 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / October 2006Sept 27, 2006 JAMA Article Breaks New Ground
The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted explanation of HIV and AIDS: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579757/Human_Immunodeficiency_... When HIV enters the body, it infects lymphocytes, which are a type of white blood cell in the immune system. HIV uses its glycoproteins to attach itself to receptors on the surface of a lymphocyte. The outer envelope of HIV then fuses with the lymphocyte, enabling the HIV capsid to enter the lymphocyte itself. HIV commandeers the genetic material of the lymphocyte, instructing the cell to replicate more viruses. The newly formed viruses break free from the host, destroying the cell in the process. The new viruses go on to infect and destroy other lymphocytes. Over a period that may last from a few months to up to 15 years, HIV may destroy enough lymphocytes that the immune system becomes unable to function properly. An infected person develops multiple life-threatening illnesses from infections that normally do not cause illnesses in people with a healthy immune system. Some people who have HIV infection may not develop any of the clinical illnesses that define the full-blown disease of AIDS for ten years or more. Doctors prefer to use the term AIDS for cases where a person has reached the final, life-threatening stage of HIV infection. Sept 27 2006 JAMA Article: The recent JAMA article contradicts the above idea destruction of lymphocytes and AIDS progression (on an individual basis) is caused by replicating virus. In this study, on an individual basis, there was no correlation (or very poor correlation) between viral replication measured by viral load levels and lymphocyte count. I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite meaningful line. There should be a straight line here ( or dots which are trying to make a line). This scattered scattergram is the finding which indicates that HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4 cell loss in HIV infection and challenges the concept that the magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of CD4 cell loss at the individual level. All readers are invited to visit my web site and post a comment on the contact page. regards from www.drdach.com >The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an >important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted >explanation of HIV and AIDS: > >http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579757/Human_Immunodeficiency_... Chris Noble already took this supposed "contradiction" apart over on misc.health.alternative, but since "jdach" obnoxiously failed to cross-post, I'll put a few key responses here. The main point missed by the people who think they've spotted a contradiction is that even if something works, on average, for a group, it doesn't mean it'll work well for individuals. And so it proves with viral load and HIV disease progression. For lots of detail, see these links: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/more_distortion_of_peerreviewed_data_by.php http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/10/aids_and_viral_load.php http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2006/09/viral-load-paradigm-shift-not-really.html -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) >The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an >important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted >explanation of HIV and AIDS: f.cking amazing, isn't it? The lies get knocked on the head, but they get repeated verbatim a few days later as if repetition will make them true. Perhaps being an AIDS denier is highly correlated with Alzheimer's, and this makes them forget what they say almost immediately after they say it.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an > important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > regards from www.drdach.com reply from dr.dach Hey guys, I'm just the messenger. If you dont like the conclusions of the authors of the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article or the accompanying editorial, send a letter to JAMA asking them to retract the article. More discussion about the JAMA article on this web site with postings by your friend, Dr. Chris Noble: http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml regards from www.drdach.com >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >the authors of the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article or the accompanying >editorial, send a letter to JAMA asking them to retract the article. The article is fine. The problem is entirely with nitwits who attempt to distort the article's content. The article says that you can't use viral load to predict how fast an individual will progress into AIDS. You can only use it to predict what will happen to members of a group, on average. I can't predict when, or whether, a cigarette smoker will develop lung cancer, either. But smoking still causes cancer. Or do you doubt that also? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an > >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher reply from drdach: Lung cancer and smoking is an excellent historical example of the medical profession supporting the cigarette industry 30 year claim that cigaretter consuumption was "healthy". Of course, now we know better. regards from www.drdach.com >> >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an >> >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >medical profession supporting the cigarette industry 30 year claim that >cigaretter consuumption was "healthy". Of course, now we know better. I trust that readers of this little exchange now also know better than to trust "drdach's" interpretation of medical studies. The evasive non-answer in the preceding paragraph makes it clear that drdach is not a reliable source. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > >> >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an > >> >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher reply from drdach: Mr. Wright believes that cigarette smoking is good for your health. That's real credibility. I trust that the readers can come to their own conclusions about reliability and credibility. I invite all readers to review my background and training at my web site www.drdach.com and post a message on the contact page. Where's your web site Mr. Wright. Your readers would like to know your background and traing to judge your reliability and credibility. Or are you in hiding ? regards from www.drdach.com >> >> >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an >> >> >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >Mr. Wright believes that cigarette smoking is good for your health. >That's real credibility. No, deliberately misinterpreting people is "real credibility." Especially when the original quotation, in which I say quite clearly that smoking causes cancer, is right up above. Boy, the people they give medical licenses to these days, it's a damn scandal... >I trust that the readers can come to their own conclusions about >reliability and credibility. I invite all readers to review my >background and training at my web site www.drdach.com and post a >message on the contact page. How nice. Can they also offer opinions on the highly commercial nature of your web site? Or do you delete those? >Where's your web site Mr. Wright. The things I learn here. Turns out you can't be credible if you don't have a web site. Presumably a web site on which you hawk many products and toot your own horn a lot. Who knew? >Your readers would like to know your background and traing to judge >your reliability and credibility. Or are you in hiding ? Not hardly. But given some of the other posters here (you are apparently newly arrived, and may not know who I'm talking about), I do not care to give out that kind of information. I only go so far as to say that my PhD is not in a medical field. However, if you're under the impression that flashing an MD is going to make all the readers tug their forelocks and lick your shoes, I'm afraid you're in for a grave disappointment. In any event, exactly what *was* your point in bringing up that JAMA article? Are you questioning that HIV causes AIDS, or what? All the article says is that you can't use viral load to predict, for any particular individual, how fast that person will progress into AIDS. OK, fine. You can't predict how fast a given smoker will develop lung cancer either, but smoking still causes lung cancer. So why did you feel it was so goddamned important to bring up the JAMA paper? The main people who've been trumpeting it so far are those looneytune "AIDS denialists." But I can't tell whether you're in their camp or not. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > >> >> >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an > >> >> >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher reply from drdach: Maybe this will help you: http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/by_jeffrey_dach.html regards from www.drdach.com >> In any event, exactly what *was* your point in bringing up that JAMA >> article? Are you questioning that HIV causes AIDS, or what? All the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/by_jeffrey_dach.html Not really, no. You clearly have an axe to grind with Nick Bennett, which is your privilege, and it does sound as though he was rather rude to you (though I'd like to hear his side of the story also, just for completeness). You also seem to be giving credence to Duesberg, which certainly puts you in the minority. However, your own views are not on display. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > >> >> The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an > >> >> important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher reply from drdach: hey guys, it not my interpretation. Its the authors of the study who conclude that viral replication on an individual level is not predictive of CD4 cell count. If you find the conclusions of this article disturbing to your fragile belief system, send a letter to JAMA and ask them to retract the paper. For those who have no medical training or understanding of biology, this might be difficult to understand, so please feel free to visit the contact page of my web site www.drdach.com and send me a comment to discuss further. regards from www.drdach.com By Benigno Rodriguez Benigno Rodri'guez Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/12/1498 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579757/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv By Benigno Rodriguez Benigno Rodri'guez Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/12/1498 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579757/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus.html http://tinyurl.com/26wbm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv Draw a line over the scattershot. Cut out the graph. Weigh the paper. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus |
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.