Why Isn't Magic Johnson Dead?
SPARTACUS
Despite having carried the virus for close to 10 years now, the man
looks as healthy as a steaming bowl of chicken noodle soap.
SPARTACUS
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
> sought treatment?
> --
> Gary Stein
> ges...@bellatlantic.net
Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the cure
we've all been waiting for?
Spartacus
>
>
> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
> massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
> a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
> it."
> (Gene Spafford)
>
> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38518A8C...@mindspring.com...
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <3851FE6F...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >
> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
> >> sought treatment?
> >> --
> >> Gary Stein
> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >
> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the cure
> > we've all been waiting for?
> >
> > Spartacus
> >
>
> Are you suggesting that looking healthy 10 years after a serologic diagnosis
> is a cure? Perhaps you could say what you are suggesting in a more direct
> way.
>
> >
It's simple...
I'm suggesting you can't answer the question.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> I doubt anyone can answer the question in a literal sense. The idea that some
> one looks as "healthy as .. chicken soup" doesn't mean they are healthy. I
> suspect only his physicians can answer that question, unless you have access
> to his medical records.
>
> So just what was the real question you were posing?
Let's try it like this: If his condition remains the same for the next ten years what will you have
learned?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3851FE6F...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >
> > > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
> he
> > > sought treatment?
> > > --
> > > Gary Stein
> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >
> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
> cure
> > we've all been waiting for?
>
> No, what I am saying is that it is not suprising in the least (since
> the advent of HARRT) for some one to appear healthy 10-15 years after
> seroconversion if they have been on treatment. I would guess that a
> huge percentage of the people currently living with HIV/Aids have been
> postive for more then 10 years and the vast majority of them are still
> healthy looking and able to function fully in anyway that you could
> discern from seeing them on TV.
> What do you think?
> --
> Gary Stein
> ges...@bellatlantic.net
I think aggressive drug therapy isn't healthy, that although it extends
some lives it does so at a cost an ethical physician shouldn't be willing
to pay. I think we can even place a number on this; that is, we can say
such a therapy will completely destroy a given patient's health at some
approximate point in time-- if, of course, AIDS doesn't do it first. If
you argue this is the trade off for a prolonged life, you have a point.
But if you deny this downside, you're not being honest. You my argue
further that you haven't time for such sophistry, that your interest is
prolonging life not winning drawing room debates. And to this I say, if
your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
Are we in agreement on this point?
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
> "Would you care to explain that to me given my perspective, had my
> Doctor followed your advice I would be dead? Your stated belief above
> would logically require that all drugs be removed from the market
> place is this what you are advocating? I challenge you to find a
> single drug that has not caused the death of at least one person who
> took it, thus your position requires all medications to be immediately
> removed from the market place.
>
> --
> Gary Stein
> ges...@bellatlantic.net
My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
Your position and those of most in this group is understandable-- not
necessary correct, but understandable. But what we know is this -- that we
don't know. We don't know how long Magic would have lived without HARRT.
We do know there are many with the virus not on HARRT who have lived as
long as he and are still healthy. Did all the rhetoric about saving lives
comprise AIDS medicine? It appears so. The result? A state where HARRT is
the de facto treatment for anyone with the virus. But HARRT is just a
palliative -- and one that clearly imparts a costly toll. People become
drug addicts all the while convincing themselves they'd be dead without
it. This isn't science this is pandemonium. It's whistling while walking
through the grave yard.
HARRT has comprised AIDS science. It has been a great step backward not
forward. And I'm sorry, but prolonging the lives of several thousand Gary
Stein(s) doesn't make it right.
SPARTACUS
Bennett wrote:
> SPARTACUS wrote in message <38528639...@mindspring.com>...
>
> And to this I say, if
> >your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
> >medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
> >
> >Are we in agreement on this point?
>
> Have you heard of the phrase:
>
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one, if you're
> a Star Trek fan)? For sure any case of mortality or morbidity associated
> with medical intervention is one case too many, and we'd all like to avoid
> it if possible, but the simple truth is that doctors cannot predict if
> something they do/suggest/prescribe will work or will cause problems. They
> can say what the _chances_ are of something working, and they'll usually
> balance these against the chances of something going wrong. As an example
> one of my great-Aunts is ill with a leukaemia that is _cureable_ with a bone
> marrow transplant. She won't get the transplant, because she is so old the
> procedure would likely kill her before the disease would. In a younger,
> fitter person, doctors would promote the curative transplant. There would
> still _be_ a risk of it failing, possibly killing the patient, and almost
> certainly making them pretty ill for some time. On the other hand the
> chances of success are greatly increased.
>
> To say that any form of medicine that puts the patient at risk is "bad
> medicine" is calling _all_ medicine and forms of healing "bad". Yes, ALL
> forms. Even the "alternative" or "complementary" fields have their risks,
> very rarely appreciated by Joe Public. If you want medical care that is
> guaranteed harmless, 100% effective, and available on demand, then I wish
> you sweet dreams...
This isn't the issue. HARRT is a therapy we know will ultimately cause the death
of the patient. I challenge you to present another therapy with the same
mobidity. HARRT at best should be a treatment of last resort not the silver
bullet it's now regarded as. HARRT's effectiveness is zero. Yet the morbidity of
HIV may or may not be 100% we simply don't know. Thus we prescribe a known
killer (HARRT) to treat what still amounts to an unknown affliction-- unknown in
that we cannot tell a patient if he'll live a week or 20 years with it. Would
you prescribe HARRT for your daughter? Doubtful. Do you champion it here as the
best HIV therapy around? Apparently you do.
You and others like you are flat earth theorists and don't even realize it.
Spartacus
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Bennett
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3852C9AD...@mindspring.com...
> > morbidity.
>
> And I challenge you to show evidence for the above statement. The data
> is just not there yet, could you have a chance of being correct yes I
> suppose you could, however without this treatment many would not
> survive long enough for new treatment modalities to replace HARRT.
> Given the side effects of HARRT there are many efforts underway to
> find new and safer treatments thus your concerns are a bit of a straw
> man in my view.
>
> > HARRT at best should be a treatment of last resort not the silver
> > bullet it's now regarded as. HARRT's effectiveness is zero. Yet the
> morbidity of
> > HIV may or may not be 100% we simply don't know.
>
> Actually there is very good statistical evidence on the outcomes of
> HIV infection and with a little research you can find them. Yes
> HIV/Aids does not have a 100% mortality rate however if you factor out
> LTNP's untreated it certainly is very close to 100%.
>
> >Thus we prescribe a known
> > killer (HARRT) to treat what still amounts to an unknown
> affliction-- unknown in
> > that we cannot tell a patient if he'll live a week or 20 years with
> it. Would
> > you prescribe HARRT for your daughter?
>
> Well let's see I think I value my own life and yes I have chosen to
> take HARRT. I would recommend any family member who had CD4 T+ cell
> counts lower the 300 to take it as well. The evidence strongly
> supports this recommendation, can you provide any contradicting
> evidence?
> --
> Gary Stein
> ges...@bellatlantic.net
Not to put to fine a point on it, but the question wasn't directed to you.
What I mean by this is that it was asked of a member of medical/research
community. The reasons why should be obvious.
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <38528639...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >
> >> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > prolonging life not winning drawing room debates. And to this I say, if
> > your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
> > medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
> >
> > Are we in agreement on this point?
> >
>
> I am not sure I grant your thoughts on antiviral therapy, but If I understand
> your argument, you believ that the fact that 1 in 250,000 persons getting
> penicillin will die from it makes it unethical to administer penicillin. I
> can't speak for garry but you and I seriously disagree.
Poor example.
Penicillin isn't as lethal as HARRT.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3852C4D6...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >
> > > "Would you care to explain that to me given my perspective, had my
> > > Doctor followed your advice I would be dead? Your stated belief
> above
> > > would logically require that all drugs be removed from the market
> > > place is this what you are advocating? I challenge you to find a
> > > single drug that has not caused the death of at least one person
> who
> > > took it, thus your position requires all medications to be
> immediately
> > > removed from the market place.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary Stein
> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >
> > My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My
> position
> > also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without
> them.
>
> A bit of backpedaling here, your first statements did not single out
> HARRT you simply stated that if a medicine can be shown to have killed
> a single individual then it should not be used no matter how many it
> could save. I would like to see you address the issues of drugs other
> then HARRT or modify your statement and defend with facts why you
> think HARRT should be made to live up to a higher standard then all of
> the thousands of other medications in use around the world.
The issue isn't a "higher standard"; the issue is whether HARRT is bad
medicine. And this isn't answered by trotting out Gary Stein and proudly
proclaiming "Look, everybody, this man would be dead weren't it for
HARRT!"
HARRT is bad medicine. I could write your epitaph right now, sir: " Gary
Stein...Killed by HARRT."
Spartacus
>
Gary Stein
sought treatment?
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)
"SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> Gary Stein wrote:
>
>> sought treatment?
>> --
>> Gary Stein
>> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
> we've all been waiting for?
>
Gary Stein
>
>
> Gary Stein wrote:
>
> > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
he
> > sought treatment?
> > --
> > Gary Stein
> > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
> Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
cure
> we've all been waiting for?
No, what I am saying is that it is not suprising in the least (since
the advent of HARRT) for some one to appear healthy 10-15 years after
seroconversion if they have been on treatment. I would guess that a
huge percentage of the people currently living with HIV/Aids have been
postive for more then 10 years and the vast majority of them are still
healthy looking and able to function fully in anyway that you could
discern from seeing them on TV.
What do you think?
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)
>
> Spartacus
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
>> >> sought treatment?
>> >> --
>> >> Gary Stein
>> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the cure
>> > we've all been waiting for?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Are you suggesting that looking healthy 10 years after a serologic diagnosis
>> is a cure? Perhaps you could say what you are suggesting in a more direct
>> way.
>>
>> >
>
Bennett
>
>Despite having carried the virus for close to 10 years now, the man
>looks as healthy as a steaming bowl of chicken noodle soap.
>
Since half of those infected with HIV live longer than 10 years, you have
the answer to your question.
As far as "chicken noodle SOAP" goes, I can't imagine that's very tasty ;-)
Cheers
Bennett
Gary Stein
>
> I think aggressive drug therapy isn't healthy, that although it
extends
> some lives it does so at a cost an ethical physician shouldn't be
willing
> to pay. I think we can even place a number on this; that is, we can
say
> such a therapy will completely destroy a given patient's health at
some
> approximate point in time-- if, of course, AIDS doesn't do it first.
If
> you argue this is the trade off for a prolonged life, you have a
point.
> But if you deny this downside, you're not being honest.
If you have been reading here in MHA for any length of time you should
be aware that most posters do in fact acknowledge that there are
dangerous side effects related with HARRT. However there are dangers
inherent in all things thus one must perform a risk/benefit analysis
before taking any action in life.
In my case I have no doubt that I would be dead were it not for HARRT
thus the benefits overwhelmingly out weighs the risks of the
treatment. Can I say that would be the case for all people well of
course I can not. Does this imply that HARRT does not work no of
course not.
You imply that you believe the chances of an untreated person
surviving longer then a treated person is high. Well the evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that the untreated will die from Aids related
complications sooner then the treated person. When to start treatment
is a question that must be answered by each individual in consultation
with there Doctors.
You will I think find consensus here in MHA (with a few notable
exceptions) that the evidence so far shows little or no benefits in
starting treatment with a CD4 T+ cell count higher then the range of
say 350-250. There, as you note, are valid reasons not to start
treatment if ones counts are above the range I mention above. Would I
advise you one way or the other no I would not, you must make this
decision on your own. But we are willing to discuss the risks and
benefits involved and thus help you make an informed choice.
>
>You my argue further that you haven't time for such sophistry, that
your interest is
> prolonging life not winning drawing room debates. And to this I say,
if
> your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice
bad
> medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with
it.
Would you care to explain that to me given my perspective, had my
Doctor followed your advice I would be dead? Your stated belief above
would logically require that all drugs be removed from the market
place is this what you are advocating? I challenge you to find a
single drug that has not caused the death of at least one person who
took it, thus your position requires all medications to be immediately
removed from the market place.
--
Bennett
And to this I say, if
>your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
>medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
>
>Are we in agreement on this point?
Have you heard of the phrase:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one, if you're
a Star Trek fan)? For sure any case of mortality or morbidity associated
with medical intervention is one case too many, and we'd all like to avoid
it if possible, but the simple truth is that doctors cannot predict if
something they do/suggest/prescribe will work or will cause problems. They
can say what the _chances_ are of something working, and they'll usually
balance these against the chances of something going wrong. As an example
one of my great-Aunts is ill with a leukaemia that is _cureable_ with a bone
marrow transplant. She won't get the transplant, because she is so old the
procedure would likely kill her before the disease would. In a younger,
fitter person, doctors would promote the curative transplant. There would
still _be_ a risk of it failing, possibly killing the patient, and almost
certainly making them pretty ill for some time. On the other hand the
chances of success are greatly increased.
To say that any form of medicine that puts the patient at risk is "bad
medicine" is calling _all_ medicine and forms of healing "bad". Yes, ALL
forms. Even the "alternative" or "complementary" fields have their risks,
very rarely appreciated by Joe Public. If you want medical care that is
guaranteed harmless, 100% effective, and available on demand, then I wish
you sweet dreams...
Medicine sadly cannot live up to the maxim of "first do no harm", unless of
course you take it literally, and think of "doing harm" (as in some sort of
invasive/medical procedure) as a second-line resort. Most of medicine does
seem to work on this principle, IME. First they do everything they can to
avoid doing harm: then they play the chances game, and try to do less harm
than good. This _must_ be measured overall, not per person. That's what
clinical trials are for. I think your black and white view of the world is
in need of review.
Cheers
Bennett
Gary Stein
>
>
> Gary Stein wrote:
>
> > "Would you care to explain that to me given my perspective, had my
> > Doctor followed your advice I would be dead? Your stated belief
above
> > would logically require that all drugs be removed from the market
> > place is this what you are advocating? I challenge you to find a
> > single drug that has not caused the death of at least one person
who
> > took it, thus your position requires all medications to be
immediately
> > removed from the market place.
> >
> > --
> > Gary Stein
> > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
position
> also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without
them.
A bit of backpedaling here, your first statements did not single out
HARRT you simply stated that if a medicine can be shown to have killed
a single individual then it should not be used no matter how many it
could save. I would like to see you address the issues of drugs other
then HARRT or modify your statement and defend with facts why you
think HARRT should be made to live up to a higher standard then all of
the thousands of other medications in use around the world.
Can you provide a single piece of peer reviewed evidence to back up
this statement?
> Your position and those of most in this group is understandable--
not
> necessary correct, but understandable. But what we know is this --
that we
> don't know. We don't know how long Magic would have lived without
HARRT.
> We do know there are many with the virus not on HARRT who have lived
as
> long as he and are still healthy.
Yes long term non-progressors do exist and the reasons they do not
progress are slowly coming to light. Does science have a complete
understanding of LTNP's yet no, however there is sufficient peer
reviewed data to identify them as a distinct identifiable sub-group of
HIV/Aids patients. Thus your effort to claim that the existence of
LTNP's proves that HARRT does more harm then good is without out
merit.
>Did all the rhetoric about saving lives comprise AIDS medicine? It
appears so.
I would be interested in the evidence you would provide to backup this
statement.
>The result? A state where HARRT is
> the de facto treatment for anyone with the virus. But HARRT is just
a
> palliative -- and one that clearly imparts a costly toll. People
become
> drug addicts all the while convincing themselves they'd be dead
without
> it. This isn't science this is pandemonium. It's whistling while
walking
> through the grave yard.
Your use of "drug addicts" is troubling in that it implies addiction
which simply is not the case with any of the medications used in
HARRT, what do you mean by the use of this phrase?
>
> HARRT has comprised AIDS science. It has been a great step backward
not
> forward. And I'm sorry, but prolonging the lives of several thousand
Gary
> Stein(s) doesn't make it right.
Saving lives is a step backwards? Reducing the number of and length of
hospital stays is a step backwards, reducing the incidence of OI's is
a step backwards, reducing the total health care costs of people
living with HIV/Aids is a step backwards? All of the above statements
are easily verifiable from CDC and NIH data Spartacus. Please provide
something other then your opinion. You might start by posting the
evidence you believe supports your opinion. Spartacus so far all
you've done is state what you believe to be the case. It might be
useful if you truly are open to reasoned debate on the issue that you
provide something other then bold sweeping statements.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)
>
> Spartacus
Gary Stein
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
> learned?
>
That he hasn't died. What would you have learned?
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>> >
>> >
>> > Gary Stein wrote:
>> >
>> > > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
>> he
>> > > sought treatment?
>> > > --
>> > > Gary Stein
>> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
>> cure
>> > we've all been waiting for?
>>
>> the advent of HARRT) for some one to appear healthy 10-15 years after
>> seroconversion if they have been on treatment. I would guess that a
>> huge percentage of the people currently living with HIV/Aids have been
>> postive for more then 10 years and the vast majority of them are still
>> healthy looking and able to function fully in anyway that you could
>> discern from seeing them on TV.
>> What do you think?
>> --
>> Gary Stein
>> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
>
>
> some lives it does so at a cost an ethical physician shouldn't be willing
> to pay. I think we can even place a number on this; that is, we can say
> such a therapy will completely destroy a given patient's health at some
> approximate point in time-- if, of course, AIDS doesn't do it first. If
> you argue this is the trade off for a prolonged life, you have a point.
> further that you haven't time for such sophistry, that your interest is
> your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
> medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
>
> Are we in agreement on this point?
>
I am not sure I grant your thoughts on antiviral therapy, but If I understand
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
> This isn't the issue. HARRT is a therapy we know will ultimately cause the death
> of the patient. I challenge you to present another therapy with the same
what is the evidence that HAART will do this?
Would you explain why it is more toxic than the treatment of, say, leukemia?
>
Gary Stein
> >
> > Well let's see I think I value my own life and yes I have chosen
to
> > take HARRT. I would recommend any family member who had CD4 T+
cell
> > counts lower the 300 to take it as well. The evidence strongly
> > supports this recommendation, can you provide any contradicting
> > evidence?
> > --
> > Gary Stein
> > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
to you.
> What I mean by this is that it was asked of a member of
medical/research
> community. The reasons why should be obvious.
Not obvious in the least, are you implying that I would value my life
less. Or that I have not made an informed choice as to my treatment
options, I rather think you mean the latter. You have nothing to base
that assumption on and so far in this discussion you have yet to show
that you know anything about the topic at hand expect how to express
your opinion. I think I will wait for you to get some facts and then a
clue before responding further. It seems quite clear that you have no
intention of taking part in a reasonable discussion.
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <38528025...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> >> In article <38523C7E...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3851FE6F...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
> >> >> >> sought treatment?
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Gary Stein
> >> >> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the cure
> >> >> > we've all been waiting for?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spartacus
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you suggesting that looking healthy 10 years after a serologic diagnosis
> >> >> is a cure? Perhaps you could say what you are suggesting in a more direct
> >> >> way.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's simple...
> >> >
> >> > I'm suggesting you can't answer the question.
> >> >
> >> > Spartacus
> >> >
> >>
> >> I doubt anyone can answer the question in a literal sense. The idea that some
> >> one looks as "healthy as .. chicken soup" doesn't mean they are healthy. I
> >> suspect only his physicians can answer that question, unless you have access
> >> to his medical records.
> >>
> >> So just what was the real question you were posing?
> >
> > Let's try it like this: If his condition remains the same for the next ten years what will you have
> > learned?
> >
>
> That he hasn't died. What would you have learned?
Surely, you can do better than this.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Gary Stein wrote:
Good bye. And here's one for the road: Doctors often prescribe things
they'd never take themselves.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <3852DF11...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Not to put to fine a point on it, but the question wasn't directed to you.
> > What I mean by this is that it was asked of a member of medical/research
> > community. The reasons why should be obvious.
> >
> > Spartacus
>
> Well, as a member of that community, I can say the reasons why are not
> obvious. YOu need to explain them if you want them understood.
Your memory fails you-- and so does mine, I'm afraid, so I'll attempt to
paraphrase you:
"If I were at death's doorstep I might consider antivirals."
-- Robert Holzman, MD
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <3852DFE0...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> >> In article <38528639...@mindspring.com>,
> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3851FE6F...@mindspring.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
> >> >> he
> >> >> > > sought treatment?
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > Gary Stein
> >> >> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
> >> >> cure
> >> >> > we've all been waiting for?
> >> >>
> > Poor example.
> >
> > Penicillin isn't as lethal as HARRT.
> >
> > Spartacus
> >
>
> Re-read what you said. "If your drugs are resonsible for the death of ONE
> PERSON.... NO MATTER IF YOU'VE EXTENDED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS". Just how
> lethal HAART is is not at issue. Your concept of what is ethical is at issue.
> Do you now want to revise it?
Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea it wasn't?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <38538525...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> Looks like another old aquaintance in a new guise. Your quotation is a just a
> little more severe than my actual text, which basically was supportive of the
> CDC guidelines on who should get therapy at the time. Guidelines you can find
> at the CDC web site, if you haven't yet done so.
It wasn't, that's why you were doing back flips trying to defend it.
>
>
> However my beliefs about antiviral therapy have been posted here for years and
> they are not what you claim by paraphrase.
The relevant quote is what's at issue . If you take exception to my paraphrase of it why not
locate your quote in the archives and reproduce here?
>
>
> The question was, why did you direct your question to "a member of the
> medical/research community" and why you asked it in the first place.
>
> Try answering it.
>
> >
I did, but since you insist I'll spell it out for you...
The medical/research community was bullied into antivirals. The medical/research community tries
to cover this up. The medical/research community wants to believe antivirals are good medicine
but cannot wholly believe this. The medical/research community would go about things differently
if it could turn back the hands of time. The medical/research community is running scared.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Marnix Bosch wrote:
> In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea it wasn't?
> >
> > Spartacus
>
> Well, Spartacus, perhaps it is time you enlighten us with your data on
> the lethality of HAART, so we can begin to understand your arguments.
>
> Marnix Bosch
That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> [snip..]
> > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea
> it wasn't? >
> > Spartacus >
>
> If we are going to continue this discussion you will need to think your way
> out of the paper bag you wandered into. You made a comment about what is
> ethical in medical practice with regard to administering medication that may
> have harmful effects. You made the statement in the context of HAART but the
> statement was not about HAART, it was about what was ethical. That is what we
> are talking about. When we finish that topic we can move on. All you need to
> say is that you don't consider the use of penicillin unethical and then go on
> to explain why use of HAART is, given that peniccilin is not.
This habit of yours of masturbating in public is beneath a man of your stature.
I'll wait till you're finished before continuing the discussion.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <SBibovv0ctFA@mcrcr6>,
> holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) wrote:
> > In article <38523C7E...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <3851FE6F...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Gary Stein wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly
> stated he
> > >> >> sought treatment?
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Gary Stein
> > >> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
> > >> >
> > >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is
> the cure
> > >> > we've all been waiting for?
> > >> >
> > >> > Spartacus
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Are you suggesting that looking healthy 10 years after a serologic
> diagnosis
> > >> is a cure? Perhaps you could say what you are suggesting in a
> more direct
> > >> way.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >
> > > It's simple...
> > >
> > > I'm suggesting you can't answer the question.
> > >
> > > Spartacus
> > >
> >
> > I doubt anyone can answer the question in a literal sense. The idea
> that some
> > one looks as "healthy as .. chicken soup" doesn't mean they are
> healthy. I
> > suspect only his physicians can answer that question, unless you have
> access
> > to his medical records.
> >
> > So just what was the real question you were posing?
>
> Excuse me for butting in here, but several years ago Magic was quoted
> as saying that he'd stopped his HAART for a time because he'd been
> convinced by some people that it was ineffective/dangerous or whatever.
> Consequently, his viral load shot through the roof and he quickly went
> back on his treatment. He revealed his treatment status because he did
> not want others to do the same thing and he was chagrined at being so
> gullible as to beleive the anti-HAART charlatans.
>
> I can try to find the source, if you want.
>
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
You'll have to do better than this to make any points here, sir.
Much better.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
David Canzi wrote:
> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>
> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
> people that HAART keeps alive.
>
> --
> David Canzi
Translation: "Rally around the flag, boys! Spartacus is a homophobe!"
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Bennett wrote:
> SPARTACUS wrote in message <38528639...@mindspring.com>...
>
> And to this I say, if
> >your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
> >medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
> >
> >Are we in agreement on this point?
>
> Have you heard of the phrase:
>
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one, if you're
> a Star Trek fan)? For sure any case of mortality or morbidity associated
> with medical intervention is one case too many, and we'd all like to avoid
> it if possible, but the simple truth is that doctors cannot predict if
> something they do/suggest/prescribe will work or will cause problems. They
> can say what the _chances_ are of something working, and they'll usually
> balance these against the chances of something going wrong. As an example
> one of my great-Aunts is ill with a leukaemia that is _cureable_ with a bone
> marrow transplant. She won't get the transplant, because she is so old the
> procedure would likely kill her before the disease would. In a younger,
> fitter person, doctors would promote the curative transplant. There would
> still _be_ a risk of it failing, possibly killing the patient, and almost
> certainly making them pretty ill for some time. On the other hand the
> chances of success are greatly increased.
This is very charming but isn't really what we're talking about, is it? We're
talking about bad medicine not the limitations of good medicine. In other words
stop using homilies to cover homicide-- and, yes, there is a point in the
practice of bad medicine when "homicide" is the appropriate word.
>
>
> To say that any form of medicine that puts the patient at risk is "bad
> medicine" is calling _all_ medicine and forms of healing "bad". Yes, ALL
> forms. Even the "alternative" or "complementary" fields have their risks,
> very rarely appreciated by Joe Public. If you want medical care that is
> guaranteed harmless, 100% effective, and available on demand, then I wish
> you sweet dreams...
Again, your rhetorical skills are impressive but yet again you obfuscate the
issue. Antivirals were rushed through clinical trials, the reason? political
pressure. Everything since has been like the little boy at the dike trying to
hold the water back with his thumb. Meanwhile, scientists removed from the
cover-up are making real strides. Yes, it appears as if the South Koreans have
done it. I refer you to Gary Stein's last thread titled "South Korean Scientists
Claim Breakthrough in AIDS Vaccine."
If this is true your rhetorical skills are going to have a field day.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Marnix Bosch wrote:
> In article <3854075C...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Marnix Bosch wrote:
> >
> > > In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> > > <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the
> > > > idea it wasn't?
> > > >
> > > > Spartacus
> > >
> > > Well, Spartacus, perhaps it is time you enlighten us with your data on
> > > the lethality of HAART, so we can begin to understand your arguments.
> > >
> > > Marnix Bosch
> >
> > That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
>
> In other words: you don't have a clue.
>
> Marnix Bosch
Maybe. But if I had your background I'd have accomplished more with the clues
you have. I'm the best troll on the net. You're an obscure little scientist. If
our roles were switched you'd be somewhere collecting soda pop cans.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Marnix Bosch wrote:
> In article <38541BC3...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> As it is, I may have a chance to contribute. You, are irrelevant. And
> will therefore be ignored.
>
> Marnix Bosch
No one is irrelevant.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <38540723...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> >> In article <38538525...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3852DF11...@mindspring.com>,
> >> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not to put to fine a point on it, but the question wasn't directed to you.
> >> >> > What I mean by this is that it was asked of a member of medical/research
> >> >> > community. The reasons why should be obvious.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spartacus
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, as a member of that community, I can say the reasons why are not
> >> >> obvious. YOu need to explain them if you want them understood.
> >> >
> >> > Your memory fails you-- and so does mine, I'm afraid, so I'll attempt to
> >> > paraphrase you:
> >> >
> >> > "If I were at death's doorstep I might consider antivirals."
> >> >
> >> > -- Robert Holzman, MD
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Looks like another old aquaintance in a new guise. Your quotation is a just a
> >> little more severe than my actual text, which basically was supportive of the
> >> CDC guidelines on who should get therapy at the time. Guidelines you can find
> >> at the CDC web site, if you haven't yet done so.
> >
> > It wasn't, that's why you were doing back flips trying to defend it.
> >
>
> Says you. If you think that, dig them out and repost them.
>
> >> The question was, why did you direct your question to "a member of the
> >> medical/research community" and why you asked it in the first place.
> >>
> >> Try answering it.
> >>
> >> >
> >
> > I did, but since you insist I'll spell it out for you...
> >
>
> > The medical/research community was bullied into antivirals. The
> medical/research community tries > to cover this up. The medical/research
> community wants to believe antivirals are good medicine > but cannot wholly
> believe this. The medical/research community would go about things differently
> > if it could turn back the hands of time. The medical/research community is
> running scared. >
>
> Must be some other medical community than the one I live in. But what does
> this have to do with magic johnson and chicken soup?
>
> Or do you now admint that this is meaningless junk that you just posted to be a
> troll provocateur and you know nothing of medical ethics much less personal
> ethics.
I admit to all of the above.
Now, will you stop being so anal retentive?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
David Canzi wrote:
> In article <38541BC3...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Marnix Bosch wrote:
> >> In other words: you don't have a clue.
> >
> >Maybe. But if I had your background I'd have accomplished more with the clues
> >you have. I'm the best troll on the net. You're an obscure little scientist.
> >If our roles were switched you'd be somewhere collecting soda pop cans.
>
> If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
> roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
> with somebody who collects pop cans somewhere...
>
> --
> David Canzi Some people without brains do an awful lot of
> talking, don't they? -- the scarecrow
You go out of your way to be unwitty, don't you?
Why is this? You could have responded with any number of witty follow-ups, instead
you present us with the most water-down pap imaginable.
Why is this? What perverse joy do you derive from from doing this?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
If you expected me to go easy on you because you're HIV+ you're letting
your affliction define who you are.
So what is it? Are you a man or a leper?
Spartacus
Gary Stein wrote:
> Yet another dip shit hits the twit filter
> PLONK
> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3854088D...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> > > In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>,
> > > SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > > [snip..]
> > >
> > > >> >> > I think aggressive drug therapy isn't healthy, that
> although it
> > > extends >> >> > some lives it does so at a cost an ethical
> physician shouldn't
> > > be willing >> >> > to pay. I think we can even place a number on
> this; that
> > > is, we can say >> >> > such a therapy will completely destroy a
> given
> > > patient's health at some >> >> > approximate point in time-- if,
> of course,
> > > AIDS doesn't do it first. If >> >> > you argue this is the trade
> off for a
> > > prolonged life, you have a point. >> >> > But if you deny this
> downside,
> > > you're not being honest. You my argue >> >> > further that you
> haven't time
> > > for such sophistry, that your interest is >> >> > prolonging life
> not winning
> > > drawing room debates. And to this I say, if >> >> > your drugs are
> responsible
> > > for the death of one person, you practice bad
> > >
> > > >> >> > medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of
> thousands with
> > > it.
> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Are we in agreement on this point?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > >
> > > >> >> I am not sure I grant your thoughts on antiviral therapy,
> but If I
> > > understand >> >> your argument, you believ that the fact that 1 in
> 250,000
> > > persons getting >> >> penicillin will die from it makes it
> unethical to
> > > administer penicillin. I >> >> can't speak for garry but you and
> I seriously
> > > disagree.
> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Poor example.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Penicillin isn't as lethal as HARRT.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Spartacus
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> Re-read what you said. "If your drugs are resonsible for the
> death of ONE
> > > >> PERSON.... NO MATTER IF YOU'VE EXTENDED THE LIVES OF
> THOUSANDS". Just how
> > > >> lethal HAART is is not at issue. Your concept of what is
> ethical is at
> > > issue. >> Do you now want to revise it? >
> > >
> > > > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave
> you the idea
> > > it wasn't? >
> > > > Spartacus >
> > >
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> In article <3854088D...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >> Re-read what you said. "If your drugs are resonsible for the death of ONE
> >> >> PERSON.... NO MATTER IF YOU'VE EXTENDED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS". Just how
> >> >> lethal HAART is is not at issue. Your concept of what is ethical is at
> >> issue. >> Do you now want to revise it? >
> >>
> >> > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea
> >> it wasn't? >
> >> > Spartacus >
> >>
> >> If we are going to continue this discussion you will need to think your way
> >> out of the paper bag you wandered into. You made a comment about what is
> >> ethical in medical practice with regard to administering medication that may
> >> have harmful effects. You made the statement in the context of HAART but the
> >> statement was not about HAART, it was about what was ethical. That is what we
> >> are talking about. When we finish that topic we can move on. All you need to
> >> say is that you don't consider the use of penicillin unethical and then go on
> >> to explain why use of HAART is, given that peniccilin is not.
> >
> > This habit of yours of masturbating in public is beneath a man of your stature.
> > I'll wait till you're finished before continuing the discussion.
> >
> > Spartacus
> >
>
> No need to hold your breath. The disussion is over.
Oh, no it's not.
This is not one of your college classrooms -- this is the real world.
Spartacus
Bennett
>
>Bennett wrote:
>
>>
>> To say that any form of medicine that puts the patient at risk is "bad
>> medicine" is calling _all_ medicine and forms of healing "bad". Yes, ALL
>> forms. Even the "alternative" or "complementary" fields have their
risks,
>> very rarely appreciated by Joe Public. If you want medical care that is
>> guaranteed harmless, 100% effective, and available on demand, then I wish
>> you sweet dreams...
>
Errr, you made it the issue. If you were wanting to talk about HAART
specifically (and your comment to Bob Holzman about penicillin suggests
this) you should have said so.
HARRT is a therapy we know will ultimately cause the death
>of the patient.
Wrong. You're assuming that HAART is 100% successful. It is not:
eventually HIV would mutate to escape the drug control, and then you'd be
scuppered anyway.
I challenge you to present another therapy with the same
>mobidity. HARRT at best should be a treatment of last resort not the silver
>bullet it's now regarded as.
HAART is not regarded as a "silver bullet" except for those who wish to
shoot it down. If you had been reading this group for any length of time
you would be aware that most "orthodox" people here hold the view that HAART
shouldn't be started too early in infection, and are well aware that it is
at best a postponement of the disease.
>HARRT's effectiveness is zero. Yet the morbidity of
>HIV may or may not be 100% we simply don't know.
Both these statements are ludicrous. While HAART is not a cure (and no-one
except the media said it would be) is does _prolong_ life. Everyone dies,
sometime. Those with HIV infection die earlier than they should. Those
with endstage HIV disease who also take HAART live longer. The studies have
been done, and have been posted here many times. Several newer ones have
been published since then.
To say that the morbidity (I think you mean mortality: morbidity refers only
to "illness") of HIV is unknown is also daft. The virus was discovered by
investigating people who were at greater risk of dying than they should have
been. Long term (over decades) study of infected people show that the death
rate from infection is as high as 90%, and those that live longest have
virus-specific characteristics. eg A defective virus, a strong anti-viral
immune response, a certain collection of genes that make up their immune
system, and in the case of some who are resistant to infection itself,
deletions in the protein receptor for HIV. Mortality is extremely well
known for this virus.
> Thus we prescribe a known
>killer (HARRT) to treat what still amounts to an unknown affliction--
unknown in
>that we cannot tell a patient if he'll live a week or 20 years with it.
We can't say that about any disease, not for every patient. We _can_ give
them a risk of progression/death within a certain timescale. That's the
same as for cancer: one talks of 5 year survival rates, and yet you cannot
predict how long a particular patient will survive.
Would
>you prescribe HARRT for your daughter? Doubtful.
If I thought it appropriate I would: I would take it myself if I had to, and
while I don't have a family yet I resent your implication that I would treat
them any differently than how I would treat a patient or counsel a friend.
I want the best in all situations.
Do you champion it here as the
>best HIV therapy around? Apparently you do.
It _is_. It is the best therapy currently available, as far as we know. If
someone comes up with something better, you'll know about it...
Cheers
Bennett
PS note the spelling of HAART: Highly Active/Aggressive Anti-Retroviral
Therapy
GMCarter
<spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
snip
>> > Let's try it like this: If his condition remains the same for the next ten years what will you have
>> > learned?
>> >
Holzman:
>> That he hasn't died. What would you have learned?
Spartacus/Bard
>Surely, you can do better than this.
Surely, you can answer the doctor's question? No?
I thought not.
George M. Carter
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
>> >> he
>> >> > > sought treatment?
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Gary Stein
>> >> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
>> >> cure
>> >> > we've all been waiting for?
>> >>
>> >> the advent of HARRT) for some one to appear healthy 10-15 years after
>> >> seroconversion if they have been on treatment. I would guess that a
>> >> huge percentage of the people currently living with HIV/Aids have been
>> >> postive for more then 10 years and the vast majority of them are still
>> >> healthy looking and able to function fully in anyway that you could
>> >> discern from seeing them on TV.
>> >> What do you think?
>> >> --
>> >> Gary Stein
>> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > some lives it does so at a cost an ethical physician shouldn't be willing
>> > to pay. I think we can even place a number on this; that is, we can say
>> > such a therapy will completely destroy a given patient's health at some
>> > approximate point in time-- if, of course, AIDS doesn't do it first. If
>> > you argue this is the trade off for a prolonged life, you have a point.
>> > But if you deny this downside, you're not being honest. You my argue
>> > further that you haven't time for such sophistry, that your interest is
>> > prolonging life not winning drawing room debates. And to this I say, if
>> > your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
>> > medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
>> >
>> > Are we in agreement on this point?
>> >
>>
>> I am not sure I grant your thoughts on antiviral therapy, but If I understand
>> your argument, you believ that the fact that 1 in 250,000 persons getting
>> penicillin will die from it makes it unethical to administer penicillin. I
>> can't speak for garry but you and I seriously disagree.
>
> Poor example.
>
> Penicillin isn't as lethal as HARRT.
>
> Spartacus
>
Marnix Bosch
> Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea it wasn't?
>
> Spartacus
Well, Spartacus, perhaps it is time you enlighten us with your data on
mcoo...@my-deja.com
<spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly
stated he
> >> >> sought treatment?
> >> >> --
> >> >> Gary Stein
> >> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
> >> >
> >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is
the cure
> >> > we've all been waiting for?
> >> >
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>
> paraphrase you:
>
> "If I were at death's doorstep I might consider antivirals."
>
> -- Robert Holzman, MD
>
>
Looks like another old aquaintance in a new guise. Your quotation is a just a
little more severe than my actual text, which basically was supportive of the
CDC guidelines on who should get therapy at the time. Guidelines you can find
at the CDC web site, if you haven't yet done so.
However my beliefs about antiviral therapy have been posted here for years and
they are not what you claim by paraphrase.
The question was, why did you direct your question to "a member of the
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
[snip..]
> Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the idea
it wasn't? >
> Spartacus >
If we are going to continue this discussion you will need to think your way
Bennett
>
>We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.
>
Heheh: the MHA motto methinks ;-)
Cheers
Bennett
David Canzi
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
people that HAART keeps alive.
--
Marnix Bosch
<spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Marnix Bosch wrote:
>
> > In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> > <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the
> > > idea it wasn't?
> > >
> > > Spartacus
> >
> > Well, Spartacus, perhaps it is time you enlighten us with your data on
> > the lethality of HAART, so we can begin to understand your arguments.
> >
> > Marnix Bosch
>
> That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
In other words: you don't have a clue.
Marnix Bosch
Gary Stein
PLONK
you the idea
> > it wasn't? >
> > > Spartacus >
> >
your way
> > out of the paper bag you wandered into. You made a comment about
what is
> > ethical in medical practice with regard to administering
medication that may
> > have harmful effects. You made the statement in the context of
HAART but the
> > statement was not about HAART, it was about what was ethical.
That is what we
> > are talking about. When we finish that topic we can move on. All
you need to
> > say is that you don't consider the use of penicillin unethical and
then go on
> > to explain why use of HAART is, given that peniccilin is not.
>
Gary Stein
>
>
> David Canzi wrote:
>
> > In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
> > SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My
position
> > >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without
them.
> >
> > Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never
defined
> > who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
> > people that HAART keeps alive.
> >
> > --
> > David Canzi
>
homophobe!"
Who knows, but you are a dip so;
PLONK
>
> Spartacus
>
Marnix Bosch
<spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Marnix Bosch wrote:
>
> > In article <3854075C...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> > <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Marnix Bosch wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <385385C5...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> > > > <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Of course the lethality of HARRT is the issue. What ever gave you the
> > > > > idea it wasn't?
> > > > >
> > > > > Spartacus
> > > >
> > > > Well, Spartacus, perhaps it is time you enlighten us with your data on
> > > > the lethality of HAART, so we can begin to understand your arguments.
> > > >
> > > > Marnix Bosch
> > >
> > > That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
> >
> > In other words: you don't have a clue.
> >
> > Marnix Bosch
>
> Maybe. But if I had your background I'd have accomplished more with the clues
> you have. I'm the best troll on the net. You're an obscure little scientist.
> If
> our roles were switched you'd be somewhere collecting soda pop cans.
As it is, I may have a chance to contribute. You, are irrelevant. And
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>> >> PERSON.... NO MATTER IF YOU'VE EXTENDED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS". Just how
>> >> lethal HAART is is not at issue. Your concept of what is ethical is at
>> issue. >> Do you now want to revise it? >
>>
>> it wasn't? >
>> > Spartacus >
>>
>> out of the paper bag you wandered into. You made a comment about what is
>> ethical in medical practice with regard to administering medication that may
>> have harmful effects. You made the statement in the context of HAART but the
>> statement was not about HAART, it was about what was ethical. That is what we
>> are talking about. When we finish that topic we can move on. All you need to
>> say is that you don't consider the use of penicillin unethical and then go on
>> to explain why use of HAART is, given that peniccilin is not.
>
> This habit of yours of masturbating in public is beneath a man of your stature.
> I'll wait till you're finished before continuing the discussion.
>
> Spartacus
>
No need to hold your breath. The disussion is over.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>> >
>> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Not to put to fine a point on it, but the question wasn't directed to you.
>> >> > What I mean by this is that it was asked of a member of medical/research
>> >> > community. The reasons why should be obvious.
>> >> >
>> >> > Spartacus
>> >>
>> >> Well, as a member of that community, I can say the reasons why are not
>> >> obvious. YOu need to explain them if you want them understood.
>> >
>> > Your memory fails you-- and so does mine, I'm afraid, so I'll attempt to
>> > paraphrase you:
>> >
>> > "If I were at death's doorstep I might consider antivirals."
>> >
>> > -- Robert Holzman, MD
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Looks like another old aquaintance in a new guise. Your quotation is a just a
>> little more severe than my actual text, which basically was supportive of the
>> CDC guidelines on who should get therapy at the time. Guidelines you can find
>> at the CDC web site, if you haven't yet done so.
>
>
Says you. If you think that, dig them out and repost them.
>> The question was, why did you direct your question to "a member of the
>> medical/research community" and why you asked it in the first place.
>>
>> Try answering it.
>>
>> >
>
SPARTACUS
GMCarter wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:46:53 -0200, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >David Canzi wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
> >> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
> >>
> >> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
> >> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
> >> people that HAART keeps alive.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Canzi
> >
> >Translation: "Rally around the flag, boys! Spartacus is a homophobe!"
>
> At the risk of being sex-negative, I'd say "anonymous asshole" would
> suffice.
>
> George Mary Carter
Try "anonymous" HIV negative asshole.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
David Canzi wrote:
> In article <385409BD...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Canzi wrote:
> >> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
> >> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
> >>
> >> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
> >> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
> >> people that HAART keeps alive.
> >
> >Translation: "Rally around the flag, boys! Spartacus is a homophobe!"
>
> You have said:
>
> "...if your drugs are responsible for the death of one person,
> you practice bad medicine -- no matter if you've extended the
> lives of thousands with it."
>
> I can't imagine you making your goals any clearer: you would eagerly
> advocate a course of action that increases deaths more than a
> thousandfold. You'd rather have the thousands dead than the one.
>
This is nonsense. Antivirals don't save lives, they prolong lives, thus the
question is closer to this: Is it right to prolong 1000 lives at the cost of
100?
>
> By the way, why did you omit any mention of IV drug users from your
> response? Perhaps you reveal what matters most to you by what you
> considered worth mentioning.
You appear to be babbling here. What are you trying to say?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Steve wrote:
> Hmmmm.......
>
> An entire message thread covering EXACTLY the sort of topics that fred
> just absolutely adores: accusations of murder, suggestions that researchers
> "should have been able to do better", irrelevant potty-mouth forays into
> personal insults, talk of conspiracies and coverups, explicitly expressed
> pride in being "the best troll on the internet" (something fred could never
> do under his own name given some of his past remarks, but something I've
> always suspected he takes pride in)...and not ONE SINGLE message from
> 'ol cranky himself...some 50 to 60 messages all singing his mating call
> loud and clear yet not ONE tiny little peep....
>
> SPARTACUS has only recently appeared on Usenet...he's claiming to be a
> black man "from the ghetto" on soc.culture.african.american but making
> inflamatory remarks dissing all black leaders...he's in rec.sport.boxing
> starting fights and calling people who disagree with him "effeminate", and
> insisting that people "provide your legal qualifications before dispensing
> advice like that".
>
> Let's see...quasi-homophobic suggestions that doctors should have let
> thousands of gay men die from hiv rather than have harmed one with
> HAART, posing as and race-baiting African Americans by attacking their
> leaders, a fascination with hot young men beating each other up, all
> swilled together with authoritarian bossiness.
>
> Hmmmm......
>
> Sure sounds like a bored, unemployed EX-(couldn't-quite-cut-it-as-a)-Cop
> to me.
>
> Anyone else smell pork? Oinky? Is that you???
Will someone tell this rube bubble gum psychoanalysis of this sort is no longer
regarded as clever or amusing. Everyone's been to deja news already to look me
up. Only you have the naiveté to think doing it and reporting back makes you
look cool.
A tad foolish, maybe, but definitely not cool.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Bennett wrote:
> SPARTACUS wrote in message <3854406C...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> >
> >
> >Why is this? What perverse joy do you derive from from doing this?
> >
>
> I could ask you the same thing. The "best troll on the net" indeed. Hmmm.
> Hardly: you haven't found an issue to flame anyone with yet: every word
> you've posted has been shot down.
>
> Marnix on the other hand is right: you _are_ irrelevent. "Obscure little
> scientists" do occasionally make worthwhile contributions: such as the
> Korean SIV vaccine developers... Meanwhile, you waste your life away here
> on Usenet, contributing nothing of interest, saying nothing of interest.
> When you actually find an issue you know something about, and have a good
> point to make, we'll all be happy to listen.
> You'd be a prime candidate for The Inquisitor, but you'd had to have watched
> Red Dwarf to appreciate that one...
>
> Cheers
>
> Bennett
You better stick to AIDS medicine in your posts. The second you pretend you know
anything other than this you're as hopeless as that little boy peering down a
gas can with a lighted match.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
David Canzi wrote:
> In article <3854406C...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Canzi wrote:
> >> If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
> >> roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
> >> with somebody who collects pop cans somewhere...
> >
> >You go out of your way to be unwitty, don't you?
>
> Maybe I was too indirect. Let me try again:
>
> If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
> roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
> with you he would be collecting pop cans somewhere...
>
> --
> David Canzi
Try this:
...if he switched roles with you, Spartacus, the guy collecting pop cans would
be his regional manager.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
> Its a free country and anyone can post here. However the last time bozo the
> troll was here he went back under his bridge when he was studiously ignored.
> I plan to renew this practice and recommend it to all who, since it IS a free
> country, can do as they please.
You've been promising to ignore me for years. Why don't you make it a New Year's Resolution this
year and try and stick to it for a few days?
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
> In article <3854414E...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Why the hostility?
> >
> >If you expected me to go easy on you because you're HIV+ you're letting
> >your affliction define who you are.
> >
> >So what is it? Are you a man or a leper?
> >
> >Spartacus
>
> Hmmmm, if you read the string it was YOU who was hostile when it was
> pointed out you had made a (very obvious) discussionary error and were
> unwilling to correct it despite repeated opportunities to do so.
>
> --
> Bob Van Burkleo rp...@mindspring.com http://rpvb3.home.mindspring.com
> "the difference between failure and success is doing a thing nearly
> right and doing a thing exactly right"
> - Edward Simmons
Shut up.
Beat it.
Let to keep your lip button when adults are talking.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Bennett wrote:
> SPARTACUS wrote in message <385441D5...@mindspring.com>...
> >This is not one of your college classrooms -- this is the real world.
> >
>
> ROTFL.
>
> This has to be one of the all-time Usenet classics.... real world
> indeed.... Oh dear. You need to get out more.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bennett
Me? What you know about life wouldn't fill a thimble.
Spartacus
GMCarter
<spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Canzi wrote:
>
>> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>>
>> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
>> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
>> people that HAART keeps alive.
>>
>> --
>> David Canzi
>
>Translation: "Rally around the flag, boys! Spartacus is a homophobe!"
At the risk of being sex-negative, I'd say "anonymous asshole" would
suffice.
George Mary Carter
David Canzi
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David Canzi wrote:
>> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>>
>> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
>> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
>> people that HAART keeps alive.
>
You have said:
"...if your drugs are responsible for the death of one person,
you practice bad medicine -- no matter if you've extended the
lives of thousands with it."
I can't imagine you making your goals any clearer: you would eagerly
advocate a course of action that increases deaths more than a
thousandfold. You'd rather have the thousands dead than the one.
By the way, why did you omit any mention of IV drug users from your
response? Perhaps you reveal what matters most to you by what you
considered worth mentioning.
--
David Canzi
>> In other words: you don't have a clue.
>
>you have. I'm the best troll on the net. You're an obscure little scientist.
If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
with somebody who collects pop cans somewhere...
--
Steve
Gary Stein
been plonked.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net
"Steve" <ger...@sdrc.com> wrote in message
news:834ire$a...@nfs0.sdrc.com...
David Canzi
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>This is nonsense. Antivirals don't save lives, they prolong lives, ...
Prolonging life is all any medical treatment can do for any condition.
Everybody dies eventually. Cure somebody of tuberculosis and he dies
later instead of sooner.
So what's your point? And do you wear a hat over it?
Bennett
>
>
>Bennett wrote:
>
>> Have you heard of the phrase:
>>
>> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one, if
you're
>> a Star Trek fan)? For sure any case of mortality or morbidity associated
>> with medical intervention is one case too many, and we'd all like to
avoid
>> it if possible, but the simple truth is that doctors cannot predict if
>> something they do/suggest/prescribe will work or will cause problems.
They
>> can say what the _chances_ are of something working, and they'll usually
>> balance these against the chances of something going wrong. As an
example
>> one of my great-Aunts is ill with a leukaemia that is _cureable_ with a
bone
>> marrow transplant. She won't get the transplant, because she is so old
the
>> procedure would likely kill her before the disease would. In a younger,
>> fitter person, doctors would promote the curative transplant. There
would
>> still _be_ a risk of it failing, possibly killing the patient, and almost
>> certainly making them pretty ill for some time. On the other hand the
>> chances of success are greatly increased.
>
>This is very charming but isn't really what we're talking about, is it?
I didn't know that at the time: you made a general statement about
medication, when you were in fact talking specifically about HAART. You
should make your self clearer if you wish to discuss the issues you want.
We're
>talking about bad medicine not the limitations of good medicine.
I'm saying there _is_ no bad medicine in the way you define it (And to this
I say, if your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you
practice bad medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands
with it.).
>> To say that any form of medicine that puts the patient at risk is "bad
>> medicine" is calling _all_ medicine and forms of healing "bad". Yes, ALL
>> forms. Even the "alternative" or "complementary" fields have their
risks,
>> very rarely appreciated by Joe Public. If you want medical care that is
>> guaranteed harmless, 100% effective, and available on demand, then I wish
>> you sweet dreams...
>
>Again, your rhetorical skills are impressive
Thankyou, I've had practise.
but yet again you obfuscate the
>issue. Antivirals were rushed through clinical trials, the reason?
political
>pressure.
Agreed here: certainly to start with the antiviral trials were
"fast-tracked". The reason was not _entirely_ political though: it was
because the deaths in the placebo arm made the trial unethical to continue.
The same principle has been applied to other trials in other fields. It's
acceptable. If that hadn't happened I doubt any drug would have been
accepted, no matter how much pressure was applied by the public/media.
Surrogate markers now suffice to predict the clinical outcome of trials, so
"fast-track" trials these days are at least rationalised. Long-term
follow-up, which in a way replaces the long-term phase III trials, shows
this to be a Good Thing. You _are_ aware of the great improvements in the
health of those with endstage HIV infection while on therapy, especially
HAART? Again, we have to talk about overall health, not per-individual.
Everything since has been like the little boy at the dike trying to
>hold the water back with his thumb. Meanwhile, scientists removed from the
>cover-up are making real strides.
There is no cover up, except perhaps over your eyes.
Yes, it appears as if the South Koreans have
>done it. I refer you to Gary Stein's last thread titled "South Korean
Scientists
>Claim Breakthrough in AIDS Vaccine."
>
See my response to your posting on that subject.
>If this is true your rhetorical skills are going to have a field day.
I use rhetoric to put across concepts, especially ethical ones, across more
easily. Day to day I deal with facts, and the facts argue _strongly_ for
the use of antivirals to prevent the occurance of OI's in AIDS. Arguements
are all very well until you start dealing with unquestionable observations.
Cheers
Bennett
Bennett
Bennett
fran...@rocketmail.com
mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I can try to find the source, if you want.
yes, coon, please do so. and after you find the source, please post it
here.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
GMCarter
<spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Try "anonymous" HIV negative asshole.
>
>Spartacus
Good for you Bard. I'm glad you're HIV-negative.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>> SPARTACUS has only recently appeared on Usenet...he's claiming to be a
>> black man "from the ghetto" on soc.culture.african.american but making
>> inflamatory remarks dissing all black leaders...he's in rec.sport.boxing
>> starting fights and calling people who disagree with him "effeminate", and
>> insisting that people "provide your legal qualifications before dispensing
>> advice like that".
>>
>> Let's see...quasi-homophobic suggestions that doctors should have let
>> thousands of gay men die from hiv rather than have harmed one with
>> HAART, posing as and race-baiting African Americans by attacking their
>> leaders, a fascination with hot young men beating each other up, all
>> swilled together with authoritarian bossiness.
>>
>> Hmmmm......
>>
>> Sure sounds like a bored, unemployed EX-(couldn't-quite-cut-it-as-a)-Cop
>> to me.
>>
>> Anyone else smell pork? Oinky? Is that you???
I smell a BARD, and definitely not from Avon.
mcoo...@my-deja.com
fran...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> In article <833b2s$ffs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I can try to find the source, if you want.
>
> yes, coon, please do so. and after you find the source, please post it
> here.
Apparently Deja.com is not allowing me to post URLs, so just add the
required bit to make these links work (anyone know why Deja.com won't
let me post URLs?);
//hivinsite.ucsf.edu/prevention/ask/2098.3e70.html
and
//207.27.3.28/aidshiv/db2/1998/05/kh980511.5.html
Bob Van Burkleo
David Canzi
>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >If our roles were switched you'd be somewhere collecting soda pop cans.
>>
>> If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
>> roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
>> with somebody who collects pop cans somewhere...
>
Maybe I was too indirect. Let me try again:
If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
with you he would be collecting pop cans somewhere...
--
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
>
>
> Bennett wrote:
>
Gary Stein
"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" <holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:DnBqiK1txu0O@mcrcr6...
>
> Its a free country and anyone can post here. However the last time
bozo the
> troll was here he went back under his bridge when he was studiously
ignored.
> I plan to renew this practice and recommend it to all who, since it
IS a free
> country, can do as they please.
Yes I beat you to it by a day this dweeb was a prime canidate for the
twit filter.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net
efree
he may also be watching what he puts into his body. I have been
Pozitive (LOL) since 1989. I quit drinking alcohol even beer. I quit
taking or smoking drugs. Now I eat healthy and learn all I can about
hiv & aids. I have had some infections pneumonia and shingles but for
the most part I (with my higher powers help) have been doing fine knock
on wood. I drink 2 gallons of water everyday and ride my bike
everywhere for exercise. I do have fat deposits from crixavan and they
don't want to go away no matter what. Most and best of all keep
yourself clean inside and out and pray we all will be able to afford
the good meds from around the world. Laugh alot and be happy. I also
take 15 grams of vitamin c this amount works for me others are or will
be different.
About the vitamin C if you get loose stools and the runs then you taking
to much.
Good luck and God Bless
efree
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David Canzi
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David Canzi wrote:
>> If he switched roles with a CEO, he would be a CEO. If he switched
>> roles with a wrestler, he would be a wrestler. If he switched roles
>> with you he would be collecting pop cans somewhere...
>
>...if he switched roles with you, Spartacus, the guy collecting pop cans would
>be his regional manager.
That suits me fine.
DGiunti
<spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>Shut up.
>
>Beat it.
Just as I suspected. This joker is not at risk for AIDS, unless he gets his
hands very dirty!
David Giunti emil: DGi...@aol.community
What is the question? Gertrude Stein's last words
No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts
community is really com
Bob Van Burkleo
>Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>> Hmmmm, if you read the string it was YOU who was hostile when it was
>> pointed out you had made a (very obvious) discussionary error and were
>> unwilling to correct it despite repeated opportunities to do so.
>>
>> --
>Shut up.
>
>Beat it.
>
>Let to keep your lip button when adults are talking.
>
>Spartacus
>
<snarf> Sorry, I replied before I read the note where you
self-identified yourself as a troll. I thought you were serious, my
mistake.
You've been plonked, so you can get all hot and exciting now because I
paid attention to you.
SPARTACUS
Steve wrote:
> In article <3854635E...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> ...
> > > Let's see...quasi-homophobic suggestions that doctors should have
> let
> > > thousands of gay men die from hiv rather than have harmed one with
> > > HAART, posing as and race-baiting African Americans by attacking
> their
> > > leaders, a fascination with hot young men beating each other up, all
> > > swilled together with authoritarian bossiness.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm......
> > >
> > > Sure sounds like a bored, unemployed
> EX-(couldn't-quite-cut-it-as-a)-Cop
> > > to me.
> > Will someone tell this rube bubble gum psychoanalysis of this sort
>
> Psychoanalysis? Speculating about your identity by making an
> _observation_ that your posting patterns and written words are
> consistent with an egotistical, bossy, authoritarian, closeted,
> homophobic, racist cop (which probably describes 75% of cops and their
> various minions like parole officers), is nothing close to
> "psychoanalysis", so I guess you don't know the meaning of that word.
>
> Lord, I wouldn't want to even begin to speculate on the origins
> and dynamics of your emotional dysfunctions; I'd probably hurl
> instantly. I'm talking only about the appearance of their external
> manifestations, in all their ickiness.
>
> If you'd like though, I will give you my layperson's bubblegum analysis
> of one aspect of your emotional motivations for posting here, since
> you seem interested..free of charge, yours for the asking.
>
> > Only you have the naiveté to think doing it and reporting back makes
> you
> > look cool.
>
> My self-esteem has zilch dependence on the impressions of m.h.a.
> readers, 99.999% of whom I do not know. And I'm sure to 99.999% of
> them, I'm just an another username, and that suits me just fine. And
> I couldn't care less about being "cool", or how what I write makes me
> "look".
>
> The point was, how YOUR brief online history makes YOU look: like an
> Asshole Pig getting his jollies by poking at various people online that
> he has some psychotic grudge against, and watching them jump.
>
> That is what Trolls do, isn't it? And you HAVE boasted about being
> a Premium USDA Grade A Troll, haven't you? So what's your complaint?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
You're like the comedian who tells a joke than explains when it doesn't get
any laughs.
Spartacus
SPARTACUS
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
> In article <38557A25...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS
> <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> >> Hmmmm, if you read the string it was YOU who was hostile when it was
> >> pointed out you had made a (very obvious) discussionary error and were
> >> unwilling to correct it despite repeated opportunities to do so.
> >>
> >> --
> >Shut up.
> >
> >Beat it.
> >
> >Let to keep your lip button when adults are talking.
> >
> >Spartacus
> >
>
> <snarf> Sorry, I replied before I read the note where you
> self-identified yourself as a troll. I thought you were serious, my
> mistake.
>
> You've been plonked, so you can get all hot and exciting now because I
> paid attention to you.
>
> -- Bob Van Burkleo
This is true. The more you watch me masturbate the better it feels.
And your private email is really wild but I think I'll pass on your
invitation to meet. I may be a voyeur but I'm not a gay one.
Spartacus
mcoo...@my-deja.com
A wit with dunces, and a dunce with wits.
(My apologies to Alexander Pope)
fran...@rocketmail.com
mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> //hivinsite.ucsf.edu/prevention/ask/2098.3e70.html
>
> and
>
> //207.27.3.28/aidshiv/db2/1998/05/kh980511.5.html
thanks. however, even though you stated that...
"...Magic was quoted as saying that he'd stopped his HAART for a time
because he'd been convinced by some people that it was
ineffective/dangerous or whatever. Consequently, his viral load shot
through the roof and he quickly went back on his treatment. He revealed
his treatment status because he did not want others to
do the same thing and he was chagrined at being so gullible as to
beleive the anti-HAART charlatans."
...there is nothing in the articles you posted that indicates that Magic
stopped taking HAART because someone convinced him it was ineffective or
dangerous or that he was chagrined at being gullible because he
temporarily believed that it was either ineffective or dangerous. were
did you get *that* quote from?
SPARTACUS
mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> > You're like the comedian who tells a joke than explains when it
> doesn't get
> > any laughs.
> >
> > Spartacus
>
> A wit with dunces, and a dunce with wits.
>
> (My apologies to Alexander Pope)
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Very good. Now put down that book of quotations and try and pen your own
reposte.
Spartacus
MW
Gary Stein wrote in message <82vfku$7ou$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
>sought treatment?
How would his public statements affect his health?
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>
>> In article <38523C7E...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3851FE6F...@mindspring.com>, SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Gary Stein wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated he
>> >> >> sought treatment?
>> >> >> Gary Stein
>> >> >> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the cure
>> >> > we've all been waiting for?
>> >> >
>> >> > Spartacus
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Are you suggesting that looking healthy 10 years after a serologic diagnosis
>> >> is a cure? Perhaps you could say what you are suggesting in a more direct
>> >> way.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> > It's simple...
>> >
>> > I'm suggesting you can't answer the question.
>> >
>> > Spartacus
>> >
>>
>> I doubt anyone can answer the question in a literal sense. The idea that some
>> one looks as "healthy as .. chicken soup" doesn't mean they are healthy. I
>> suspect only his physicians can answer that question, unless you have access
>> to his medical records.
>>
>> So just what was the real question you were posing?
>
>Let's try it like this: If his condition remains the same for the next ten years what will you have
>learned?
Umm. Lets' flip this around. Why don't you, Spartacus, tell us what you
can tell about any one human being that you can then generalize to larger
and more heterogenous groups safely?
Carlton
>
>Spartacus
>
Carlton Hogan
>In article <835ob6$71u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>thanks. however, even though you stated that...
>
>"...Magic was quoted as saying that he'd stopped his HAART for a time
>because he'd been convinced by some people that it was
>ineffective/dangerous or whatever. Consequently, his viral load shot
>through the roof and he quickly went back on his treatment. He revealed
>his treatment status because he did not want others to
>do the same thing and he was chagrined at being so gullible as to
>beleive the anti-HAART charlatans."
>
>...there is nothing in the articles you posted that indicates that Magic
>stopped taking HAART because someone convinced him it was ineffective or
>dangerous or that he was chagrined at being gullible because he
>temporarily believed that it was either ineffective or dangerous. were
>did you get *that* quote from?
Actually, Frank, it was your dissident buddies that made this claim
right here, trying to claim Magic as one of your shock troops.
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>>
>> That he hasn't died. What would you have learned?
>
>Surely, you can do better than this.
Spartacus, you seem to be all troll and no meat. What exactly is the point
you are trying to make? Are you capable of articulating it? You have amply
shown your ability to be difficult and provocative. Care to back that up
with a couple of ideas?
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Excuse me for butting in here, but several years ago Magic was quoted
>> as saying that he'd stopped his HAART for a time because he'd been
>> convinced by some people that it was ineffective/dangerous or whatever.
>> Consequently, his viral load shot through the roof and he quickly went
>> back on his treatment. He revealed his treatment status because he did
>> not want others to do the same thing and he was chagrined at being so
>> gullible as to beleive the anti-HAART charlatans.
>>
>>
>
You seem to be an expert in making points, spartacus. As is evidenced by
the exactly zero points you have articulated so far. What is it you are
trying to say? Do you need an interpreter, a facilitator, an ouija board?
Get on with it. If you have something to say, go ahead!
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Gary Stein wrote:
>
>> "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3851FE6F...@mindspring.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Gary Stein wrote:
>> >
>> > > Gee, uh, you think it might be because as he has publicly stated
>> he
>> > > sought treatment?
>> > > --
>> > > Gary Stein
>> > > ges...@bellatlantic.net
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting publicly stating you're seeking treatment is the
>> cure
>> > we've all been waiting for?
>>
>> the advent of HARRT) for some one to appear healthy 10-15 years after
>> seroconversion if they have been on treatment. I would guess that a
>> huge percentage of the people currently living with HIV/Aids have been
>> postive for more then 10 years and the vast majority of them are still
>> healthy looking and able to function fully in anyway that you could
>> discern from seeing them on TV.
>> What do you think?
>> --
>> Gary Stein
>> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
>
>
>I think aggressive drug therapy isn't healthy, that although it extends
>some lives it does so at a cost an ethical physician shouldn't be willing
>to pay.
Umm. Actually, an ethical physician would allow a patient to make
such a determination themself, after they were properly counseled about
risks and rewards.
I think we can even place a number on this; that is, we can say
>such a therapy will completely destroy a given patient's health at some
>approximate point in time-- if, of course, AIDS doesn't do it first. If
>you argue this is the trade off for a prolonged life, you have a point.
>But if you deny this downside, you're not being honest.
I have never seen anybody here deny that antiretrovirals have toxicities.
So do all drugs including aspirin. The question is whether the benefit
ouweighs the harm. In terms of antiretrovirals, the clinical trials
data suggest this is the case.
> You my argue
>further that you haven't time for such sophistry, that your interest is
>prolonging life not winning drawing room debates. And to this I say, if
>your drugs are responsible for the death of one person, you practice bad
>medicine -- no matter if you've extended the lives of thousands with it.
You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about medicine and public health, don't you?
Are you seriously suggesting that only substances incapable of doing
harm are appropriate for medicine? In that case, get rid of the rubella,
polio, etc vaccines you got as a child. Forget about antibiotics. Forget
about virtually every medical advance of the last millenium.
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
>> Doctor followed your advice I would be dead? Your stated belief above
>> would logically require that all drugs be removed from the market
>> place is this what you are advocating? I challenge you to find a
>> single drug that has not caused the death of at least one person who
>> took it, thus your position requires all medications to be immediately
>> removed from the market place.
>>
>> --
>> Gary Stein
>> ges...@bellatlantic.net
>
>My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>Your position and those of most in this group is understandable-- not
>necessary correct, but understandable. But what we know is this -- that we
>don't know. We don't know how long Magic would have lived without HARRT.
>We do know there are many with the virus not on HARRT who have lived as
>long as he and are still healthy. Did all the rhetoric about saving lives
>comprise AIDS medicine? It appears so. The result? A state where HARRT is
>the de facto treatment for anyone with the virus. But HARRT is just a
>palliative -- and one that clearly imparts a costly toll. People become
>drug addicts all the while convincing themselves they'd be dead without
>it. This isn't science this is pandemonium. It's whistling while walking
>through the grave yard.
>
>HARRT has comprised AIDS science. It has been a great step backward not
>forward. And I'm sorry, but prolonging the lives of several thousand Gary
>Stein(s) doesn't make it right.
What exactly would one want from an AIDS treatment more than saving lives?
You talk a lot of shit. Have you got any data, references, citations to your
silly ideas? I thought not.
I will throw this out to you: in the Cameron et al study of Ritonavir
published in the Lancet, they showed adding ritonavir HALVED both OIs
and deaths. Cab you name many other treatments in any disease that can
claim similar? Let's leave out antibiotics for common bacterial pathogens,
just to make it a little more interesting.
Or the Hammer study of indinavir in NEJM. Adding indinavir dramatically
reduced both OIs and deaths. Or the simultaneous reports of the ACTG 175 trial,
the CPCRA NuCombo trial, and the European Delta trial, that all showed
combining nucleosides offered dramatic benefits not seen with monotherapy.
Can you refute any of these? It seems like you don't even want to try.
You have some incomprehensible argument that even though the drugs
are saving thousands of lives, and preventing thousands of new infections,
somehow they are still not good.
Do you visit Earth often? Clearly they don't have death and sickness on
your home planet, or else you would understand why we Earthlings like to
avoid these.
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>The issue isn't a "higher standard"; the issue is whether HARRT is bad
>medicine. And this isn't answered by trotting out Gary Stein and proudly
>proclaiming "Look, everybody, this man would be dead weren't it for
>HARRT!"
>
>HARRT is bad medicine. I could write your epitaph right now, sir: " Gary
>Stein...Killed by HARRT."
Actually, what you really said was that even if HAART saved thousands of lives,
it was still bad medicine (based on some absurd definition of "bad medicine"
that called any risk unacceptable).
Please provide some verifiable facts as to why HAART is "bad medicine"
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>GMCarter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:46:53 -0200, SPARTACUS
>> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>> >> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>> >>
>> >> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
>> >> people that HAART keeps alive.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> David Canzi
>> >
>> >Translation: "Rally around the flag, boys! Spartacus is a homophobe!"
>>
>> At the risk of being sex-negative, I'd say "anonymous asshole" would
>> suffice.
>>
>> George Mary Carter
>
>Try "anonymous" HIV negative asshole.
Let's try "ignorant, pretentious, pompous, anonymous HIV negative asshole"
It has kind of a ring to it, no?
Carlton
Carlton Hogan
>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >David Canzi wrote:
>> >> In article <3852C4D6...@mindspring.com>,
>> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >My position suggests HARRT drugs were treated differently. My position
>> >> >also suggests that in the long run we might be better off without them.
>> >>
>> >> Somehow I get the suspicion that you believe "we" (you never defined
>> >> who you include in "we") would be better off without the kinds of
>> >> people that HAART keeps alive.
>> >
>>
>>
>> "...if your drugs are responsible for the death of one person,
>> you practice bad medicine -- no matter if you've extended the
>> lives of thousands with it."
>>
>> advocate a course of action that increases deaths more than a
>> thousandfold. You'd rather have the thousands dead than the one.
>>
>
>This is nonsense. Antivirals don't save lives, they prolong lives,
Bwahahaha. you really are a dipstick. Nothing "saves" lives.
But down here on Earth, we're OK with that "prolonging" bit.
Carlton