 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2004OPEN LETTER
OPEN LETTER I have been accused by a few members of this board of being 'irresponsible' and 'endangering' the lives of young people. This accusation could possibly be correct, but is based on one fundamental assumption. The assumption being that I am wrong in my assessments and they are right. Clearly I do not consider that to be the case. If 'AIDS' really is a sexually transmitted disease and condoms really do really afford protection then my advice could lead to tragic infections and moralities. Good reason to suppress my views you may well think? Let me say this before you rush to send an e-mail requesting the boards moderators ban my 'dangerous information' for this forum. The assumption that my views are dangerous is based on your understanding of the issues at hand. That understanding, in turn, is based on the information you have been exposed to. Clearly, if for financial, political and religious reasons all opposing information has been censored in a 'politically correct' manner, you have only half the picture. If my view is correct then million of people are dying of highly toxic drugs like Haart and AZT for a virus that is not the cause of their real condition. Millions more are dying because their real condition is not being treated and a harmless virus is receiving all the attention. Millions are being exposed to deadly carcinogens and toxins in condoms that afford no protection. I could say that the posts promoting 'AIDS awareness', antibody test (for a virus that has NEVER been isolated) and 'safe sex' are irresponsible and potentially deadly. It all depends on who is right and who is wrong and the only way to determine that is by reviewing ALL the evidence and subjecting it to informed and rational debate. That is the very purpose of a forum like this and that is why nobody should be censored (except for insults, personal attacks and childish name calling). The issues are of the greatest importance to us all and together we must explore the evidence on both sides of the question in an open minded manner. I respect every shade of opinion and only wish to establish the truth. Best wishes, Paul > OPEN LETTER > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Let me say this before you rush to send an e-mail requesting the boards > moderators ban my 'dangerous information' for this forum. This is and "un-moderated" newsgroup Paul if you have done any Google searches of this news group you would see that a huge percentage of the posts to misc.health.aids are from people such as your self that are for one reason or another (fear, ignorance, the need to feel important, or one of the hundred other misguided reasons for conspiracy theorists or anti-science flat earth type of thinking) unable to read the scientific literature on HIV/AIDS and come to the conclusion that HIV indeed is the cause of AIDS and that AIDS is an incredibly deadly illness. > The assumption that my views are dangerous is based on your understanding > of the issues at hand. That understanding, in turn, is based on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Millions are being exposed to deadly carcinogens and toxins in condoms > that afford no protection. Again I ask you how is it that I am alive after spending the last 9 years taking large amounts of "highly toxic drugs like Haart and AZT" and how do you explain the fact that my health is substantially better today then it was in 1995 when I started taking your so called highly toxic AIDS drugs? By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years. Now remember that there are tens of thousands of people like me in the world that your theory simply wishes did not exist because it is so darn hard for you to explain away our existence and still stay true to your fantasy about HIV and AIDS. Gary Stein The assumption that the majority is always right flies in the face of all recorded history. It would be easier to make the case that the majority opinion, at any given point in history, is usually wrong and the product of economic and political imperatives. Science is not based on belief but rational thought. I believe in NOT believing but thinking. Best wishes, Paul >The assumption that the majority is always right flies in the face of all >recorded history. That is SUCH a lame defense and means ABSOLUTELY nothing. >It would be easier to make the case that the majority opinion, at any >given point in history, is usually wrong and the product of economic and >political imperatives. >Science is not based on belief but rational thought. > >I believe in NOT believing but thinking. And THAT is a demonstrable delusion, Paul. You do NOT think or at least not very well. You certainly are bright enough to be able to learn and think, unlike your apparent mentor in stupidity and lying, George W. Bush. But you have been provided evidence and data that contradicts the sloppily constructed conspiracy theory of the denialists--and the REAL problems are missed by you. There ARE issues that the "AIDS establishment" routinely f.cks up. The simplest is that millions are dying needlessly due to lack of access to medication. And you completely avoided looking at the reality of why people who take handsfull of toxic drugs do BETTER. No, ARV is not a cure. It IS toxic--and for some who are more sensitive, these toxicities can range from debilitating to fatal. And therein is ANOTHER critical issue that AIDS, Inc. has done a piss poor job of working on--there are LOTS of natural compounds, without a patent, that many thousands of people are using to manage those side effects. Are they helping? If not, then we should get that evidence-based medicine data out there and help people redirect their resources. If they DO benefit people, then maybe they should be covered so anyone that needs them can have access--and ultimately, being less costly, these can help reduce the burden to public costs. Course we'd rather spend, apparently, in the US HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars on a completely incompetently planned and "executed" war of revenge and oil at the cost of lives and world opinion to satisfy the most corrupt administration in American history. George M. Carter >The assumption that the majority is always right flies in the face of all >recorded history. Where did Gary make that assumption in the article you're responding to? >Science is not based on belief but rational thought. >I believe in NOT believing but thinking. "What is believed as 'scientific fact' is substantially determined by political/economic/religious expediency NOT rational thought, substantiated demonstration or even simple common sense." -- Paul King, misc.health.aids, 2004-05-01. It's a wonderful feeling to be right when most people are wrong. Being wrong when most people are right feels just the same, and it's easier.  SignatureDavid Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the world send me e-mail?" "By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years." Reaction to toxins depend on factors that are different with each person. People have lived to a ripe old age on Herion but that does not mean the drug is harmless or healthy. Your resistance to AZT is the exception not the rule and your improved health may be the result of any number of factors. To believe one is the result of the other without controlled study is simply blind belief. Believe what you will but done confuse it with proof or logic. Best wishes, Paul >"By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years." > >Reaction to toxins depend on factors that are different with each person. >People have lived to a ripe old age on Herion but that does not mean the >drug is harmless or healthy. It doesn't mean heroin or AZT causes AIDS either. But actually, you picked a bad example. Heroin is relatively non-toxic. The problems with heroin are 1) constipation; 2) overdose can be fatal; 3) it's addictive. Street drugs can be fake, stepped on or contain other poisons. Otherwise, compared to many other drugs, it has a pretty mild toxicity profile. Pregnant women using it may cause developmental neurological problems in their children--and there can be some neurological problems possibly. >Your resistance to AZT is the exception not the rule and your improved >health may be the result of any number of factors. No, it's not. AZT does NOT cause AIDS. It MAY cause anemia or neutropenia. >To believe one is the result of the other without controlled study is >simply blind belief. Believe what you will but done confuse it with proof >or logic. Ah--your lot assert that AZT causes AIDS. Where is there ANY evidence that AZT use causes a persistent decline in CD4+ count? George M. Carter > > OPEN LETTER > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Gary Stein It's easy to explain that. "Paul King" is a liar. He will never answer a question like that. He can't. All he can do is make up more lies. In 1993, the Concorde Study, which was the first major study on AZT that was not underwritten by the drug’s manufacturer, found that patients who received AZT had a 25 percent higher death rate than those who received a placebo. AZT’s status as a “miracle drug” that dramatically reduces the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV was resurrected in 1994 after the ACTG 076 study, which was funded by AZT manufacturer Glaxo Wellcome. "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in news:3c5bbca1f32aed2582e05473cbff290a@localhost.talkabouthealt hnetwork.com: > In 1993, the Concorde Study, which was the first major > study on AZT that was not underwritten by the drug’s > manufacturer, found that patients who received AZT had a 25 > percent higher death rate than those who received a > placebo. It is true that the mortality rate in Concorde was higher in the immediate therapy than in the deferred therapy group (actually both groups got AZT it was the critera for starting that varied(418 of 872 in the deferred group got AZT and 142 of them only after they had signs of immune deficiency). However the difference was 8% vs 6% a small and statistically non-significant difference. Your statement of fact is correct but your inference is wrong. And your comment about 076 is even more ludicrous in that it impugns a study by attacking the sponsor when the study's validity has never been questioned but has in fact been amply confirmed by clinical experience. Check the stats on births to HIV+ mothers before and after the findings were available. (1994). "Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Concorde Coordinating Committee [see comments]." Lancet 343(8902): 871-881. Concorde is a double-blind randomised comparison of two policies of zidovudine treatment in symptom-free individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): (a) immediate zidovudine from the time of randomisation (Imm); and (b) deferred zidovudine (Def) until the onset of AIDS-related complex (ARC) or AIDS (CDC group IV disease) or the development of persistently low CD4 cell counts if the clinician judged that treatment was indicated. Between October, 1988, and October, 1991, 1749 HIV-infected individuals from centres in the UK, Ireland, and France were randomly allocated to zidovudine 250 mg four times daily (877 Imm) or matching placebo (872 Def). Follow-up was to death or Dec 31, 1992 (total 5419 person-years; median 3.3 years) and only 7% of the 1749 had not had a full clinical assessment after July 1, 1992. Of those allocated to the Def group, 418 started zidovudine at some time during the trial, 174 (42%) of them at or after they were judged by the clinician to have developed ARC or AIDS (nearly all confirmed subsequently) and most of the remainder on the basis of low CD4 cell counts. Those in the Imm group spent 81% of the time before ARC or AIDS on zidovudine compared with only 16% for those in the Def group. Despite the large difference in the amount of zidovudine between the two groups and the fact that the number of clinical endpoints (AIDS and death) in Concorde (347) outnumbers the total of those in all other published trials in symptom-free and early symptomatic infection, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome between the two therapeutic policies. The 3-year estimated survival probabilities were 92% (95% CI 90-94%) in Imm and 94% (92-95%) in Def (log-rank p = 0.13), with no significant differences overall or in subgroup analyses by CD4 cell count at baseline. Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression of HIV disease: 3-year progression rates to AIDS or death were 18% in both groups, and to ARC, AIDS, or death were 29% (Imm) and 32% (Def) (p = 0.18), although there was an indication of an early but transient clinical benefit in favour of Imm in progression to ARC, AIDS, or death. However, there was a clear difference in changes in CD4 cell count over time in the two groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) > In 1993, the Concorde Study, which was the first major study on AZT that > was not underwritten by the drug?s manufacturer, found that patients who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mother-to-child transmission of HIV was resurrected in 1994 after the ACTG > 076 study, which was funded by AZT manufacturer Glaxo Wellcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- << Again I ask you how is it that I am alive after spending the last 9 years taking large amounts of "highly toxic drugs like Haart and AZT" and how do you explain the fact that my health is substantially better today then it was in 1995 when I started taking your so called highly toxic AIDS drugs? By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years. Now remember that there are tens of thousands of people like me in the world that your theory simply wishes did not exist because it is so darn hard for you to explain away our existence and still stay true to your fantasy about HIV and AIDS. Gary Stein >> It's easy to explain that. "Paul King" is a liar. He will never answer a question like that. He can't. All he can do is make up more lies. AZT was first developed in 1964 as a cancer chemotherapy drug. It was designed to destroy proliferating cells. Later at the US National Cancer Institute in Maryland it was tested as an AIDS drug. Normally cancer chemotherapy drugs are used for limited periods but AZT is given for open ended use. It's effect on the body can be very serious. Some people simply can't tolerate it and suffer vomiting, muscle pain and unendurable headaches. Lower doses produce less side effects but on high doses bone marrow cells are affected with up to 30% of recipients needing blood transfusions. DR. ROBERT HOFFMAN: "I believe that the drug AZT can have at least two important areas of toxicity and that is the inhibition of production of critical white cells and also the production of malignant cells such as lymphoma cells. The two courses can be monitored but they can also reach the point of no return where nothing can be done about it. So even with monitoring, these toxicities can be life threatening." Although the effects of AZT also called by its generic name zidovudine are listed in Wellcome's US and UK information sheets for doctors, their promotional leaflet for doctors and the public in the UK makes some startling claims about AZT's safety and efficacy. For example, it states here that doctors can manage the serious blood problems and 'there are no life threatening toxicities associated with zidovudine.' These and other claims have encouraged some doctors and patients to embark upon high dose therapies, sometimes over long periods of time. There is evidence that some of these claims are false and others seriously misleading. There are worrying differences and omissions between the US and UK doctor's information sheets. Before a drug is licensed for use it normally has to undergo animal toxicity studies and clinical trials in humans. No long-term animal studies were completed when AZT was licensed. The clinical studies in humans - called phase-II - which led to the licensing of AZT were financed by Wellcome. They were presented as complying with the only reliable scientific test for a drug - double blind studies - and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 1987. In this type of trial one group is given the drug and the other a placebo or a dummy tablet. Neither the volunteers nor their doctors should know who is getting what, in order to eliminate any bias in expectation of what a particular treatment, or no treatment, may do. This is called blinding. In this document Wellcome claims that: 'Non of the volunteers or the clinicians involved knew who had received placebo and who had received the active drug.' We have the following evidence that the trials became unblinded early on. This internal document from the Food and Drug Administration, the US authority that licensed the drug, was obtained through the freedom of information procedure. Dr. Ellen Cooper in reviewing the AZT data writes: 'The fact that the treatment groups unblinded themselves early could have resulted in bias in the work up of patients.' If the FDA knew this then Wellcome would have been incompetent not to know. << Again I ask you how is it that I am alive after spending the last 9 years taking large amounts of "highly toxic drugs like Haart and AZT" and how do you explain the fact that my health is substantially better today then it was in 1995 when I started taking your so called highly toxic AIDS drugs? By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years. Now remember that there are tens of thousands of people like me in the world that your theory simply wishes did not exist because it is so darn hard for you to explain away our existence and still stay true to your fantasy about HIV and AIDS. Gary Stein >> It's easy to explain that. "Paul King" is a liar. He will never answer a question like that. He can't. All he can do is make up more lies. > AZT was first developed in 1964 as a cancer chemotherapy drug. It was > designed to destroy proliferating cells. Later at the US National Cancer [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > resulted in bias in the work up of patients.' If the FDA knew this then > Wellcome would have been incompetent not to know. >"Paul King" is a liar. He will never >answer a question like that. He can't. All he can do is make up more >lies. He lies, and seems oddly unconcerned about how obviously dishonest some of his lies are. This is not the behaviour of somebody who sincerely wants to advance a dissident position. Obvious lies discredit both him and the position he seems to be supporting with them. SignatureDavid Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the world send me e-mail?" In article <0bb14d87afae5066515d8b1af35412cf@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>, > OPEN LETTER > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > really afford protection then my advice could lead to tragic infections > and moralities. Good reason to suppress my views you may well think? That depends what your advice is. Are you suggesting not using condoms, rejecting safe sex? That isn't the Perth Group's position. > That depends what your advice is. Are you suggesting not using condoms, > rejecting safe sex? That isn't the Perth Group's position. No, it is not the Perth Group's position, but it is Paul King's position. See his web site for example: http://www.aimultimedia.com/aidsmythexposed/arc_pages/main_frameset.html Where it says: "CONDOMS POSE REAL DANGERS Are condoms a greater health risk than the std's they don't really protect against? It is politically correct to advocate condoms but every day the evidence increases that they do little to protect and may pose a very serious health risk." To me, that sounds like suggesting to people that they should not use condoms. Great post which shows the true philosophy and spirit of scientific enquiry. The obnoxious replies of the pharmo shills demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to share that spirit. > Great post which shows the true philosophy and spirit of scientific > enquiry. > The obnoxious replies of the pharmo shills demonstrate their inability > or unwillingness to share that spirit. Bellow is my reply to Paul's original post which is not an "obnoxious" reply but rather a serious question for Paul, Yourself and Uiopp none of whom made any attempt what so ever to address the issues I raised. Thus your post is the proverbial Pot calling the Kettle Black. Gary Stein > OPEN LETTER > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Let me say this before you rush to send an e-mail requesting the boards > moderators ban my 'dangerous information' for this forum. This is and "un-moderated" newsgroup Paul if you have done any Google searches of this news group you would see that a huge percentage of the posts to misc.health.aids are from people such as your self that are for one reason or another unable to read the scientific literature on HIV/AIDS and come to the conclusion that HIV indeed is the cause of AIDS and that AIDS is an incredibly deadly illness. > The assumption that my views are dangerous is based on your understanding > of the issues at hand. That understanding, in turn, is based on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Millions are being exposed to deadly carcinogens and toxins in condoms > that afford no protection. Again I ask you how is it that I am alive after spending the last 9 years taking large amounts of "highly toxic Haart drugs like AZT" and how do you explain the fact that my health is substantially better today then it was in 1995 when I started taking your so called highly toxic AIDS drugs? By the way I have been taking AZT for 7 out of the 9 years. (Added May 25th for extra detail. In 1994 I was diagnosed with AIDS my first CD4 count was 54, and in December of that year I had my first case of PCP. Then in May of 1995 during my second bout of PCP my CD4 count was down to 17 finally in November of 1995 I had my third bout of PCP which almost killed me I was literly a few days away from dieing. I was in the hospital for almost a month and only during the final week were the doctors able to find a treatment that brought the PCP under control. I underwent a bronchoscopy, a needle biopsy, and finally two surgical biopsies of the PCP mass in my upper right lung as the doctors tried to find a medication that would bring it under control. A doctor came into my room one morning and asked me if I wanted to try an at that time experimental drug combination to treat the PCP. It contained the following meds IV Trimetrexate, oral Leucovorin, IV Amphotericin B, and oral Flucytosine to try and get the PCP under control. Let me tell you it was a scary experience to see the nurse walk into my room later that morning wearing a full biohazard suit. The Trimetrexate is labeled as chemotherapy of the most toxic kind requiring high levels of protection for the health care workers that administer it. After a week on this treatment my doctor had a PIC line installed in my arm (this is a surgically implanted IV line that makes the administration of IV medications easier for the patient to receive at home, a very small plastic line is inserted into a vein in the arm and under X-ray run all the way up to the heart valve then surgically fastened to the arm at the entry point.) and I was released. I had daily IV treatment for almost another month before the PCP was finally gone. Due to this case of PCP I lost 15% of my lung capacity. It was during that hospital stay that I began my first anti-viral drug treatment regimen and since then my CD4 counts climbed back up to the 300's and viral load has been consistently low though I have only achieved undetectable viral load levels for short periods of time at the beginning of new drug combinations. Remember that at the day of my diagnosis the doctors told me that I had at most 6 months to live based on their past experience with AIDS patients at that point in the history of HIV/AIDS, next year I will have beat those odd's by a decade yet you claim it is the anti-viral meds that are the cause of HIV and AIDS........) Now remember that there are tens of thousands of people like me in the US alone that your theory simply wishes did not exist because it is so darn hard for you to explain away our existence and still stay true to your theory about HIV and AIDS. Gary Stein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.