J. Burman, MD; Ellen M. Tedaldi, MD; James
D. Neaton, PhD

From the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (Dr Reisler);
University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Dr Han); Denver Public Health Department, University of
Colorado, Denver, CO (Dr Burman); Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA (Dr Tedaldi);
and University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN (Dr Neaton).

ABSTRACT

Objective: To estimate incidence and predictors of serious or life-threatening events that are
not AIDS defining, AIDS events, and death among patients treated with highly active
antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the setting of 5 large multicenter randomized treatment
trials conducted in the United States.

Methods: Data were analyzed from 2947 patients enrolled from December 1996 through December
2001. All patients were to receive antiretrovirals throughout follow-up. Data collection was
uniform for all main outcome measures: serious or life-threatening (grade 4) events, AIDS, and
death.

Results: During follow-up, 675 patients experienced a grade 4 event (11.4 per 100
person-years); 332 developed an AIDS event (5.6 per 100 person-years); and 272 died (4.6 per
100 person-years). The most common grade 4 events were liver related (148 patients, 2.6 per 100
person-years). Cardiovascular events were associated with the greatest risk of death (hazard
ratio = 8.64; 95% CI: 5.1 to 14.5). The first grade 4 event and the first AIDS event were
associated with similar risks of death, 5.68 and 6.95, respectively.

The most common grade 4 events were: liver related (148 patients; rate = 2.6 per 100 person
years); neutropenia (89; 1.5/100 person-year); anemia (64; 1.1/100 person-year); cardiovascular
(51; 0.89/100 person-year); pancreatitis (50; 0.85/100 person-year); psychiatric (44; 0.75/100
person-year); kidney-related (34; 0.58/100 person-year); thrombocytopenia (32; 0.54/100
person-year); and hemorrhage (25; 0.42/100 person-year).

The findings for patients coinfected with hepatitis B and/or C emphasize the importance of
evaluating comorbidities. Patients coinfected with hepatitis B and/or C have higher incidence
rates of grade 4 liver events. In multivariate analyses for these patients who were all
prescribed HAART, hepatitis B and/or C coinfection was the only significant predictor of grade
4 liver events, the most common grade 4 event seen in this cohort. It is possible that the
risks and benefits of HAART therapy on morbidity and mortality are different among patients
with these coinfections.

There is a need to carefully assess comorbid conditions, socioeconomic status, recreational
drug and alcohol use, and concomitant medications at baseline and throughout follow-up. If
therapy could be optimized to reduce the incidence of these serious or life-threatening events
by even a modest amount, the impact on morbidity and mortality would be great. For example,
patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events might benefit from being placed on a
protease inhibitor-sparing HAART regimen. Similarly, patients with a history of severe
depression may be better off with an efavirenz-sparing HAART regimen.

Our finding that African American race was associated with an increased risk of renal events
illustrates the difficulty in attribution of adverse events to HAART outside of the context of
a randomized trial. It is well established that blacks have a higher risk of renal failure than
whites in the US population.81 Whether HAART exacerbates this risk is uncertain. If it does,
and we know that some specific drugs have been associated with acute renal changes (e.g.,
adefovir),82 then this would be an important consideration for risk stratification for starting
or maintaining ART.

Conclusions:

Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART. To adequately evaluate the
impact of HAART on morbidity, comorbidities and other key factors must be carefully assessed.

BACKGROUND

The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and an improved understanding
of HIV-1 viral dynamics led to a dramatic decline in US AIDS-related morbidity and mortality
beginning in 1996. This dramatic decline, together with the hope that HIV could be eradicated,
led clinicians and HIV treatment guideline committees to adopt an aggressive strategy in
treating HIV,6 focusing primarily on the benefits of HAART: "hit early, hit hard." However, as
current antiretroviral therapy is unable to eradicate HIV,8 and is associated with increased
toxicities, HIV treatment guideline committees have recently adopted a less aggressive set of
guidelines for treating HIV.

All 4 classes of antiretrovirals (ARVs) and all 19 Food and Drug Administration-approved ARVs
have been directly or indirectly associated with life-threatening events and death. However,
the cause of many serious or life-threatening events is multifactorial and clear attribution to
the use of HAART, specific ARV drugs, HIV infection, or other factors is frequently not
possible. Potential risk factors for the development of life-threatening clinical events among
HIV-infected individuals on HAART include HIV virus-host interactions, stage of HIV disease,
ARV drugs, genetic predisposition, age, comorbid conditions, coinfections (e.g., hepatitis B or
hepatitis C), concomitant medications, nutritional status, recreational drugs and alcohol,
other social behaviors and practices, and physician experience.

The short-term toxicities and benefits of HAART have been well described in the setting of
clinical trials; however, data quantifying morbidity in the era of HAART are limited. We
therefore estimated the incidence and determinants of serious or life-threatening events that
are not AIDS defining, AIDS events, and death among patients treated with HAART in the setting
of 5 large multicenter randomized treatment trials conducted in the United States.

METHODS

Study Population

The Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (CPCRA) is a National
Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials group that conducts research through a national
network of community-based clinical sites. The trials were conducted in 18 community-based
units located in 16 cities throughout the United States: Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA;
Detroit, MI; New York, NY; Portland, OR; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; New Haven, CT; Newark, NJ;
Camden, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; Albuquerque, NM; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; and
Richmond, VA. Each unit provides HIV primary care but differs in its configuration, varying
from geographically limited, hospital clinic-based units to geographically widespread units
with a variety of hospital-based, private practice, community health care, and health
maintenance organization providers.

Patients participating in 1 of 5 CPCRA clinical trials formed the cohort for this
investigation. These trials were chosen because they used a common system for collection of
adverse events and AIDS events, and in all studies patients were to receive antiretroviral
therapy (ART) throughout follow-up. Two studies were comparisons of initial HAART regimens
(NvR: CPCRA 042 and FIRST: CPCRA 058); one study evaluated the effect of stopping prophylaxis
for MAC (Mycobacterium Avium Complex) (CR-MAC-CPCRA 048); one study evaluated the effect of
interleukin-2 (IL-2) on viral load and CD4 cell count (IL-2: CPCRA 059)68; and another study
(MDR: CPCRA 064) is evaluating the effect of a 4-month interruption of ART on clinical
progression. For the latter 2 studies, only patients enrolled in the control groups (i.e., the
group without IL-2 in CPCRA 059 and the group assigned to receive continuous ART in CPCRA 064)
were used in these analyses.

For these analyses, grade 4 events are defined as non-AIDS-related events considered severe or
life threatening (i.e., meeting grade 4 severity status). Grade 4 events included laboratory
abnormalities, clinical signs and symptoms, diseases, and clinical syndromes. In the case of
grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, specific criteria for grade 4 severity is specified in a
toxicity manual devised by the Division of AIDS, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, National Institutes of Health. For many clinical conditions, specific criteria for
defining grade 4 severity are stated in the manual. In some cases clinical judgment was used to
determine the severity grade. In such cases, the following guideline was given to characterize
a grade 4 event: "extreme limitation in activity-significant assistance required; significant
medical intervention/therapy required, hospitalization or hospice care possible." For the sake
of this analysis, we have presented the most common grade 4 events and have grouped them
accordingly: cardiovascular events were grouped to include cardiac or vascular events (i.e.,
cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, deep vein thrombosis,
pulmonary embolism, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, and splenic infarct);
kidney-related events were grouped to include kidney failure, grade 4 elevation in serum
creatinine (>6 x upper level of normal [ULN]), and HIV-related nephropathy; hemorrhage events
were grouped to include gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding (at an unspecified location), nose
bleeding, and hematuria (gross); liver-related events were grouped to include grade 4
transaminase elevations (>10? ULN), grade 4 elevations of bilirubin (>5 x ULN), clinical
hepatitis, fulminant hepatitis, liver failure, toxic hepatitis, cirrhosis, fatty liver, hepatic
encephalopathy, and liver disorder/disease; pancreatitis events were grouped by grade 4
elevation of amylase (>5 x ULN), grade 4 elevation of lipase (>5 x ULN), and clinical
pancreatitis; thrombocytopenia events included grade 4 diminution of platelets (<20,000/mm3)
and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura; psychiatric events included suicide attempt, suicidal
ideation, hallucinations, depression, anxiety/panic attack, delirium, psychosis, paranoia,
bipolar disorder, and manic hyperactivity/agitation; grade 4 anemia is defined as diminution of
hemoglobin < 6.5 g/dL ; and grade 4 neutropenia is defined as absolute neutrophil count <500
/mm3.

Importantly, according to protocol, any event considered to be grade 4 in severity was to be
reported irrespective of the relationship to the treatments under investigation and
irrespective of any other medications taken concomitantly. Grade 4 events were to be reported
even if study treatments had been temporarily discontinued. All grade 4 events were reported,
not just the first to occur. At minimum, patients were to be seen every 4 months during
follow-up. Grade 4 events were centrally reviewed by a nurse who coded the event according to a
coding system based on the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases.

We performed a subset analysis with regard to liver events, attempting to see whether chronic
viral hepatitis co-infection impacted on grade 4 liver events, grade 4 events overall, AIDS
events, and death. In the serology analysis, we limited our analysis to the 3 studies that
collected hepatitis serology at baseline: CPCRA 058, CPCRA 059, and CPCRA 064. In these 3
studies, serology for hepatitis B (hepatitis B surface antigen) and hepatitis C (hepatitis C
antibody) infection was performed at baseline. This analysis reflects 1628 patients from these
3 studies with baseline serologies that were treated with ART. The serology data were collected
uniformly in these 3 studies, although the assay methodology varied by site and over time. We
do not attempt to compare this subset to the overall group. To facilitate the analysis of the
impact of chronic viral hepatitis coinfection on the incidence of grade 4 events, mortality,
and AIDS, in the serology cohort, we considered hepatitis B and hepatitis C together.

RESULTS

Between December 1996 and December 2001, 2947 patients with a diagnosis of HIV infection were
enrolled into 1 of 5 CPCRA clinical trials defining the cohort for this analysis. Patient's
clinical status ranged from relatively early HIV disease to advanced HIV disease. Fifty-three
percent of patients were ARV naive, and 47% were treatment experienced at the time of
enrollment. Average age was 39.3 years; 83% were male and 17% were female; 41.5% were white,
44.8% were African American, and 13.7% were Latino. Approximately 16% of patients reported a
history of injection drug use, and 55% reported homosexual activity as an HIV risk factor. CD4+
cell count averaged 211 cells/mm3 (interquartile range: 38-322 cells/mm3), and 40.0% had a
prior clinical AIDS diagnosis.

All patients in this cohort were prescribed ART following enrollment. At 12 months of
follow-up, 1951/2120 (92%) were prescribed ART with 1475/2120 (70%) on protease inhibitor-based
regimens, 421/2120 (20%) on nonnucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based regimens (no
protease inhibitor), and 55/2120 (3%) solely on nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitors.
Thus, at 12 months, 169/2120 (8%) had either temporarily or permanently discontinued ART.

Median follow-up was 20.7 months (interquartile range: 13.3-32.3 months), a total of 5940
person-years. During follow-up, 675 patients experienced a grade 4 event (11.4 per 100
person-years); 332 developed an AIDS event (5.6 per 100 person-years); and 272