 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2006Problems with routine HIV testing the low risk population.
drdach wrote: Problem is that by routine testing the low risk population (non-iv drug user heterosexuals) we are uncovering HIV positive people who never get sick and don't have a disease, called Elite Controllers. We know from experience that when you notify people in low risk groups that they have HIV, they are fired from their jobs, cant get health insurance, ostracized from the community and some commit suicide. Considering this kind of downside to uncovering this information, it is not valuable. It is harmful . By the way, after 20 years of HIV research, there has never been a documented case (in the medical literature) of HIV or AIDS disease transmitted from Elite Controller to another person (spouse or partner) through heterosexual contact, so the idea that by testing these people we will reduce transmission rate is false. There is no transmission risk from Elite Controllers. In addition, heterosexual transmission between couples is actually quite rare and may never happen after many years of contact in some couples as reported by Dr. MacGregor, Horsburgh and Levy: (see references below) MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7. Horsburgh CR et al. Concordance of polymerase chain reaction with HIV antibody detection. J Infect Dis. 1990 Aug;162:542-5. Levy JA. The transmission of AIDS: the case of the infected cell. JAMA. 1988;259(20):3037-8. Regards from www.drdach.com jdach <drdach@drdach.com> a écrit dans le message : 1159181119.075974.198640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > drdach wrote: > > There is no transmission risk from Elite > Controllers. There's no transmission risk from anybody else either. HIV is a scam. > jdach <drdach@drdach.com> a écrit dans le message : > 1159181119.075974.198640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > drdach wrote: > > There is no transmission risk from Elite Controllers. > There's no transmission risk from anybody else either. HIV is a scam. Reply from drdach: What you are trying to say in your brief sentence is that although AIDS is a real medical problem and people die from this illness, you believe there is no real predictive value of the HIV antibody test to predict who will die of the AIDS syndrome. For example, we know from the medical literature that there are people who die from AIDS who are HIV negative. And there are people who are HIV positive who never get sick and dont get AIDS (most of these are Elite Controllers who never take HIV drugs). (references available upon request) You actually have a valid point. regards from wwww.drdach.com >... You actually have a >valid point. Oh. Another f.cking braindead denialist. Why am I not surprised? > > You actually have a > > valid point. > Oh. Another f.cking braindead denialist. > Why am I not surprised? drdach reply: Perhaps you would like to share with our readers any factual information to support your statment or is this a creation of your imagination like most of your other statements? Or perhaps your statements are based on a belief system and you have no factual data from peer review medical sources that you can share with our readers I stand by my statements: The heterosexual AIDS epidemic which was predicted for the last 20 years never materialized. After 20 years, the NIH spent 100 billion dollars of government funded AIDS research. The results: not a single AIDS case cured. Time to think about spending the money elsewhere. Perhaps you disagree and have factual information in the peer review medical literature to show otherwise. Or perhaps you are again relying on imagininary thinking. regards from drdach.com. You stand by your statements, but you include several logical fallacies, particularly favouring the straw man I see. > I stand by my statements: The heterosexual AIDS epidemic which was > predicted for the last 20 years never materialized. Well the thousands of infected heterosexuals in the west with HIV might disagree, but what is the relevance of scale? Firstly, the preventive measures and scare tactics employed in the West to warn off people certainly had an impact - witness the enormous boom in condom use, for one. Secondly, are you saying that if a proposed infective agent infects a smaller number of people than epidemiologists first feared it might, that this is in some way proof that the agent is not infectious? - (sorry, you don't need to answer that, I see that you are) >After 20 years, > the NIH spent 100 billion dollars of government funded AIDS research. > The results: not a single AIDS case cured. Time to think about > spending the money elsewhere. Again, does the amount of money change the facts? There is still no cure for dozens of infections, including the most disruptive virus known to global economics (the rhinovirus) despite plenty of effort and expense. In fact with HIV there has been a turn around from an almost universally fatal disease within 10 years to a manageable disease not inconsistent with normal life expectancy, all within a couple of decades of science starting to treat the condition. These are results that many other medical specialties would love to have achieved when looking at their diseases such as stroke, diabetes, leukemia, cancer etc. Of course you think that because there is currently no "cure", that means there is no HIV? Preposterous and irrational conclusions. >Perhaps you disagree and have factual > information in the peer review medical literature to show otherwise. > Or perhaps you are again relying on imagininary thinking. > regards from drdach.com. Perhaps you could spend some of your time perusing previous threads, or some other web sites where you will find more than sufficient evidence to convince anyone with any critical faculties that this disease is real. Denialists constantly request more data/evidence to refute their claims - we get tired of pointing out that we have often provided precisley that very same requested evidence to the same denialist previously - they then go to ground for a while until they think the coast is clear, and then start demanding answers to the same questions again when they think they have a different audience to play with. The reason is that they don't really want to gain knowlege or alter their views in the light of new information, merely to deny, and deny again. Alex is a past master at this. I don't know how often he uses data that is 20 years old to try and make a poit - each time he is directed to newer, more validated and more accurate information he develops mental block. > You stand by your statements, but you include several logical > fallacies, particularly favouring the straw man I see. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > might, that this is in some way proof that the agent is not infectious? > - (sorry, you don't need to answer that, I see that you are) drdach replies: Are you making the statement that there is a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the USA? Or are you agreeing that there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and after 20 years of predictions it never materialized. Our readers would like to know your position on this. My position is clear. What's yours? > >After 20 years, > > the NIH spent 100 billion dollars of government funded AIDS research. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > etc. Of course you think that because there is currently no "cure", > that means there is no HIV? Preposterous and irrational conclusions. drdach replies: There has been a steady 1 million HIV cases reported each year and a steady 16 to 17 thousand deaths from AIDS each year reported by the CDC. This is a steady number, not a turnaround. To call this a turnaround is a very long stretch of the imagination. After 20 years of AIDS research, there has not been a single AIDS case cured. Do you actually disagree with this statement? Some of the NIH funded 8 billion a year AIDS research money could be better spent feeding and sheltering the homeless. > >Perhaps you disagree and have factual > > information in the peer review medical literature to show otherwise. > > Or perhaps you are again relying on imagininary thinking. > > regards from drdach.com. > Perhaps you could spend some of your time perusing previous threads, or > some other web sites where you will find more than sufficient evidence [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > newer, more validated and more accurate information he develops mental > block. drdach replies: Sorry not able to follow your rambling here. If you have a point please try to make it succinctly. regards from ww.drdach.com > > You stand by your statements, but you include several logical > > fallacies, particularly favouring the straw man I see. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > readers would like to know your position on this. My position is > clear. What's yours? What do you define as an epidemic? My position is that there is a heterosexual epidemic. This may be less than originally predicted, because of several reasons, which for the sake of "succinctness" I will not dwell on. Any infection that can result in over 160000 cases of AIDS in the USA within 20 years is in my book an epidemic. Taking HIV infection alone, there were 12500 cases of infection in 2004 alone through heterosexual transmission. Your position is not clear - are you trying to imply that the numbers do not constitute an epidemic, or that the scale is in itself insufficient to support an infectious origin? > > >After 20 years, > > > the NIH spent 100 billion dollars of government funded AIDS research. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > CDC. This is a steady number, not a turnaround. To call this a > turnaround is a very long stretch of the imagination. You clearly know little about how infections spread within populations. If every infection incidence curve followed an exponential rise, the human race would not exist. First you say the numbers, rising from zero, do not constitute an epidemic, now you expect the number of new cases to keep on and on rising, something that is inconsistent even with epidemics that are left to burn themselves out, never mind the impact of major initiatives on prevention and treatment which will have a radical impact. > After 20 years of AIDS research, there has not been a single AIDS case > cured. Do you actually disagree with this statement? No, but do you disagree with my statement that HIV is only one of hundreds of infections and medical conditions for which there is no cure, only successful treatment? > Some of the NIH funded 8 billion a year AIDS research money could be > better spent feeding and sheltering the homeless. Agreed, some of it could. So could the billions spent on the war in Iraq, or space exploration, or whatever your bete noir of the moment might be. At least HIV research has led to treatments that have reduced the AIDS mortality from 40% annually to 4%. What has NASA ever done that has helped save anyone's life? > > >Perhaps you disagree and have factual > > > information in the peer review medical literature to show otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > regards from ww.drdach.com "DavidT" <david199@volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > > > I stand by my statements: The heterosexual AIDS epidemic which was > > > > predicted for the last 20 years never materialized. > > > > > > Well the thousands of infected heterosexuals in the west with HIV might > > > disagree, ... Well lets agree shall we, to understand the English language. A) Endemic: a dis-ease that exists permanently in a particular region or population. B) Epidemic: An outbreak of dis-ease that attacks many peoples at about the same time and may spread through one or several communities. C) Pandemic: When a dis-ease spreads throughout the world. >> > You actually have a >> > valid point. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I stand by my statements: The heterosexual AIDS epidemic which was >predicted for the last 20 years never materialized. So you're a denialist with a Fumiento fetish. How does someone like you get to be called "doctor" anyway and be so numbingly, stunningly brain dead? George M. Carter > >> > You actually have a > >> > valid point. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > George M. Carter reply from drdach: I must apologize for threatening your fragile belief system. Perhaps you have an actual comment to make, or perhaps you have no more comments and now must resort to childish insults. If you must make childish insults, at least make up some good ones and try not to be so boring. Fomentation: Fumiento Noun Deliberate and intentional triggering (of trouble or discord). This really applies to you . Doesnt it? regards from www.drdach.com snip >I must apologize for threatening your fragile belief system. Why do you feel the need to apologize? Because you've amply demonstrated you're an idiot? Sigh. My belief system is based on scientific evidence. Yours is based on random theorizing and dithering. I think my beliefs about HIV and its role in causing AIDS are based on not only science but working with thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS for the past 17 years. >Perhaps >you have an actual comment to make, or perhaps you have no more >comments and now must resort to childish insults. If you must make >childish insults, at least make up some good ones and try not to be so >boring. What's boring is jackanapes like you who dither, spew and babble the most inane nonsense while continually referring to themselves as a "dr." as if that confers some sort of authority. In your case, it most certainly does not. George M. Carter > >I must apologize for threatening your fragile belief system. > Why do you feel the need to apologize? Because you've amply > demonstrated you're an idiot? > Sigh. My belief system is based on scientific evidence. Yours is based > on random theorizing and dithering. I think my beliefs about HIV and > its role in causing AIDS are based on not only science but working > with thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS for the past 17 years. reply from jdach: In what way do you work with AIDS patients? Do you draw their blood, are you a blood tech?. Do you examine them? Do youassist a doctor? Do you talk to them? Are you a social worker? Do you distribute charitable donations to them. Are you a good will worker? Do you work in a hospital, an office or a home? Perhaps you have a web site which lists your past accomplishments. Mine is www.drdach.com. Your readers would like to now more about your involvement with AIDS patients. > >Perhaps you have an actual comment to make, or perhaps you have no more > >comments and now must resort to childish insults. If you must make [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "dr." as if that confers some sort of authority. > In your case, it most certainly does not. reply from jdach: Still trying the childish insults again? If you must be insulting, lets have some really good ones since these so far have been very unimpressive. Sorry the dr threatens you. I have removed it from my name to make you feel more secure. No authority has been requested although it may have been conferred by various medical organizations which have bestowed diplomas and certificates which are on display on the wall of my office as well as publicly displayed on my web site. However, in spite of the many documents, I remain as humble as the day I arrived in medical school in 1976. regards from www.drdach.com > I remain as humble as the day I arrived in medical school >in 1976. Bullshit. You make all sorts of wild a.s claims based on nothing and try to pass yourself off as a doctor and thus some kind of authority. If I feel like it, I may bother to answer all those personal questions you raised--but I don't think you're worth the time. George M. Carter > > I remain as humble as the day I arrived in medical school > >in 1976. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter You are a foul mouthed a.shole Carter. >You are a foul mouthed a.shole Carter. You f.cking bet, you miserable fuckwad! LOL....you pretty much are too, Jannie-pooplet. > > I remain as humble as the day I arrived in medical school > >in 1976. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter drdach reply: No answer for questions about your background? I have posted my background on my web site www.drdach.com. Where is yours? Your readers would like to know why you are hiding your background. regards from www.drdach.com snip >No answer for questions about your background? I have posted my >background on my web site www.drdach.com. Where is yours? Your >readers would like to know why you are hiding your background. I'm not hiding anything. I'm choosing to annoy you by not answering. Besides, I'm sure you'd rather review Fred Shaw's posts and accept his libelous comments, wouldn't you? George M. Carter > In what way do you work with AIDS patients? Do you draw their blood, > are you a blood tech?. Do you examine them? Do youassist a doctor? Do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your past accomplishments. Mine is www.drdach.com. Your readers would > like to now more about your involvement with AIDS patients. Let's see doctor, it is you who has made the claim that you have spent 25 years looking after AIDS patients, so your web site which lists your accomplishments should be able to fill us all in on the details, no....? Hmmm....... Anti-aging medicine???? (Snort!) Radiology... (yeah, plenty of clinical experience in diagnosing and treating HIV patients there, I guess) Come on, you brought the subject up, What precisely is this experience and authority that you have that qualifies you to say anything about HIV? Your web site and CV say nothing about this. My cousin has a diploma in complementary therapies. Does that give her the authority to comment on the role of SPECT scans in lung cancer? > No authority has been requested although it may have been conferred by > various medical organizations which have bestowed diplomas and > certificates which are on display on the wall of my office as well as > publicly displayed on my web site. However, in spite of the many > documents, I remain as humble as the day I arrived in medical school > in 1976. Oh the humility...! > ..................................................What precisely is this experience > and authority that you have that qualifies you to say anything about > HIV? Nobody is qualified to say anything about HIV the way you suggest. The only thing that can be said about HIV is something that needs no other qualifications that a normally functioning brain that doesn't qualify something as being true simply because it's in the newspapers and on TV : HIV is a lie, it's a ghost, it's a way to make money, it's a way to scare the sh.t out of people, it's a way to get rid of the undesired, it's a product of wizard pupils, it's been made up in the minds of people who run for the money, the power and the glory. HIV: if you stop today to believe it exists, it will be gone tomorrow. >> ..................................................What precisely is this experience >> and authority that you have that qualifies you to say anything about >> HIV? > >Nobody is qualified to say anything about HIV the way you suggest. Well, we all agree you're certainly not qualified to say much of anything. Never stopped ya tho! lol... > >> ..................................................What precisely is this experience > >> and authority that you have that qualifies you to say anything about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Never stopped ya tho! lol... Hey Carter, if I were you, I would be hinding away behind the curtains with shame. Or dig a deep hole or start over from scratch in Greenland under another identity. Or something. Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. I think you know what it means. If not, you can look it up. And in case you didn't know: It's never too late to recognize failure. I read the below with great interest. JS http://www.nightsofarmour.com ________________ It seems that you have been hiding a few pieces of baggage from your readers Mr Carter: (see below) http://www.pahealthsystems.com/archive253-2005-6-444458.html from :redrum1@alltel.net 2005-06-12, 11:46 am Carter actually isn't allowed to "think"... pharma wouldn't stand for it. Not for one second, as evidenced by Pharma Ilk Carter, Stein, Canzi, Mailman and others operating from their public relations internet damage control boiler rooms. However, Carter's lies are intended to distance himself and his previous ACT UP co-conspirators from their sordid pasts, when they were paid to solicit victims for the pharma poison squads. The only exception to the ACT UP = PHARMA DEATH rule was, of course, ACT UP San Francisco (see the pharma gang's attacks on AUSF's Pasquarelli, especially after his death to get the true flavor of the compassion professed by Carter et al). Carter says "no, I didn't take pharma money", but the facts remain otherwise. Unfortunately for Carter, he can't go back and destroy every copy of POZ Magazine in which his columns and SPV-30 ads appeared. Would anyone care to guess which industry funded POZ? Carter also refuses to disclose his seemingly endless other financial conflicts of interests involving his Pharma money and his internet "nutriceutical" schemes (NAC, SPV-30, etc., etc.). Then there were all those drug company-paid trips here and there; and various other pharma-funded-and-sponsored opportunites for self-promotion and profit. Some call those "International AIDS Conferences", but by now we know better, don't we? Carter and his "friends" were there. Always. And they NEVER paid their own way. NEVER! The drug companies paid them and the drug companies even orchestrated their "protests", (e.g. the parade of actor-protesters demanding their latest cures in front of the news media - ALL of it was phony). The term "Quizzling" comes to mind. And then there was Carter's crowned jewel - Arkopharma France's SPV-30 and his true one chance to be a hero! Carter admits taking their money, but now brushes it off as if a pittance. He'll only admit that much because he was caught in the act ... again. But Carter lies when he claims that he didn't write the ads for SPV-30. He did. Carter admits "helping" with the distribution of this immune system killer, a confession that Carter refuses to reconcile with all the goodies he received along the way. Carter also downplays the deadly nature of the SPV-30 boxwood extract's high volume of steroidal drug compounds (nearly 70) which were even classified at the time as good candidates for cancer therapy. Similar to tamoxifen, they were highly immunosuppressive, if only by inference understood by even the most casual observer. Yet there Carter was - making money by killing those whose HIV-positive tests left them desperate, lonely and vulnerable to psychopathic predators of Carter's sad ilk - a seemingly endless stream of opportunists who, like roaches, scamper off when light is shed on their handiwork ... and conflicts of interest. That's why Carter's desperation is so obvious - as evidenced by his recent "child molester" ploy and the various other smear campaigns he regularly orchestrates against his tormentors (anyone with common sense and/or science). That's what Carter and his co-workers here are paid to do. That's the job for the Pharma PR boiler rooms who plague Usenet for the purpose of obscuring the truth that is so embarassing and risky to their employers. (Hence the demise of sci.med.aids - the group which was "moderated" by the Pharma PR boiler rooms ... into oblivion). redrumtza snip >Hey Carter, if I were you, I would be hinding away behind the curtains with shame. Or dig >a deep hole or start over from scratch in Greenland under another identity. Or something. LOL...no, repeating libel doesn't make it so, Jannie poo. >Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. Well, learn how to spell, dear. Applicable to Fred Shaw who wrote the article, claiming that I had something to do with ads in POZ. I did not. Indeed, there is an extensive reply to the lies set forth in that post. But like Karl Rove and his ilk, you embrace spreading lies. Like Fred Shaw did. >I think you know what it means. If not, you can look it up. >And in case you didn't know: It's never too late to recognize failure. > >I read the below with great interest. I'm sure you did. You will believe whatever lies support your denialist mindset. George M. Carter > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > George M. Carter Yeah. Once you have choosen for cowardice the only thing left is deny until the end. snip... >Yeah. Once you have choosen for cowardice the only thing left is deny until the end. I'm sorry you see the world that way. > snip... > >Yeah. Once you have choosen for cowardice the only thing left is deny until the end. > > I'm sorry you see the world that way. Not the world, I see YOU that way. >> snip... >> >Yeah. Once you have choosen for cowardice the only thing left is deny until the end. >> >> I'm sorry you see the world that way. >> >Not the world, I see YOU that way. See? Still in denial about me too. Dear jannie-pooplets. What to do? snip >http://www.pahealthsystems.com/archive253-2005-6-444458.html And of course, the great thing about this URL is that one can read my replies to Mr. Shaw's libel. George M. Carter ** Typical froldet histrionics, and rather pathetic. Fact is, Frod's closet is stuffed full of ugly, decomposing skeletons of his sociopathic, megalomaniacal and horrific past. What next, Mr. Shaw? Care to disclose your past as an alcoholic as you have previously published here and elsewhere? At least I am not ashamed of my past! I know Bruce and the courts found him not guilty since he was set up. >How about your close encounters with the FDA over your >seemingly endless "nutritional supplement cure" scams? LOL. I have NEVER claimed that any supplement, drug or intervention cured anything. By contrast, you claim DNCB cures AIDS, apparently. >Your employment and distributor activities with Arkopharma >France I have never been an employee or distributor of Arkopharma's products. I was happy to work with DAAIR and now with NYBC, both non-profit organizations that make boxwood extract available. >in the promotion and sale in the U.S. of SPV-30, an >immunosuppressive and unproven "treatment" for what >even you purported to be a disease of immune suppression? Ah, there's no evidence that SPV-30 is "immunosuppressive" in humans. The study by Pasteur Institute study showed some modest effect on progression when it is used as a monotherapy. No problems arose from its use. While it's kind of you to give me all the credit for SPV-30's introduction into the US, I had virtually nothing to do with that. Some good friends of mine did a LOT more work in that area, including a large, open-label study (with all the caveats associated with that). It's efficacy is nominal but certainly, there were no signs of toxicity. >And remember that psychiatrist that drew the bead on >you for your sociopathic activities on the intenet? LOL. Nope but I remember you being pretty sociopathic. Sorta like now. Too bad. I thought maybe you'd grown up and calmed down or moved on to something more useful in this short life. >Only a sociopath of Carter's sorry ilk could live and thrive on >the knowledge that he has contributed to the early >death of many gay men who were HIV-positive and >vulnerable to Carter's treatment scams. I have no "treatments" and thus no "scams" to offer. By contrast, you appear to believe DNCB is the cure for AIDS and hawk that fiercely. Sorry I just don't think it's all that great. And by contrast, as someone who has denigrated the value of antiretroviral therapy, to the extent you have dissuaded people from seeking proper treatment, you have caused suffering and death. And you're the one who claimed to be a Lic. Ac. God knows how many poor sods you stabbed willy nilly and tried to pass it off as "treatment"! >And there is SO much more ... Indeed. I still hold hope you may find peace in your heart but at this point, seems pretty unlikely. >So, Mr. Carter, Plaintiff ... LET'S GO! Carry on, Frodlet! George M. Carter > > In what way do you work with AIDS patients? Do you draw their blood, > > are you a blood tech?. Do you examine them? Do youassist a doctor? Do [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Oh the humility...! reply from drdach: thanks for visiting my web site to review my curriculum vita posted including my MD degree and 25 years working inside a hospital caring of HIV /AIDS patients. Dont forget to fill out the contact information page. How about telling our readers about yours trining and education. Where did you obtain your undergraduate degree and where did you obtain your MD degree. Or perhaps you never did these things. Perhaps you never finished high school and never opened a rudimentary biology text. Perhaps you are merely a bombastic fool whose job is to create professional confusion. Perhaps you are an AIDS activist who is paid indirectly by the AIDS industry to perpetuate smokescreens and dogmas so that the the most lucrative industry in America can continue to sell toxic drugs to unsuspecting believers of the big lie. regards to www.drdach.com > thanks for visiting my web site to review my curriculum vita posted > including my MD degree and 25 years working inside a hospital caring of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > regards to www.drdach.com Again, you are the one who claims to speak with authority on the subject, but scrutiny of your web site, your CV and publications does not reveal anything about experience looking after AIDS patients. Your specialty is in the field of "anti-aging" medicine. You may well have worked "inside a hospital caring for HIV/AIDS patients", but for all we know you could have been employed hosing down the floors in the mortuary. The ward clerk on our Infection unit retired last year after working there for 40 years. I wouldn't believe anything she said about HIV transmission - why should we believe you?. All you do is parrot denialist web site material and have shown no signs of any independent thought processes. It is you who is claiming some authority on this subject by your constant referal to your medical status, not us. I would say that Nick Bennett and Chris Noble, who are both research MDs with decades of direct HIV research expertise between them, have probably seen more HIV patients in a week than you have seen in 25 years. As have I, but I would prefer to keep my own training/knowledge out of the public domain for now. And these are irrelevant anyway, as it is what you say not what you are that matters. ... >As have I, but I would prefer to keep my own training/knowledge out of >the public domain for now. And these are irrelevant anyway, as it is >what you say not what you are that matters. LOL...except when what you says causes "dr." (christ almighty) dach's brain to fart and he can't wave his authority around like a great big dinky weenie to which all must pay obeisance! Then you're life and background is fair game cause it's so much easier to crap on you than actually respond to the specific issues and outre claims made by the likes of the great "dr." dach. I wonder if he's HIV+? Or merely trying to justify banging white chicks without a condom on the basis that there's "no heterosexual epidemic" so it's OK? And he'll somehow be safe? Probably a racist lurking around in that denialist....but there I go, defaming the fellow's integrity and being a hypocrite! Wheeee!!! ;) I guess I get particularly disgusted when people throw around their "letters" as some justification that people should simply buy their codswallop. And that kind of authoritarianism--especially the hollow and unjustified variety--makes me angry and annoyed. And a bit scared that it convinces others to f.ck without a condom or avoid using ARV. But we all must come to our deaths in our own way. Here's to life and deeper wisdom--a wish to you as well as for mr. dach. George M. Carter > > thanks for visiting my web site to review my curriculum vita posted > > including my MD degree and 25 years working inside a hospital caring of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the public domain for now. And these are irrelevant anyway, as it is > what you say not what you are that matters. reply from drdach: Here is some material that you wont find on a denialist web site because it is from my direct experience working inside multiple large hosptials over 30 years. I have known many doctors, nurses, surgeons etc. over the past 30 years many who have contracted infectious diseases from patients through needle punctures and scalpel nicks. Some of these people I have known have contracted hepatitis from patients through needle sticks or scapel nicks. However, there are no cases of AIDS in any of these people in my experience.. All the surgeons that have I known over 30 years frequently nick themselves with scalpels doing surgery. This is very common and I have seen them in the operating rooms. Although I have known some who have contracted hepatitis, none of these surgeons has ever contracted AIDS. This finding is highly significant and makes me doubt the accepted dogma that AIDS is contagious. If any of the readers of this group has direct knowledge of one or more health care workers who contracted AIDS from a scalpel nick (gay drug abusers are excluded of course ) I would like to know about that information. If anyone has a reference in the medical literature confirming that this happens, I would like to be pointed to the reference (excluding the original CDC report in the 80's and excluding the Gallo lab worker report from the 80's of course ) If anyone would like to share this information with me directly, please contact me via the contact page on my web site www.drdach.com regards from www.drdach.com Nothing is more amusing than seeing someone trying to use the old "argument from authority" fallacy without being aware that they haven't got any authority to speak of in the first place. >reply from drdach: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >etc. over the past 30 years many who have contracted infectious >diseases from patients through needle punctures and scalpel nicks. One need not trust your views or "authority" to know that nosocomial HIV transmission has not been documented. (Doesn't mean it never happened--just no one said "this is the only way the physician or patient could have been infected.") It would be useful for that meager authority if you actually did a bit of research and reviewed each new topic as they arrive unbidden to your slippery mind, as you try to run away from previously failed points. Commonly, good surgeons maintain protocols to protect and reduce risk of transmission of infectious blood-borne diseases. The data below are more a testament to those interventions. Indeed, they point to a correlate in civil society that people who use condoms consistently and correctly can do more to protect themselves or others from HIV transmission. Of course, if you want to keep banging white chicks without a condom and pretend nothing will happen, that is your (stupid) perogative. George M. Carter ** Fry DE. Occupational blood-borne diseases in surgery. Am J Surg. 2005 Aug;190(2):249-54. Comment in: Am J Surg. 2006 Sep;192(3):408; author reply 408-9. Department of Surgery, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. dfry@salud.unm.edu BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B (HBV), and hepatitis C (HCV) infections are transmitted by blood exposure. Surgeons have been concerned about the risks of blood exposure in the operating room as a potential source of occupational infections from these viruses. The actual risk and frequency of operating room transmission remains poorly understood by many surgeons. METHODS: The pertinent recent literature on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of HIV, HBV and HCV were reviewed to address the current understanding of these viruses as occupational risks to surgeons. RESULTS: HIV transmission to surgeons has not been documented in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control. HIV transmission from a surgeon to a patient in the environment of the operating room, as well as transmission from an HIV-infected surgeon to a patient, has not been documented. HBV infection of surgeons has declined with the general acceptance of the HBV vaccine. HCV infection remains a real risk for transmission in the operating room, given that no vaccine is currently available and that the overall number of chronically infected patients remains quite high. CONCLUSION: The risk of occupational infection from known viral pathogens for surgeons is low, but it is not zero. Effective barriers, modified patterns of behavior, and prompt responses to blood exposure events are the best methods for prevention. *** Hsieh WB, Chiu NC, Lee CM, Huang FY. Occupational blood and infectious body fluid exposures in a teaching hospital: a three-year review. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2006 Aug;39(4):321-7. Department of Pediatrics, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Blood and infectious body fluid (BBF) exposures are common safety problems for health care workers (HCWs). We analyzed reported BBF exposures during a 3-year period at a teaching hospital. METHODS: We collected reports of BBF exposures among HCWs occurring from January 2001 to December 2003 at a 2000-bed tertiary care medical center in northern Taiwan. HCWs were requested to report BBF exposures immediately after each exposure, which required completing a report sheet of questions concerning the exposure. The HCW was also required to visit an infectious diseases specialist who would decide on the appropriate management in each case. RESULTS: Needlestick injuries were the most commonly reported BBF exposure, accounting for 80% of reported cases. The total incidence density of BBF exposures was 1.96 per 100 person-years. BBF exposures were most common in December and least common in September. Nurses had the highest percentage (60.6%) of BBF exposures and other job categories including physicians, technicians, cleaning staff, and interns accounted for around 10% each. Injuries occurred most commonly during the daytime (57.0%). Three-quarters (74.9%) of the injured HCWs had appropriate immediate care. Interns had the highest incidence density (4.48 per 100 person-years) of BBF exposures and technicians the lowest (0.50 per 100 person-years). Among the exposed HCWs, 1 received hepatitis B vaccine, 1 received both hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immune globulin, 1 received zidovudine/lamivudine due to a needlestick injury when treating an HIV-positive patient, and 4 received penicillin due to exposure to syphilis. No HCW developed infections after BBF exposure during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Measures which may be effective in reducing BBF exposures include education of HCW, increased use of standard precautions, improved administrative support, and enhanced reporting of BBF exposures. ** Tarantola A, Abiteboul D, Rachline A. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids in health care workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. Am J Infect Control. 2006 Aug;34(6):367-75. International and Tropical Department, National Institute for Public Health Surveillance, InVS, Saint-Maurice, France. a.tarantola@invs.sante.fr Hospital staff and all other human or veterinary health care workers, including laboratory, research, emergency service, or cleaning personnel are exposed to the risk of occupational infection following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids (BBF) contaminated with a virus, a bacteria, a parasite, or a yeast. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or those of hepatitis B (HBV) or C (HCV) account for most of this risk in France and worldwide. Many other pathogens, however, have been responsible for occupational infections in health care workers following exposure to BBF, some with unfavorable prognosis. In developed countries, a growing number of workers are referred to clinicians responsible for the evaluation of occupational infection risks following accidental exposure. Although their principal task remains the evaluation of the risks of HIV, HBV, or HCV transmission and the possible usefulness of postexposure prophylaxis, these experts are also responsible for evaluating risks of occupational infection with other emergent or more rare pathogens and their possible timely prevention. The determinants of the risks of infection and the characteristics of described cases are discussed in this article. *** Baggaley RF, Boily MC, White RG, Alary M. Risk of HIV-1 transmission for parenteral exposure and blood transfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2006 Apr 4;20(6):805-12. BACKGROUND: The role of iatrogenic transmission within the HIV/AIDS pandemic remains contentious. Estimates of the risk of HIV transmission from injections and blood transfusions are required to inform appropriate prevention policy. OBJECTIVES: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on HIV-1 infectivity for parenteral transmission and blood transfusion. REVIEW METHODS: All identified studies with relevant transmission probability estimates up to May 2005 were included. STATISTICAL METHODS: When appropriate, summary estimates for accidental percutaneous and blood product exposures were derived. RESULTS: Infectivity estimates following a needlestick exposure ranged from 0.00 to 2.38% [weighted mean, 0.23%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00-0.46%; n = 21]. Three estimates of infectivity per intravenous drug injection ranged from 0.63 to 2.4% (median, 0.8%); a summary estimate could not be calculated. The quality of the only estimate of infectivity per contaminated medical injection (1.9-6.9%) was assessed. Instead we propose a range of 0.24-0.65%. Infectivity estimates for confirmed contaminated blood transfusions range from 88.3 to 100.0% (weighted mean, 92.5%; 95% CI, 89.0-96.1%; n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Infectivity estimates for infected blood transfusions are larger than for other modes of HIV transmission. Few studies on transmission risk per contaminated injection were found. However, transmission risk per needlestick injury, where needles are more likely to be rinsed or disinfected between recipients (especially for medical injections), may be representative of non-intravenous medical injections and lower than the risk from intravenous injections, which are likely to be deeper and to involve more fluids. Further work is needed to better estimate transmission probability related to contaminated injections and its likely contribution to overall HIV transmission. > > thanks for visiting my web site to review my curriculum vita posted > > including my MD degree and 25 years working inside a hospital caring of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > All you do is parrot denialist web site material and have shown no > signs of any independent thought processes. > It is you who is claiming some authority on this subject by your > constant referal to your medical status, not us. I would say that Nick > Bennett and Chris Noble, who are both research MDs with decades of > direct HIV research expertise between them, have probably seen more HIV > patients in a week than you have seen in 25 years. reply from drdach: Wrong again David. Your readers want to know who you are. Who you are matters very much in determining credibility of your statements. For example, if you were found guilty of scientific misconduct, that would certainly detract from your credibility. If you were a Noble Prize winner or a member of the National Academy of Science, that would of course lend your statements greater credibility. What about it Mr. David T ? Why should anyone believe any of your posts here? Why are you hiding behind an anonymous name? Are you embarrassed with your lack of education beyond high school? Do you have something in your past that you wish to hide? You claim to be a ward clerk on an infection unit. Are you an ACT UP member like your associate Carter? If so, why do you hide this fact? I have listed my web site which shows my background and training. Readers are invited to visit and place a comment on my contact page: http://drdach.com/wst_page3.php Where is your web site, David T.? Perhaps your true name is R. Gallo who is now surfing the Google Newsgroups in search of validation of his "Science by Press Conference". Your readers would like to know if you have the courage to tell them who you really are. regards from www.drdach.com >Wrong again David. Your readers want to know who you are. Who you are >matters very much in determining credibility of your statements. (Dr. Dach is responding here to another David, not me.) Coming from you, that's funny. In four articles posted here, you quoted somebody writing under the obviously pseudonymous name "redrumtza", and made no attempt to find out who redrumtza is, and made no attempt to verify redrumtza's claims by independent means. Here are the links to those articles: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/208c21fa022b3852 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/e0ee444a48ba6103 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/8b1b49c6693dd041 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/bd47fc5a1661ffc6 You accepted unverified information from an anonymous source as truth, and posted it here. If you have been that careless about what you accept as truth once, who knows how often you have been that careless? Who knows how many of the other claims you post here are as ill-founded? Information that comes from you cannot be considered reliable.  SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >Wrong again David. Your readers want to know who you are. Who you are > >matters very much in determining credibility of your statements. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > David Canzi Reply from drdach: Dear David Canzi, Thanks for replying in place of David T who is still in hiding. However, your reply was really to come to the aid of Mr. Carter, the ACT UP activist. (no pun intended). I commend you for coming to the AID of your fellow AIDS Activists. However, if you have no insults to amuse us or any substantive information to enlighten us, why bother ? Regarding the identity of "redrumtza", please enlighten us. You are the professional computer programmer and/or hacker, so I would assume you already know. While you are enlightening us about his true identity, why dont you also tell us your story? i.e. your experience with anti HIV drugs. Your readers would like to know. My web site is www.drdach.com, what's yours? Are you hiding also? Your readers would like to know if you have a degree in molecular biology or a medical degree. Or do you in fact have no training in biology or medicine like your associate Carter? Please feel free to visit my web site and leave a comment on the contact page. A quick thank-you for all the readers who have posted messages on my contact page. regards from www.drdach.com >> >Your readers want to know who you are. Who you are >> >matters very much in determining credibility of your statements. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the professional computer programmer and/or hacker, so I would assume >you already know. The important question is not whether I know who he is, but whether you do. An anonymous writer on the internet could be anybody: a sage, a fool, an idiot, a madman. http://www.python.org/~guido/images/internetdog.gif Your readers want to know how you decide who to believe, doctor. You accepted "redrumtza's" words as true without knowing anything about him and without trying to verify his claims from known reliable sources. The kindest conclusion I can draw from that is that you're gullible. Gullibility is neither a crime nor a sin, but nothing a gullible man says can be considered reliable information. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> >Your readers want to know who you are. Who you are > >> >matters very much in determining credibility of your statements. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -- > David Canzi reply from drdach: still hiding , David? | Eternal truths come and go. | It is you who are hiding doctor. There are questions I see you prefer to leave unanswered. Your readers can only wonder why. David Canzi asked: >Your readers want to know how you decide who to believe, doctor. >You accepted "redrumtza's" words as true without knowing anything >about him and without trying to verify his claims from known >reliable sources. The kindest conclusion I can draw from that >is that you're gullible. Gullibility is neither a crime nor a >sin, but nothing a gullible man says can be considered reliable >information. How about responding to his query? Why did you quote an anonymous source as evidence? > It is you who are hiding doctor. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How about responding to his query? Why did you quote an anonymous > source as evidence? reply from drdach: Why don't you also tell us your story and your identity? Why are you hiding ? My web site is www.drdach.com, what's yours? Are you in hiding? Your readers would like to know if you have a degree in molecular biology or a medical degree. Or do you in fact have no training in biology or medicine ? Please feel free to visit my web site and leave a comment on the contact page. A quick thank-you for all the readers who have posted messages on my contact page. regards from www.drdach.com > > It is you who are hiding doctor. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Why don't you also tell us your story and your identity? Your obsession with knowing who people are on the internet is quite unfathomable when you have shown us all that you willingly accept and quoting "in evidence" an anonymous source, namely "redrumza". I will answer your questions about who I am when you have revealed either that you know who redrumza is, or provide us with verifyable information that shows you have questioned this person about his identity in the same way you question me. snip >I will answer your questions about who I am when you have revealed >either that you know who redrumza is, or provide us with verifyable >information that shows you have questioned this person about his >identity in the same way you question me. Or perhaps the identity and background of the individual who goes by crack baby, Death, various psychoactive chemicals and other sock puppets. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Or perhaps the identity and background of the individual who goes by > crack baby, Death, various psychoactive chemicals and other sock > puppets. Or perhaps not. I hope you lay awake at night as this dilemma haunts you. >Or perhaps not. >I hope you lay awake at night as this dilemma haunts you. LOL...you're the one that has to live the life of an anonymous liar and bigot, dear. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > >Or perhaps not. > >I hope you lay awake at night as this dilemma haunts you. > > LOL...you're the one that has to live the life of an anonymous liar > and bigot, dear. Or perhaps not. I hope you lay awake at night as this dilemma haunts ya. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Or perhaps not. Ah! Does this mean there is hope? You're not anonymous? Or a bigot? You have found some healing? Would that it were so! > I hope you lay awake at night as this dilemma haunts ya. Your kindness and compassion are noted. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote: > > Or perhaps not. > > Ah! Does this mean there is hope? Hope, like a wish is fantasy. >You're not anonymous? Is this comment addressed: to whom it may concern? > Or a bigot? I have never denied that. Only a fool would do so. Now that begs the question, are you a bigot? Perhaps like the word stigma, you have no clue what bigot means. You use both as some kind of magical rote chant when you have lost all (hope) of intelligent comment. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Hope, like a wish is fantasy. Is that what you think? For you, hope is dead. Why do you bother? >>You're not anonymous? > >Is this comment addressed: to whom it may concern? It is addressed to you, the bigot--who hides his identity. >> Or a bigot? > >I have never denied that. Only a fool would do so. Bigots are often fools. So you recognize the disease--yet embrace it. Do you like being a bigot? What does it do for you? >Now that begs the question, are you a bigot? No. >Perhaps like the word stigma, you have no clue what bigot means. I think you serve as pretty clear illustration of the term. >You use both as some kind of magical rote chant >when you have lost all (hope) of intelligent comment. Recognizing your brand of hatred and ugliness is at best a pathway to healing and at least a recognition of how bigotry and stigma can act in concert to produce negative results. That it takes individuals, often cowardly ones, to perpetuate the myths and cultivate the anger and hatred that at root is essentially an insecurity and fear of the "other" or that which is different. And in your case, probably also the fear of your own homosexual desires. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. I rest my case. >I rest my case. You made no case. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > > > >I have never denied that. Only a fool would do so. > >Now that begs the question, are you a bigot? > > No. I rest my case. >I rest my case. You made no case. > >I rest my case. > > You made no case. Thank you again for demonstrating exactly what a bigot you are. This time shit4brains, look up the word, LOL > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > > > >I have never denied that. Only a fool would do so. > >Now that begs the question, are you a bigot? > No. I rest my case. >> >I rest my case. >> >> You made no case. >> >Thank you again for demonstrating exactly what a bigot you are. >This time shit4brains, look up the word, LOL You still failed to make any case. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> >I rest my case. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You still failed to make any case. So you keep saying I rest my case >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >So you keep saying >I rest my case LOL...for a guy whose rested a case he hasn't made, you do like to repeat yourself--as if that makes the case? We can certainly safely eliminate "lawyer" from your hobbies. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > > LOL...for a guy whose rested a case he hasn't made, you do like to > repeat yourself-- So you keep saying. >If I told you that you had the flu, but couldn't prove it with any test >what would you think? >Now to top that off, you don't feel ill. >You have no symptoms, so you don't take aspirins. >Are you a flu elite controller, or just don't have the flu? >Well hell, if you ain't got the flu, we need to study you and see >why you ain't infecting others with the flu. >Who knows, a cure may be found. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So you keep saying. Yes, indeed. And your repetition does not serve as any kind of case. Which you have failed to make in any fashion whatsoever. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >So you keep saying. > > Yes, indeed. And your repetition does not serve as any kind of case. LOL, so you Keep saying. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >LOL, so you Keep saying. LOL. Yes, my silly addlepated monkey puppet. I realize, perhaps you don't know the meaning of the phrase "making a case." To be pedantic and didactic, because it's so much fun to watch you twitch and flitter, a "case" must first be specifically defined. Then evidence provided that supports the contention, i.e., the case. In your case, ergo, you have identified no case and provided no evidence. Merely erratic statements, commentary and stigmatizing insults, to everyone's amusement. Please! Twitch some more!! "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > LOL. Yes, my silly addlepated monkey puppet. I realize, perhaps you > don't know the meaning of the phrase "making a case." LOL, so you Keep saying. You are making my case even after I rested it. Your bigot responses are testimony to that fact. Another free lesson in the English language. Absent the lisp it follows that: Web brainydictionary.com A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> LOL. Yes, my silly addlepated monkey puppet. I realize, perhaps you >> don't know the meaning of the phrase "making a case." >> >LOL, so you Keep saying. And the twitching begins!! >You are making my case even after I rested it. >Your bigot responses are testimony to that fact. Ah! So your case is that I am a bigot? Now, you must provide evidence for this! >Another free lesson in the English language. By all means. You seem to have learned something! >Absent the lisp it follows that: I do not have a lisp. Of course, you are using this to insult all people with lisps as inferior human beings. You are implying that same-sex attracted men have lisps and this is bad. This is all stigma that bigots project. What I expect from you. Now, here is the beginning of your making a case. One of the definitions of the term bigot. >Web brainydictionary.com > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or >opinion. And so now to make the case that I am somehow a bigot? Go right ahead. You have amply demonstrated and admitted to your bigotry against non-whites, gays, etc. Indeed, that fits the common, vernacular definition, to wit: Definition: intolerant, prejudiced person (see http://www.answers.com/topic/bigot ). Keep twitching, monkey puppet! You're really funny, even as you wallow in your ugliness. Maybe you'll find some healing? George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You are making my case even after I rested it. > >Your bigot responses are testimony to that fact. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >You are making my case even after I rested it. >> >Your bigot responses are testimony to that fact Wow. You're really flailing now! Are you talking to yourself here? I suppose so. > >> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > >> > >> >You are making my case even after I rested it. > >> >Your bigot responses are testimony to that fact Yes, yes, you're a bigot. >> Your readers want to know how you decide who to believe, doctor. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >reply from drdach: still hiding , David? I post under my real name, and it's easy to verify that I post from the University of Waterloo. I'm not hiding. Are you trying to distract attention away from the evidence that you're gullible? SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> Your readers want to know how you decide who to believe, doctor. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | OK so David Canzi is the computer guy at University of Waterloo in Canada. So who is David T? regards from www.drdach.com >... Perhaps you are an AIDS activist who is >paid indirectly by the AIDS industry to perpetuate smokescreens and >dogmas so that the the most lucrative industry in America can continue >to sell toxic drugs to unsuspecting believers of the big lie. LOL...another a.shole denialist unmasked. Brutal, stupid and belligerently ignorant. No surprises here! > >... Perhaps you are an AIDS activist who is > >paid indirectly by the AIDS industry to perpetuate smokescreens and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No surprises here! reply from drdach.com Ask Lindsey Nagel about her experience with AZT. She was adopted from Roumania by the Minneapolis couple, Cheryl and Steve Nagel, found to be HIV positive and started on AZT. She did poorly on AZT and regained her health after the AZT was stopped. regards from www.drdach.com >> >... Perhaps you are an AIDS activist who is >> >paid indirectly by the AIDS industry to perpetuate smokescreens and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >HIV positive and started on AZT. She did poorly on AZT and regained >her health after the AZT was stopped. I'd be happy to ask her. Do you have current contact information? I do believe the "regaining of health" was some years ago and she has since died of AIDS due to the denialist beliefs of her adoptive guardians? I hope not. George M. Carter > >> >... Perhaps you are an AIDS activist who is > >> >paid indirectly by the AIDS industry to perpetuate smokescreens and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > George M. Carter According to the Steve Harris, MD , as of 1994 she was alive and well. SInce 1994, I have no further information. From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> > She's dead. No, she's alive. She hiv+ and has full blown > aids. She does not have aids. She's not even > hiv+...etc..etc... > The unbearable lightness of hiv-believers, I call that.... By Steve Harris MD: My last e-conversation with the Nagels was in about 1994, when Lindsey's mother publicly in a newgroup said that the child had tested HIV-positive and also HIV-negative. I suggested that she get a viral culture to settle the matter (this was in the years before it was easy to get a quantitative viral load). I don't know if this is what they did, but if so, I didn't get a thank-you note. No competent doctor in the US today would treat anybody "HIV-positive" who had no positive viral culture, and a non-detectable viral load. So that problem is certainly solved. The bad time was in the late 80's and early 90's when viral load wasn't available clinically, and so there was no guide at all to antiviral treatment. Some people during that time got harmed by the crude drugs available, and it remains possible that Linsey was one of them. As I told her parents at the time, however, if that was the case they'd be well-advised not to learn the wrong lesson from this. If NASA makes a stupid mistake and crashes a spaceprobe into Mars, it hardly follows that NASA is totally incompetent, that all rocket scientists are fools, that Newtonian mechanics is wrong, and anybody who says otherwise is a tool of a gigantic conspiracy. That's about where the Nagels were with AIDS, when last we communicated. SBH http://yarchive.net/med/aids_recovery.html regards from www.drdach.com snip >> >reply from drdach.com >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >According to the Steve Harris, MD , as of 1994 she was alive and well. >SInce 1994, I have no further information. And what year is this... That's the kind of an anecdote you rely on to believe the kind of nonsense you believe, "dr." dach? Pretty thin gruel, don't you think? George M. Carter > snip > >> >reply from drdach.com [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > George M. Carter reply from drdach: The above information is from Dr Steve Harris, your fellow AIDS activist, so it should be considered golden gospel to ACT UP AIDS activists. Would you prefer that it came from www.virusmyth instead? Latest data on young Lindsay is that she is alive and well. Of course if you have anything more recent, lets have it. regards from www.drdach.com snip >reply from drdach: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Latest data on young Lindsay is that she is alive and well. Of course >if you have anything more recent, lets have it. The latest data you have being 1994? > drdach wrote: > > Problem is that by routine testing the low risk population (non-iv drug > > user heterosexuals) we are uncovering HIV positive people who never > get sick and don't have a disease, called Elite Controllers. And there is a huge risk of false positives. See the following, 31 positives, only 2 positive after a confirmation test: Check it out, then search "elisa" or go to table II. http://www.certi.org/CMA/newsletter/v03n01.pdf This is data on testing the Italian armed forces on page 4 of 8. Get this. Table II HIV Screening in Military Blood Transfusion Centers Number of donations: 25,562 Number of blood donations ELISA |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message