Viral Blood Levels Don't Indicate Course of HIV Infection
jdach
Dr Rodriguez in the Sept. 27 issue of JAMA: HIV levels in the blood
aren't a good indicator of how fast CD4 T-cells will decline. This
study suggests that viral load levels shouldn't be used as a deciding
factor in initiating treatment. The researchers found that "the viral
load for the individual has very little predictive value in terms of
how rapidly a person is going to progress to AIDS," In fact, he added,
"In our study, we had about 10 percent of patients with low viral loads
that had extra rapid disease progression, so people should know that
having a low load doesn't mean you're OK."
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
may be has had less influence on decisions as to when to start therapy.
In the UK, CD4 counts are the primary marker used for this purpose, and
have been for many years.
The value of using viral load as a marker for effectiveness of therapy
or for viral breakthrough with development of resistance remains
undisputed.
jdach
reply from drdach:
Have you discussed this with DR. Rodgriguez? He disagrees with you,
and has published a paper in JAMA to prove it. Where is yours?
jdach
DavidT
> Have you discussed this with DR. Rodgriguez? He disagrees with you,
> and has published a paper in JAMA to prove it. Where is yours?
He doesn't disagree. You are implying he stated something on the topic
of the utility of VL in monitoring the outcome of therapy. Give his
words in quotes please if you think he has said anything which
contradicts what I have stated above.
The UK guidelines 2003
(http://www.bhiva.org/pdf/2003/guides/BHIVA_2003_Guidelines.pdf#search=%22bhiva%20treatment%20guidelines%22
) have this to say about when to start treatment: "In asymptomatic
patients this decision should be driven primarily by the CD4 count."
Exactly what I said.
I don't have my own "paper" saying this, but there are dozens
referenced within the guidelines if you would care to look.
jdach
reply from drdach:
Here is a quote from the JAMA article Sept 27 page 1505 under
conclusions (Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4
T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection):
"The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
HIV replication."
"Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 decline only
minimally in untreated persons. These findings have implications for
treatment decisions in HIV."
In other words, the results his study challenge one of the basic
concepts that HIV replication causes CD4 cells decline and causes
immune-suppression. The is a major pradigm shift in thinking similar
to the discovery that gastric ulcers were caused by a microbe H.
Pylori, or that Vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy, or that that simple
lumpectomy could replace radical mastectomies for breast cancer
treatment.
regards from www.drdach.com
GMCarter
>
>Here is a quote from the JAMA article Sept 27 page 1505 under
>conclusions (Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4
>T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection):
>
>"The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
>chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
>HIV replication."
This is actually not news. We have known that most CD4 cells are
undergoing apoptosis are NOT HIV-infected. This has been known for
years.
This is NOT an argument for claiming that HIV is not the cause of
AIDS.
Yet again--your vast ignorance is revealed.
George M. Carter
jdach
reply from drdach:
I suggest you learn how to read. Or perhaps this JAMA article
threatens your belief system so that you do not allow yourself to read
it.
"The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
HIV replication." quote from JAMA study Sept 27 2006.
This is big news and creates a major change in thinking about HIV/AIDS.
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach
reply from drdach:
It seems that you have been hiding a few pieces of baggage from your
readers Mr Carter: (see below)
http://www.pahealthsystems.com/archive253-2005-6-444458.html
from :red...@alltel.net 2005-06-12, 11:46 am
Carter actually isn't allowed to "think"... pharma wouldn't stand for
it. Not for one second, as evidenced by Pharma Ilk Carter, Stein,
Canzi, Mailman and others operating from their public relations
internet damage control boiler rooms.
However, Carter's lies are intended to distance himself and his
previous ACT UP co-conspirators from their sordid pasts, when
they were paid to solicit victims for the pharma poison squads.
The only exception to the ACT UP = PHARMA DEATH rule was,
of course, ACT UP San Francisco (see the pharma gang's attacks
on AUSF's Pasquarelli, especially after his death to get
the true flavor of the compassion professed by Carter et al).
Carter says "no, I didn't take pharma money", but the facts
remain otherwise. Unfortunately for Carter, he can't go back
and destroy every copy of POZ Magazine in which his columns
and SPV-30 ads appeared. Would anyone care to guess
which industry funded POZ?
Carter also refuses to disclose his seemingly endless other
financial conflicts of interests involving his Pharma money
and his internet "nutriceutical" schemes (NAC, SPV-30, etc.,
etc.).
Then there were all those drug company-paid trips here and
there; and various other pharma-funded-and-sponsored opportunites
for self-promotion and profit. Some call those "International AIDS
Conferences", but by now we know better, don't we? Carter
and his "friends" were there. Always. And they NEVER paid
their own way. NEVER! The drug companies paid them and
the drug companies even orchestrated their "protests",
(e.g. the parade of actor-protesters demanding their latest
cures in front of the news media - ALL of it was phony).
The term "Quizzling" comes to mind.
And then there was Carter's crowned jewel - Arkopharma France's
SPV-30 and his true one chance to be a hero! Carter admits taking
their money, but now brushes it off as if a pittance. He'll only admit
that much because he was caught in the act ... again.
But Carter lies when he claims that he didn't write
the ads for SPV-30. He did. Carter admits "helping" with the
distribution of this immune system killer, a confession that
Carter refuses to reconcile with all the goodies he received
along the way.
Carter also downplays the deadly nature of the SPV-30 boxwood
extract's high volume of steroidal drug compounds (nearly 70)
which were even classified at the time as good candidates
for cancer therapy. Similar to tamoxifen, they were highly
immunosuppressive, if only by inference understood by even the
most casual observer. Yet there Carter was - making money
by killing those whose HIV-positive tests left them
desperate, lonely and vulnerable to psychopathic predators
of Carter's sad ilk - a seemingly endless stream of
opportunists who, like roaches, scamper off when
light is shed on their handiwork ... and conflicts of interest.
That's why Carter's desperation is so obvious - as evidenced
by his recent "child molester" ploy and the various other smear
campaigns he regularly orchestrates against his tormentors
(anyone with common sense and/or science). That's what
Carter and his co-workers here are paid to do. That's the
job for the Pharma PR boiler rooms who plague Usenet
for the purpose of obscuring the truth that is so embarassing
and risky to their employers. (Hence the demise of sci.med.aids -
the group which was "moderated" by the Pharma PR
boiler rooms ... into oblivion).
redrumtza
DavidT
study which he implied contradicted my statement that CD4 counts are
the primary parameter used to determine when it is appropriate to start
therapy.
Rodrigues has published a study. The authors say "The results of our
study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in chronic HIV infection
is mostly attributable to the direct effects of HIV replication."
2 comments.
Firstly, as George has pointed out, there are a number of ways in which
HIV causes CD4 depletion. DIRECT effects are felt by most authorities
to be less important than other mechanisms, a concept that this
Rodrigues study seems to support. Certainly the results of his study
challenge the concept that it is "mostly" attributable to HIV
replication directly.
Secondly, it is a study which CHALLENGES one part of current thinking
on HIV pathogenesis.
Scientists enjoy challenges, it makes them discover more. No doubt
theories on HIV pathogenesis will be looked at again in the light of
this study, but to assume paradigm shifts is rather premature.
And, as I said and as Dr Drach has not disputed, HIV levels will remain
the cardinal parameter for assessing response to and failur of therapy.
jdach
reply from drdach:
It seems Mr. Carter, that you have been hiding some past baggage from
your readers:
(see below)
http://www.pahealthsystems.com/archive253-2005-6-444458.html
GMCarter
>
>It seems Mr. Carter, that you have been hiding some past baggage from
>your readers:
>(see below)
So this is the FOURTH time you've repeated the libelous comments of
Fred Shaw?
Or is it the fifth? That's spam, mr. dach. That's committing the
libel.
And I am proud of my days with ACT UP. I met some of the most
intelligent, passionate, great-hearted people I have ever had the
privilege to know in this life.
Too many of them have long since died.
So, go right ahead. You keep posting those libelous comments.
I expect nothing more of you.
George M. Carter
js
"DavidT" <davi...@volcanomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1159357838.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It's fantastic to see how the AIDS apologists always think they can with it no matter how
devastating research results. Once again a study should be an eye opener for all the silly
people who still believe that something named HIV causes something named AIDS.
But it's not an eye opener. I can only conclude that apologists are definately blind. Or,
if they're not, they're tied to the HIV cause by emotional straps and/or financial
interest that have nothing to do with scientific considerations.
jdach
drdach reply:
I would dispute, as would most health care practitioners, your last
statement that HIV levels (or any laboratory marker for that matter) is
a cardinal parameter for assessing response to or failure of therapy.
Clinical outcome is the important parameter. Laboratory values may be
low, normal or high- it doesnt matter if there is a failed clinical
outcome, and death is the ultimate failed clinical outcome.
I would also restate the importance of the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article in
which a major shift in thinking about HIV/AIDS has occurred.
for those who wish to continue this discussion, please reply to the
contact page on my web site www.drdach.com
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach
So we can assume that you at least got as far as addition in grade
school since you can count to four. Did you actually graduate high
school? Have you ever studied biology or science in high school?
Tell us about ACT UP. What is it that they do?
regards from www.drdach.com
GMCarter
snip...
>reply from drdach:
>
>So we can assume that you at least got as far as addition in grade
>school since you can count to four. Did you actually graduate high
>school? Have you ever studied biology or science in high school?
>Tell us about ACT UP. What is it that they do?
We address bullshit wherever we see it.
GMCarter
snip
>I would dispute, as would most health care practitioners, your last
>statement that HIV levels (or any laboratory marker for that matter) is
>a cardinal parameter for assessing response to or failure of therapy.
Wow. What planet do you live on? And you claim to have treated people
with HIV for 25 years?
You're deluded.
> Clinical outcome is the important parameter. Laboratory values may be
>low, normal or high- it doesnt matter if there is a failed clinical
>outcome, and death is the ultimate failed clinical outcome.
Viral load ain't everything but when it appears in a way more than a
blip during ARV therapy, it usually means resistance has developed.
And it's time to think about a change in medications.
THAT is common among genuine clinicians who treat people with HIV.
>I would also restate the importance of the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article in
>which a major shift in thinking about HIV/AIDS has occurred.
No major shift--but an important contribution and reminder to many who
need to realize there is more to managing HIV disease than ARV. To
leap to the other end of a polemic and claim that ARV are not needed
or that elite controllers are everywhere is just deranged
whistleblowing.
George M. Carter
Bennett
js wrote:
> It's fantastic to see how the AIDS apologists always think they can with it no matter how
> devastating research results. Once again a study should be an eye opener for all the silly
> people who still believe that something named HIV causes something named AIDS.
>
> But it's not an eye opener. I can only conclude that apologists are definately blind. Or,
> if they're not, they're tied to the HIV cause by emotional straps and/or financial
> interest that have nothing to do with scientific considerations.
Are YOU blind? Have you even read the paper? Have you even read the
original work that lead to the idea that viral load was predictive of
rate of progression to AIDS?
A hint. Read Mellors work from the 1990s. Read this paper. You'll
discover that this paper DUPLICATED the original findings from Mellors
work. They even copy one of Mellors graphs to highlight the similarity
between his findings and theirs!
In other words, it also showed that viral load, when analyzed as
subsets, was predictive of rate of progression to AIDS.
What this work did that Mellors work didn't was to try to calculate the
mathematical effect that viral load has on the individual level, not on
the large subset level. Not surprisingly they found that on the
individual level the rate of progression was dependant on more than
simply viral load.
Well shucks, this is nothing new. But no-one had to date tried to put
a number on it.
If they had performed the same mathematical model and put the effect at
90% or more than no doubt the dissidents would be crying out at the
fact we "had to use" complex math to prove our point.
I repeat - this work REPEATS the original Mellors work that shows that
VIRAL LOAD PREDICTS RATE OF PROGRESSION TO AIDS. But it also adds
additional insight. Nothing more.
http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/2006/09/viral-load-paradigm-shift-not-really.html
I have permission to quote from the paper's author, when he found out
that the AIDS dissidents were hijacking his work.
"The idea that our findings published today in JAMA can be taken to
support the concept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is ludicrous. The
role of HIV as the cause of AIDS has been proven over and over again.
Clearly the people who are misrepresenting our work are not only
incapable of clear thinking, they are also apparently unable to read."
Michael M. Lederman MD
Cheers
Bennett
jdach
Reply from drdach:
I have read the JAMA article and noticed the 2 charts on page 1502 for
the study cohort and the MACS cohort (Mellors) which were similar.
However, Mellors work is mainly an affirmation of the idea that viral
load predicts prognosis. The Sept 27 JAMA paper presents a major
challenge to this idea, by stating that "Presenting HIV RNA level
predicts the rate of CD4 decline only minimally in untreated
persons." In other words, the results this study challenges one of
the basic concepts that HIV replication causes AIDS. Some patients
with low viral load went on to AIDS while some patients with high viral
load did not proceed to AIDS.
The is a major paradigm shift in thinking similar to the discovery that
gastric ulcers were caused by a microbe H. Pylori, or that Vitamin C
deficiency causes scurvy, or that that simple
lumpectomy could replace radical mastectomies for breast cancer
treatment.
I would also like to add that laboratory measurements such as viral
load and CD4 levels are useful, but the most important parameter of
treatment evaluation is clinical outcome and the ultimate parameter of
failed clinical outcome is death. Viral load measures or any other lab
measurement should not replace assessment of clinical outcome in
therapeutic trials.
Regarding the quote (see above) from the last author of the paper
Michael M. Lederman MD in which he laments that the people who
misrepresent the work as being unable to think clearly or unable to
read, I would only ask if he was involved in the actual writing or
composition of the paper. It is well known that the last author may be
uninvolved in the actual thought process of the paper. In addition,
some papers published in medical literature may be ghost written by
writers paid by the funding drug company and the authors may never see
the data. (Actonel Paper) Since the work was funded by the NIH, I doubt
that is the case. However, because of the NIH funding, the authors
would be inclined to reach conclusions which are politically correct
according to NIH guidelines, making his after the fact comments rather
expected.
Regards from www.drdach.com
Chris Noble
Then you have absolutely no excuse for your blatant misrepresentation
of the paper.
Clearly despite the title you gave to this thread, on average, viral
load levels do predict the course of HIV infection.
There are also other factors independent of viral load such as immune
activation that also predict the course of HIV infection.
Chris Noble
Bennett
jdach wrote:
>
>
> Reply from drdach:
>
> I have read the JAMA article and noticed the 2 charts on page 1502 for
> the study cohort and the MACS cohort (Mellors) which were similar.
> However, Mellors work is mainly an affirmation of the idea that viral
> load predicts prognosis.
Oh deary me. Mellors work _started_ the idea that viral load predicts
prognosis.
The Sept 27 JAMA paper presents a major
> challenge to this idea, by stating that "Presenting HIV RNA level
> predicts the rate of CD4 decline only minimally in untreated
> persons." In other words, the results this study challenges one of
> the basic concepts that HIV replication causes AIDS. Some patients
> with low viral load went on to AIDS while some patients with high viral
> load did not proceed to AIDS.
That isn't the case at all. But the RATE at which they progressed had
a poorer relationship to viral load, at the individual level, than it
did at the subgroup level.
>
> The is a major paradigm shift in thinking similar to the discovery that
> gastric ulcers were caused by a microbe H. Pylori, or that Vitamin C
> deficiency causes scurvy, or that that simple
> lumpectomy could replace radical mastectomies for breast cancer
> treatment.
I'm afraid that it's mostly only a paradigm shift to the dissidents, as
frankly this study wasn't a huge surprise to me!
>
> I would also like to add that laboratory measurements such as viral
> load and CD4 levels are useful, but the most important parameter of
> treatment evaluation is clinical outcome and the ultimate parameter of
> failed clinical outcome is death. Viral load measures or any other lab
> measurement should not replace assessment of clinical outcome in
> therapeutic trials.
A fair comment, but for the sake of getting effective therapies to
market surrogate markers are needed. The facts are that suppression of
viral load does correlate very well indeed with improved survival and
less opportunistic infections.
>
> Regarding the quote (see above) from the last author of the paper
> Michael M. Lederman MD in which he laments that the people who
> misrepresent the work as being unable to think clearly or unable to
> read, I would only ask if he was involved in the actual writing or
> composition of the paper. It is well known that the last author may be
> uninvolved in the actual thought process of the paper.
Ah,so the conspiracy starts.
In addition,
> some papers published in medical literature may be ghost written by
> writers paid by the funding drug company and the authors may never see
> the data. (Actonel Paper) Since the work was funded by the NIH, I doubt
> that is the case. However, because of the NIH funding, the authors
> would be inclined to reach conclusions which are politically correct
> according to NIH guidelines, making his after the fact comments rather
> expected.
LOL! And yes, yet more cherry picking.
You clearly aren't aware of the background to this group of
researchers, or this work in particular. From the Nature website
(subscription only I'm afraid):
", a group of scientists calling itself 'The Bad Boys of Cleveland'
reports evidence that rebels against one of those principles. The
findings cement a feeling that has been growing in the HIV research
community: that the virus enlists patients' own defences to dismantle
their immune systems."
It's worht repeating "A FEELING THAT HAS BEEN GROWING IN THE HIV
RESEARCH COMMUNITY" (i.e. nothing unexpected).
"The Bad Boys were first convened by Michael Lederman, head of the Case
Western Reserve University Center for AIDS Research and senior author
of the recent paper. "The idea was to have a relaxed but intense forum
where we could present our unpublished data, share ideas, then go back
to our lives and work some more," Lederman says. "We've been doing this
on a shoestring - people pay their own air fare. They come because they
like the atmosphere in which we work."
So Michael is hardly likely to have been outside of the loop, but the
NIH almost certainly was ;-) With you being wrong on so many counts,
could you be wrong on one more?!
Cheers
Bennett
DavidT
jdach wrote:
> the most important parameter of
> treatment evaluation is clinical outcome and the ultimate parameter of
> failed clinical outcome is death. Viral load measures or any other lab
> measurement should not replace assessment of clinical outcome in
> therapeutic trials.
So you would wait until your patients have died before you conclude
that your treatment isn't working?
Thank god you don't actually look after AIDS patients.
jdach
reply from drdach:
Thanks for the reply. I find it had to undersand how you can say that
isnt the case at all, when it is a direct quote from the paper. It is
as if you are saying the verbiage in the paper reads one way but really
means something else. Perhaps in conversation the authors say one
thing, but when you read the paper , the words are placed into string
which imply something else.
How do you read the statement :"Presenting RNA levels predicts the CD4
decline only minimally in untreated persons" which is a direct quote
from the paper?
I'd like to know who pays all these other guys who are repeatedly
replying up to 10 to 20 times a day to this newsgroup like monkeys
banging at a typewriter ? Their job is to spread insults and nonsense
over any post which presents an opinion which they dont like. That
kind of effort by a bunch of political activists has to be financed
from someplace. Are these guys a bunch of HIV positive gays with
othing else to do? I smell something fishy going on here. Having all
these distracting and insulting posts from your associates (who are not
very highhly educated) doesn't make for a pleasant exchange of ideas
which is what the internet is intended (at least I thought so).
LOL. We will agree to disagree.
regards from www.drdach.com
GMCarter
>
snip
>I'd like to know who pays all these other guys who are repeatedly
>replying up to 10 to 20 times a day to this newsgroup like monkeys
>banging at a typewriter ? Their job is to spread insults and nonsense
>over any post which presents an opinion which they dont like. That
>kind of effort by a bunch of political activists has to be financed
>from someplace. Are these guys a bunch of HIV positive gays with
>othing else to do? I smell something fishy going on here. Having all
>these distracting and insulting posts from your associates (who are not
>very highhly educated) doesn't make for a pleasant exchange of ideas
>which is what the internet is intended (at least I thought so).
Wow. You smell something fishy? Probably coming from your nether
regions. A homophobe to boot! Who knew?
Me? I don't get paid to post here. It takes about a half hour a day to
deal with your crap--the group is pretty moribund.
It used to be more interesting when there was more discussion of
issues of pathogenesis and the like--though sometimes as heated.
But you're too deeply insulted to carry on, I suppose. A good, nice,
innocent fellow like you has nothing but his own best interests at
heart, after all, I'm sure.
George M. Carter
Death
"jdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote in message
>
> In other words, the results this study challenges one of
> the basic concepts that HIV replication causes AIDS. Some patients
> with low viral load went on to AIDS while some patients with high viral
> load did not proceed to AIDS.
>
Opportunistic Infections (OIs)
In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is responsible for collecting data on the
number of people with AIDS. This is not the same thing as the number of people living with HIV.
Remember, AIDS includes the words "immune deficiency". Since people can live with HIV an
average of 10 years before their immune systems become seriously impaired, AIDS is really just
an advanced stage of an HIV infection.
The CDC uses specific criteria for determining when a person living with HIV progresses to
AIDS. One thing they look at is T-cell counts: if a person falls below 200 T4 cells, then they
have officially progressed to AIDS.
Another thing they look for are OIs: if an HIV+ individual is diagnosed with an opportunistic
infection that's included on the CDC's list of over two dozen possible HIV-related OIs, then
they are diagnosed with AIDS.
Many OIs can be prevented and/or treated. In fact, a lot of the AIDS research you hear about
has been done to find treatments or cures for specific OIs, and not just looking for drugs to
stop HIV.
Listed below are lessons about each of the major OIs & cancers that can occur during late-stage
HIV disease, along with possible treatments:
Bacterial Infections
Bacterial Diarrhea (Salmonellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Shigellosis)
Bacterial Pneumonia
Mycobacterium Avium Complex (MAC)
Mycobacterium Kansasii
Syphilis & Neurosyphilis
Tuberculosis (TB)
Malignancies (Cancers)
Anal Dysplasia/Cancer
Cervical Dysplasia/Cancer
Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS)
Lymphomas
Viral Infections
Cytomegalovirus (CMV)
Hepatitis C
Herpes Simplex Virus (oral & genital herpes)
Herpes Zoster Virus (shingles)
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV, genital warts, anal/cervical dysplasia/cancer)
Molluscum Contagiosum
Oral Hairy Leukoplakia (OHL)
Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)
Fungal Infections
Aspergillosis
Candidiasis (thrush, yeast infection)
Coccidioidomycosis
Cryptococcal Meningitis
Histoplasmosis
Protozoal Infections
Cryptosporidiosis
Isosporiasis
Microsporidiosis
Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP)
Toxoplasmosis
Neurological Conditions
AIDS Dementia Complex (ADC)
Peripheral Neuropathy
Other Conditions and Complications
Aphthous Ulcers (Canker Sores)
Thrombocytopenia (low platelets)
Wasting Syndrome
Last Revised: 9/6/05
This content is written by the Founder & Writers of AIDSmeds.com, and reviewed by Dr. Howard
Grossman, our Medical Editor.
Please find profiles of this writing team on our "About Us" page.
http://www.aidsmeds.com/lessons/StartHere8.htm
Chris Noble
The sentence is easily understood by the vast majority of people.
On average viral load correlates well with the rate of CD4+ cell
depletion. This is clearly demonstrated in figure 1 in the paper. The
paper far from being support for Duesberg's nonsense is in fact very
good evidence against it. Anyone that claims otherwise has serious
cognitive problems.
However although on average the relationship between viral load and
progression rate is clear on an individual basis viral load is not a
good predictor of progreesion rate. There is no mystery and no
contradiction.
Chris Noble
jdach
reply from drdach:
It seems, Dr. Nick Bennett that you have been discussing these issues
on Dean's World (see below). The net result of your discussion was
the intended opposite. Dean ended up convinced that HIV is NOT the
cause of AIDS. Perhaps you should also re-evaluate the idea.
Deans World:
http://www.deanesmay.com/questioning_the_hiv_or_aids_establishment/archives/archive_2005_02.shtml
By Dean: For over ten years I have suspected this might be true. In
recent days, a very thoughtful, very interesting physician named Nick
Bennett has tried to make the case to me that HIV causes AIDS. He has
been a fairly frequent commenter here on Dean's World, and I recently
challenged him: I asked him that if he thought Peter Duesberg were so
full of crap, why he didn't just challenge Duesberg directly?
So Dr. Nick wrote to Dr. Duesberg, and asked him to answer for some
things. Then Nick posted to the comments here on Dean's World saying
that he'd written Dr. Duesberg and that Duesberg hadn't really
responded to him. But I then wrote to Duesberg and asked him what he
had to say. And then National Academy of Sciences member Peter Duesberg
forwarded me this response:
Dear Bennett,
You seem to move in small steps in our correspondence. In your first
letter you asked me, "Why do you think that antibody responses [to HIV]
should result in an inactive infection?" My answer was that according
to the HIV-AIDS literature, even the New Engl. J. Medicine, "HIV is
rapidly and effectively limited by antibody" and that "titers [of HIV]
fell precipitously by day 27, and the decline coincided with an
increase in the levels of antiviral antibodies" (Clark et al 1991; Daar
et al 1991). Thus HIV, like all other conventional viruses, is
neutralized by naturally acquired antibody or by vaccination. But your
next letter did not acknowledge acceptance my answer to your question.
Following my call for clarification you now concede in your third
letter of Feb. 3 that "HIV maybe limited by the immune response". But
what does that "maybe" mean? Don't you trust HIV-AIDS authorities
publishing in the prestigious New Engl. J. Med? Or do you have better
data of your own showing that we were all misled by Ho and Daar et al.
and by Shaw, Hahn and Clark et al publishing in the New Engl. J. Med
for all these years? Please send any such publication from your lab, if
it exists. Or do you insist in your hypothesis, "antibodies don't
necessarily mean control of an infection [by HIV]" - despite the facts.
Again you question my ability to interpret HIV-AIDS science correctly,
"You simplified a rather complex situation in a dogmatic statement.
'HIV induces antibodies and is brought under immune control, and is
therefore non-pathogenic'. No such logical conclusion can be drawn!"
Really? As an example for your superior logic you assert that the very
low rate of T cell infection by HIV after it is neutralized by
antibody, described in numerous papers ("papers in [your] previous
mail"), "is hardly a sign of an inactive virus".
Lets have another look at your assertion based on the "facts". Anthony
Fauci has published in Science that only 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 T cells
are ever infected in antibody-positive people with and without AIDS
(Schnittman et al 1989). A British group, Simmonds et al., reports even
lower rates of infection, namely 1 in 500 to 1 in 3000. Even more
importantly regarding the "activity" of HIV under these conditions,
they report that only 1 in 10,000 to 100,000 cells express some HIV RNA
(Simmonds et al 1990).
But this creates a new paradox for the very HIV-AIDS hypothesis you are
trying to defend: How would HIV-infected people lose their T-cells,
except for the 1 in 100 to 1000 that are infected? According to
conventional logic something other than HIV must kill the 99% to 99.9%
uninfected T-cells of HIV-infected people. How do you explain T-cell
"pathogenicity" by a virus that is making RNA in only 1 out of 10,000
to 100,000 cells? If this were possible, it would be the functional
equivalent of claiming that you can shoot 10,000 to 100,000 soldiers
with one single bullet.
It is the hallmark of a flawed hypothesis that it generates paradoxes.
In the short correspondence we had you have already generated two such
paradoxes: 1) Non-neutralizing anti-viral antibodies (despite the facts
to the contrary) and 2) the clinically defining loss of T-cells in AIDS
patients from a virus that infects less than 1% to 0.1% of their
T-cells.
According to the scientific method the time has now come for you to
look at alternative AIDS theories. Let me know, if you need
suggestions.
Regards,
Peter D.
References
Clark S J, Saag, M S, Decker, W D, Campbell-Hill, S, Roberson, J L,
Veldkamp, P J, Kappes, J C, Hahn, B H and Shaw, G M 1991 High titers of
cytopathic virus in plasma of patients with symptomatic primary
HIV-infection; N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 954-960
Daar E S, Moudgil, T, Meyer, R D and Ho, D D 1991 Transient high levels
of viremia in patients with primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1
infection; N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 961-964
Schnittman S M, Psallidopoulos, M C, Lane, H C, Thompson, L, Baseler,
M, Massari, F, Fox,
C H, Salzman, N P and Fauci, A 1989 The reservoir for HIV-1 in human
peripheral blood is a T cell that maintains expression of CD4; Science
245, 305-308
Simmonds P, Balfe, P, Peutherer, J F, Ludlam, C A, Bishop, J O and
Leigh-Brown, A J 1990 Human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals
contain provirus in small numbers of peripheral mononuclear cells and
at low copy numbers; J. Virol. 64, 864-872
Dean :
Here is something I will confess:
I credit four individuals with making me go from suspecting that HIV
doesn't cause AIDS to outright thinking that HIV doesn't cause AIDS: A
pathetic little bully named Chris Noble, an apparently disingenuus
physician named Nick Bennett, a cowardly commenter known by the moniker
"Shad," and and HIV+ woman named Christine Maggiore (you can read her
book right here.) Another HIV+ woman named Kim Bannon also helped. You
can read about her right here.
I simply no longer believe HIV causes AIDS, and I have yet to hear what
I consider an honest and decent person give me a rational reason to
believe that it does.I lay it out there for anyone who wants to mock
me. I have lost all faith in those who want me to believe this virus
behaves as advertised.
(The above was posted on Deans World ....see link listed above)
regards from www.drdach.com
Bennett
jdach wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I find it had to undersand how you can say that
> isnt the case at all, when it is a direct quote from the paper. It is
> as if you are saying the verbiage in the paper reads one way but really
> means something else. Perhaps in conversation the authors say one
> thing, but when you read the paper , the words are placed into string
> which imply something else.
>
> How do you read the statement :"Presenting RNA levels predicts the CD4
> decline only minimally in untreated persons" which is a direct quote
> from the paper?
Here is another direct quote from the paper:
"Our findings confirm previous observations that the magnitude of HIV
viremia, as defined by broad categories of presenting HIV RNA level, is
associated with the rate of CD4 cell loss and extend this observation
to patient populations comprising both men and women."
Which is exactly what I said, and what Mellors said. The existing
paradigm is not wrong, merely incomplete. That's how science works -
it's called progress.
If you read my AIDSMYTH blog (I assume you have, if you have taken the
time to research me a little) you will find the points you raise
discussed and put into their proper context - as indeed the paper's
authors have done.
You've shown that you can cut and paste from an internet forum
(Deansworld). If you can make any sense from Harvey Baily's ramblings
from that 'debate' you're welcome to try.
Duesberg incidentally stopped writing to me once I gave him several
references dismantling his ideas: my emails to him are all posted on
DW.
Dean credits me because he thought I was lying about Duesberg not
replying to me (hence the disingenuous comment), when in fact he is
merely unable to read the posting date and time of various posts made
to his website. Dean sadly falls into the same category of people like
those who follow "intelligent design" (such an ironic name...) as an
excuse for failing to understand what it is they're trying to discuss.
God of the Gaps...
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And my personal favorite...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism
Sadly, like HIV, there is no cure for stupidity. This is however a
cure for ignorance - it's called "education". Hang around - these
political activists, HIV positive gays, and other monkeys banging on
typewriters (all financed by the great pharmaceutical cartels of the
world of course - they do pay in banana's don't you know) might just
teach you a thing or two. Heaven forbid these guys have been debating
this topic for the last decade or more and might know something about
it!
Cheers
Bennett
Chris Noble
Bennett wrote:
> jdach wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I find it had to undersand how you can say that
> > isnt the case at all, when it is a direct quote from the paper. It is
> > as if you are saying the verbiage in the paper reads one way but really
> > means something else. Perhaps in conversation the authors say one
> > thing, but when you read the paper , the words are placed into string
> > which imply something else.
> >
> > How do you read the statement :"Presenting RNA levels predicts the CD4
> > decline only minimally in untreated persons" which is a direct quote
> > from the paper?
>
> Here is another direct quote from the paper:
>
> "Our findings confirm previous observations that the magnitude of HIV
> viremia, as defined by broad categories of presenting HIV RNA level, is
> associated with the rate of CD4 cell loss and extend this observation
> to patient populations comprising both men and women."
>
> Which is exactly what I said, and what Mellors said. The existing
> paradigm is not wrong, merely incomplete. That's how science works -
> it's called progress.
>
It is still amazing to me after several years of observing HIV
"rethinkers" that they are so predictable and stupid.
Figure 1 in the paper clearly shows that CD4+ cell depletion is
directly correlated with HIV viral load. The paper demonstrates that
this is a relatively minor factor but it is quite clearly reproducible.
If HIV has absolutely nothing to do with CD4+ cell depletion then why
should there be any relationship whatsoever?
You would expect that "rethinkers" would at least attempt an ad hoc
explanation - oxidative stress causes reshuffling of endogenous DNA etc
- but no they just ignore it.
I really have to question the integrity of these people.
Chris Noble
GMCarter
>
snip
>It seems, Dr. Nick Bennett that you have been discussing these issues
>on Dean's World (see below). The net result of your discussion was
>the intended opposite. Dean ended up convinced that HIV is NOT the
>cause of AIDS. Perhaps you should also re-evaluate the idea.
Perhaps Dean simply doesn't want to face the fact he has a serious
infection that requires treatment with potentially nasty drugs.
If that's the case, Dean will probably wind up like David Pasquarelli
and die of AIDS.
Or perhaps Dean is just a disingenuous right-wing shit. Like
Duesberg's erstwhile partner in book-writing crime.
George M. Carter
jdach
Reply from drdach:
Dean's HIV status as far as I know is negative, and he doesnt use
recreational drugs and he is not gay. Since he is outside the high
risk groups, it would be unlikely for him to be at risk for
immuno-suppressive disease associated with AIDS.
DAVID PASQUARELLI AIDS Activist and Political Prisoner:
By Mark Gabrish Conlan, Zenger's Newsmagazine April 2002
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/118302.php
Biography:
David Pasquarelli helped create ACTUP Tampa Bay. In 1993, David moved
to San Francisco and published a quarterly gay news publication,
Magnus. He also co-produced a monthly television program, ACTUP TV.
Symptom-free, medicine-free and vibrant for six years following his HIV
diagnosis, David's activism came to an abrupt end on November 28, 2001,
when he was arrested on the basis of the new anti-terrorism PATRIOT
ACT. His bail was set at an unusually high Million dollars and he
spent 72 days in the San Francisco County Jail. The Jail time was
attributed to causing a collapse of his immune system and he died of
AIDS 2 years later at age 36.
Point number one: The Patriot Act was passed after 9/11 to protect the
country from arab terrorists (the type who were suspected of doing the
9/11 hijackings) , not gay AIDS activists. Using it in this context
means that the civil liberties of ANY U.S. citizen can be essentially
erased by this new law. Pasquarelli, is an example of abuse of the
PATRIOT ACT .
Point number two: Pasquarelli, is also a good example of what happens
to a gay political activist (ACT UP) who "turns". Pasquarelli was
an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis. He didn't take anti-HIV
drugs and spoke out against the AIDS establishment. Such an activist
is no longer working for the "System" and enjoys the cozy
relationships and corporate support. Rather, he is now working against
the "System" which will try to neutralize him in brutal ways such
as by hitting him with the criminal justice - law enforcement system.
This partly explains why there is a Gay AIDS political activist
movement which supports the AIDS establishment. The alternative, which
opposed to the AIDS Establishment is not very pleasant.
Point Number Three: He was Gay and died of AIDS. (based on the
information on his web site http://www.davidpasquarelli.com/ ). I will
assume the information is correct.
He was in a high risk group for AIDS as a gay man living in San
Fransisco He seemed to have been healthy until after the jail
incarceration. Afterwards, his health declined. There was no
information as to recreational drug use. Jails are notorious for drug
use by inmates. Could he have taken drugs in jail to alleviate the
misery of jail time? I don't know but this is possible. If the
hypothesis is correct that AIDS is caused by immune suppression from
recreational drug use, then this (as well as other jail stress factors)
could explain his sudden decline in health after the jail time.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Number one: dont take any recreational drugs.
Number two: avoid placing yourself into a high risk group for AIDS.
Number three: If you plan to be a anti-Establishment AIDS activist a
make sure you have a good lawyer who can bail you out of jail. (a
million dollars for bail, too)
Thanks for pointing out this information.
Regards from www.drdach.com
GMCarter
>
>GMCarter wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2006 17:52:43 -0700, "jdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> snip
>> >It seems, Dr. Nick Bennett that you have been discussing these issues
>> >on Dean's World (see below). The net result of your discussion was
>> >the intended opposite. Dean ended up convinced that HIV is NOT the
>> >cause of AIDS. Perhaps you should also re-evaluate the idea.
>>
>> Perhaps Dean simply doesn't want to face the fact he has a serious
>> infection that requires treatment with potentially nasty drugs.
>>
>> If that's the case, Dean will probably wind up like David Pasquarelli
>> and die of AIDS.
>>
>> Or perhaps Dean is just a disingenuous right-wing shit. Like
>> Duesberg's erstwhile partner in book-writing crime.
>>
>> George M. Carter
>
>Reply from drdach:
>
>Dean's HIV status as far as I know is negative, and he doesnt use
>recreational drugs and he is not gay. Since he is outside the high
>risk groups, it would be unlikely for him to be at risk for
>immuno-suppressive disease associated with AIDS.
LOL....I'm sure you'd love to think so. Recreational drug use is only
risky to the extent people's judgment is impaired and safer sex
practices eschewed. That's as true for alcohol, if not more so.
Men who have sex with men are a high risk community for HIV, no
question. Partly due to stigma. Women who have sex with women are not.
So it is not, per se, a gay disease.
So you begin to reveal something about your thinking processes that
have a distinctly rotten stench of the bigot.
I'm not surprised.
>DAVID PASQUARELLI AIDS Activist and Political Prisoner:
>
snip
>The Jail time was
>attributed to causing a collapse of his immune system and he died of
>AIDS 2 years later at age 36.
What a load of crap. 2 weeks in jail doesn't cause immune collapse.
Why didn't Nelson Mandela die of AIDS? He was in a South African
prison for DECADES.
David developed rare infections like PCP and cryptococcal meningitis.
As a result of his HIV+ status.
Wow...and then you throw out that ridiculous crap arguing statistics.
So now I understand your true colors.
George M. Carter
Bennett
Chris Noble wrote:
>
> It is still amazing to me after several years of observing HIV
> "rethinkers" that they are so predictable and stupid.
Less so for me these days - after debating with big guns like Duesberg,
Bialy and the Perth Group it's not surprising at all that the sheep who
follow them can't keep up either.
>
> Figure 1 in the paper clearly shows that CD4+ cell depletion is
> directly correlated with HIV viral load. The paper demonstrates that
> this is a relatively minor factor but it is quite clearly reproducible.
> If HIV has absolutely nothing to do with CD4+ cell depletion then why
> should there be any relationship whatsoever?
Bingo.
>
> You would expect that "rethinkers" would at least attempt an ad hoc
> explanation - oxidative stress causes reshuffling of endogenous DNA etc
> - but no they just ignore it.
To be fair some of the PG's work does try to vaguely hint at this, but
mostly leaves it up to the reader to fill in the gaps. When confronted
with the evidence against this theory they.....ignore it.
All they say they're doing is poking holes in the existing theory, but
they don't come up with a reliable, logical framework to replace it.
Since they can't even do the first task with any accuracy or
truthfullness it's a moot point.
>
> I really have to question the integrity of these people.
Bingo once again.
Bennett
jdach
> Recreational drug use is only
> risky to the extent people's judgment is impaired and safer sex
> practices eschewed. That's as true for alcohol, if not more so.
reply from drdach:
The above statement by G.M.Carter, the Clown of AIDS Activists (CAA)
reveals his true ignorance. It is known by first year medical students
that IV drug users get septic endocarditis, malnutrition, wasting and
and die at an early age. In the 1977-78 when I did rounds at
University of Illinois Hospital and Cook County Hospital, that is what
I saw.
Alcohol is a huge cause of alcoholic liver disease and brain
degeneration. Not convinced? Make rounds on any VA hospital in the
country. This is what you will see.
Chris Noble and Nick Bennet should have trained you a little better.
Or perhaps you are unteachable since you have not even a rudimentary
understanding of high school biology. Go back and finish High School
if they will let you in. Or perhaps you are one of Chris's braindead
zombies ?
True Fact: Chronic recreational drug use is a HUGE immuno-suppressant
and can cause T cell depletion by itself. (would you like some medical
literature quotes here ...why dont you do some home work and supply
them? they are very abundant.)
By the way Pasquarelli was in jail 10 weeks, not two weeks.
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach
reply form drdach:
Another insulting comment from David, the Clown: Please tell us how
many AIDS patients you treat and for how many years. Our readers would
like to know your background. Do you have any clinical experience or
are you just a Clown for the amusement of your benefactors? Are you
afraid to reveal your true name and background ? Do you have something
to hide? My background and training is posted on my web site
www.drdach.com. Where's yours?
Perhaps I have threatened your belief system in which case I apologize
in advance.
The point here is that measurement of Viral Load or CD4 cells is
meaningless if there is a poor long term clinical outcome in an HIV
drug trial. Short term trials for a few weeks are not sufficient.
Clinical outcome after a year or two is important. The ultimate failed
clinical outcome is death which means that the either drug is not
working, or the underlying medical hypothesis is incorrect. A review
of HIV drug trials will be the subject of another post. However as a
sneak preview, I will clue you in...they are not good.
regards from ww.drdach.com
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
>
> Men who have sex with men are a high risk community for HIV, no
> question.
>Partly due to stigma.
Remember what your momma told ya,
stick and stones will break your bones
but words will never infect you.
GMCarter
wrote:
Words can kill tho. Every time Rumsfeld or Cheney or Rice or Gonzalez
opens their fat lying traps, people are tortured, maimed and murdered
indiscriminately.
George M. Carter
GMCarter
>reply from George M. Carter
>
>> Recreational drug use is only
>> risky to the extent people's judgment is impaired and safer sex
>> practices eschewed. That's as true for alcohol, if not more so.
>
>reply from drdach:
>
>The above statement by G.M.Carter, the Clown of AIDS Activists (CAA)
>reveals his true ignorance. It is known by first year medical students
>that IV drug users get septic endocarditis, malnutrition, wasting and
>and die at an early age. In the 1977-78 when I did rounds at
>University of Illinois Hospital and Cook County Hospital, that is what
>I saw.
Hey! The little dach-dog is getting more rabid. Gosh, I'm sorry if
I've disrupted your belief system and made you think!
LOL...no kidding. Drugs can fuck you up.
They DO NOT cause AIDS. Nor does recreational drug use mean
infection...but it absolutely can increase risk due to impaired
judgment.
Oh--I should have mentioned that, aside from condoms, needle exchange
can help. We should do more for injection drug users--plenty more.
NONE of the recreational drugs out there cause CD4 counts to drop to
zero.
Wow--you're now going to trot out this bullshit, eh?
The usual denialist nonsense--a lovely construct of lies you have in
your fuzzy little mind and as each strut is pulled, you go and race
off to another one and pretend you've made a point while abandoning
the points you lost on previously.
It's a kind of intellectual dishonesty that I can appreciate in a
neophyte--but I really loathe when it comes from a jackass with
letters who postures like some moron on the World Wrestling channel.
>Alcohol is a huge cause of alcoholic liver disease and brain
>degeneration. Not convinced? Make rounds on any VA hospital in the
>country. This is what you will see.
Don't need to do that--I've seen enough. I am well aware of what
severe alcoholism can cause.
>Chris Noble and Nick Bennet should have trained you a little better.
>Or perhaps you are unteachable since you have not even a rudimentary
>understanding of high school biology. Go back and finish High School
>if they will let you in. Or perhaps you are one of Chris's braindead
>zombies ?
Well! And poke this little piggy and she snarls too! lol....darling,
you'll have to work better at your insults. They're really lame.
Mine, on the other hand, I'm certain get under your very thin skin.
George M. Carter
Death
That said, I remember saying infect you.
The topic was hiv and how it infects MSM.
Once again you took that and ran off to your soapbox
and whined about Cheney, etc.
to quote
>Wow--you're now going to trot out this bullshit, eh?
>The usual denialist nonsense--a lovely construct of lies you have in
>your fuzzy little mind and as each strut is pulled, you go and race
>off to another one and pretend you've made a point while abandoning
>the points you lost on previously.
>It's a kind of intellectual dishonesty that I can appreciate in a
>neophyte--but I really loathe when it comes from a jackass ...
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:6uc0i253mgvng8521...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 15:38:20 -0500, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Men who have sex with men are a high risk community for HIV, no
>> >> question.
>> >
>> >>Partly due to stigma.
>> >
>> >Remember what your momma told ya,
>> >
>> >stick and stones will break your bones
>> >but words will never infect you.
>>
>> Words can kill tho. Every time Rumsfeld or Cheney or Rice or Gonzalez
>> opens their fat lying traps, people are tortured, maimed and murdered
>> indiscriminately.
>>
>Bombs and bullets kill, not words.
Bush and Cheney et al. have the capacity to use those bullets and
bombs.
>That said, I remember saying infect you.
>The topic was hiv and how it infects MSM.
>Once again you took that and ran off to your soapbox
>and whined about Cheney, etc.
What the fuck are you babbling about now?
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
> >> >
> >> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >>Partly due to stigma.
> >> >
> >> >Remember what your momma told ya,
> >> >stick and stones will break your bones
> >> >but words will never infect you.
> >>
> >> Words can kill tho.
Once more for the brain dead, the word used was infect.
You dodged twice now
> >>
> >Bombs and bullets kill, not words.
>
> Bush and Cheney et al. have the capacity to use those bullets and
> bombs.
>
ooops, you forgot we are talking about (stigma) words, you ran for the strawman (kill) again
> What the fuck are you babbling about now?
>to quote
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> >> >>Partly due to stigma.
>> >> >
>> >> >Remember what your momma told ya,
>> >> >stick and stones will break your bones
>> >> >but words will never infect you.
>> >>
>> >> Words can kill tho.
>
>Once more for the brain dead, the word used was infect.
>You dodged twice now
LOL...not dodging.
You failed to understand the metaphor. Literally, you're quite
correct. Words don't infect or kill anyone.
You just made a point and missed the point. Par for the diablo course.
George M. Carter
Death
> correct. Words don't infect or kill anyone.
>
Lindsey Collom
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 1, 2006 12:00 AM
State health officials say tuberculosis is under control in Arizona despite growing national
concern over imported drug-resistant strains of a disease that hasn't flourished in the United
States since the mid-1900s.
But authorities are still on the lookout for especially virulent strains that could come from
Mexico or other countries.
"It's just an airplane ride away," said Dr. Karen Lewis, tuberculosis-control officer for the
Arizona Department of Health Services.
The majority of drug-resistant infections are brought to the U.S. by legal visitors, many of
them unaware that they carry the deadliest strains. Lewis said those strains develop when
patients interrupt their months-long treatments, giving the still lurking infection a chance to
mutate.
In 2005, the most important risk factor associated with tuberculosis in Arizona and nationwide
was birth outside the U.S., according to the state's Tuberculosis Surveillance Report, released
last week.
Local and national health experts say a recent tuberculosis outbreak in other countries, such
as South Africa, where 50 people recently died of an "extensively drug-resistant" strain,
underscores the need for testing.
The "extensively drug-resistant" tuberculosis has been found in limited numbers in the U.S,
with 74 reported cases since 1993.
The strain is nearly impossible to cure because it is immune to the best first- and second-line
tuberculosis drugs.
It's also as easily transmitted as the simple strain.
Nationwide, there has been a spike in milder but lethal "multidrug-resistant" tuberculosis,
which responds to more treatments but can cost up to $250,000 and take several years to cure.
About 130 people in the U.S. were diagnosed with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in 2004, up
13 percent from 2003. More than 40 cases in Arizona were found to be resistant to one or more
forms of anti-tuberculosis medication, according to the 2005 report.
That year, Arizona reported 281 active tuberculosis infections. A total of 172 infected people
were foreign-born, 68 percent from Mexico, where the tuberculosis incidence rate is 10 times
higher than in Arizona.
The report documented a 3 percent increase in tuberculosis in Arizona over the previous year.
But officials say there is no cause for alarm: the state has seen a stable number of
infections, ranging from 254 to 296 cases, in the past 10 years.
Also in that time, a population surge has decreased tuberculosis rates in Arizona from 6.1
cases per 100,000 people in 1996 to 4.6 in 2005.
Lewis said it's not that easy to catch the disease: only 10 to 30 percent of those living with
an infected person are likely to become ill. Yet the risk of being infected with the disease is
still very real for first responders.
"We, as caregivers, run the greatest risk," said Chris Ketterer, a Phoenix Fire Department
battalion chief. "I would say there's more out there than we're aware of. A person might not
look ill because they're in the early stages of the illness, but they might be extremely
infectious."
Firefighters and paramedics wear gloves, eye protection and masks when dealing with all
patients. They are also regularly tested for tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
Similarly, the Arizona Department of Health Services' strategy for controlling the incidence
rate is to test people who are highly susceptible: non-natives, children with foreign-born
parents, people with weak immune systems, those with HIV, the homeless and inmates at
correctional facilities.
"The good news is it's treatable, but you need to diagnose it early," Lewis said.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Death
> threatens your belief system so that you do not allow yourself to read
> it.
>
> "The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
> chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
> HIV replication." quote from JAMA study Sept 27 2006.
>
The Local6.com Health Encyclopedia
Online Science Journals Challenge Peer-Reviewed Counterparts
October 2, 2006
LOS ANGELES -- Scientists frustrated by the iron grip that academic journals hold over their
research can now pursue another path to fame by taking their research straight to the public
online.
Instead of having a group of hand-picked scholars review research in secret before publication,
a growing number of Internet-based journals are publishing studies with little or no scrutiny
by the authors' peers. It's then up to rank-and-file researchers to debate the value of the
work in cyberspace.
The Web journals are threatening to turn on its head the traditional peer-review system that
for decades has been the established way to pick apart research before it's made public. Next
month, the San Francisco-based nonprofit Public Library of Science will launch its first open
peer-reviewed journal called PLoS ONE, focusing on science and medicine. Like its sister
publications, it will make research articles available for free online by charging authors to
publish.
But unlike articles in other PLoS journals that undergo rigorous peer review, manuscripts in
PLoS ONE are posted for the world to dissect after an editor gives them just a cursory look.
"If we publish a vast number of papers, some of which are mediocre and some of which are
stellar, Nobel Prize-winning work -- I will be happy," said Chris Surridge, the journal's
managing editor.
It's too early to tell how useful this open airing will be. Some open peer-reviewed journals
launched in the past year haven't been big draws. Still, there appears to be enough interest
that even some mainstream journals like the prestigious British publication Nature are
experimenting.
Democratizing the peer-review process raises sticky questions. Not all studies are useful and
flooding the Web with essentially unfiltered research could create a deluge of junk science.
There's also the potential for online abuse as rogue researchers could unfairly ridicule a
rival's work.
Supporters point out that rushing research to the public could accelerate scientific discovery,
while online critiques may help detect mistakes or fraud more quickly.
The open peer review movement stems from dissatisfaction with the status quo, which gives
reviewers great power and can cause long publication delays. In traditional peer review, an
editor sends a manuscript to two or three experts -- referees who are unpaid and not publicly
named, yet they hold tremendous sway. Careers can be at stake. In the cutthroat world of
research, publishing establishes a pedigree, which can help scientists gain tenure at a
university or obtain lucrative federal grants.
Researchers whose work appear in traditional journals are often more highly regarded. That
attitude appears to be slowly changing. In 2002, the reclusive Russian mathematician Grigori
Perelman created a buzz when he bypassed the peer-review system and posted a landmark paper to
the online repository, arXiv. Perelman later won the Fields Medal this year for his
contribution to the Poincare conjecture, one of mathematics' oldest and puzzling problems.
Editors of traditional, subscription-based journals say the peer-review system weeds out sloppy
science. The traditional process isn't designed to detect fraud (referees rarely look at a
researcher's raw data), and prestigious journals have unwittingly published bogus work. Last
year, for example, Science retracted papers on embryonic stem cell research by a South Korean
cloning scientist who admitted falsifying his results.
Work submitted to PLoS ONE, for instance, is debated after publication by colleagues who rate
the research based on quality, originality and other factors. Commenters cannot alter the
paper, which becomes part of the public record and is archived in databases. If there is
disagreement, authors can respond to comments. To prevent abuse, the site is monitored for
inflammatory language and the postings can't be anonymous.
"The fact that you get published in PLoS ONE isn't going to tell you whether it's a brilliant
paper. What it's going to say is that this is something worth being in the scientific
literature, but you need to look at it more closely," Surridge said. Another open peer-reviewed
journal, Philica, launched earlier this year takes a more radical approach.
Authors are responsible for uploading their research to the Web site at no cost and without any
peer review. Comments are anonymous, but users whose identities have not been verified by site
administrators are flagged with a question mark next to their comments. The journal, still in
the trial stage, has published about 35 papers so far. About a third still needs to be
critiqued. Philica co-founder and University of Bath psychology professor Ian Walker said the
system discourages authors from publishing fake studies because others can rat them out.
"Imagine if somebody puts up absolute garbage, you will have plenty of reviews that will say,
'This is terrible, terrible, terrible,"' he said.
Academics are eyeing the open peer-review experiment with interest.
Andrew Odlyzko, a mathematician who heads the University of Minnesota's Digital Technology
Center, is encouraged by the growing number of online journals. Whether they will work -- he's
not sure. Some researchers might only post unhelpful one-liners for fear of reprisal. Granting
anonymity may boost participation, but could lead to "malicious postings from cracks," Odlyzko
said.
Even some mainstream journals are toying with a tame form of open peer review. This summer,
Nature allowed authors whose papers were selected for traditional peer review to have their
manuscripts judged by the public at the same time. Editors weigh both sides when deciding
whether to publish a paper, and rejected research can be submitted elsewhere.
Linda Miller, the journal's U.S. executive editor, said she was encouraged by the
participation. More than 60 papers have been posted on Nature's site for open peer review as of
mid-September including one that has been accepted for publication. Several others are on the
path to being published.
Miller said Nature's experimentation with the Internet is just another way the journal is
trying to reach out to the public. Two of its specialized journals on neuroscience and genetics
already offer a blog-like forum for researchers to post their thoughts on published articles,
though they have attracted little attention, she said.
"If we don't serve the community well, we will become irrelevant," she said.
crack baby
> "jdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote in message
>
>>I suggest you learn how to read. Or perhaps this JAMA article
>>threatens your belief system so that you do not allow yourself to read
>>it.
>>
>>"The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
>>chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
>>HIV replication." quote from JAMA study Sept 27 2006.
>>
>
>
> The Local6.com Health Encyclopedia
>
> Online Science Journals Challenge Peer-Reviewed Counterparts
>
> October 2, 2006
>
> LOS ANGELES -- Scientists frustrated by the iron grip that academic journals hold over their
> research can now pursue another path to fame by taking their research straight to the public
> online.
>
> Instead of having a group of hand-picked scholars review research in secret before publication,
> a growing number of Internet-based journals are publishing studies with little or no scrutiny
> by the authors' peers. It's then up to rank-and-file researchers to debate the value of the
> work in cyberspace.
>
> The Web journals are threatening to turn on its head the traditional peer-review system that
> for decades has been the established way to pick apart research before it's made public. Next
> month, the San Francisco-based nonprofit Public Library of Science will launch its first open
> peer-reviewed journal called PLoS ONE, focusing on science and medicine. Like its sister
> publications, it will make research articles available for free online by charging authors to
> publish.
And it degrades science, because it allows any quack to compose a manifesto,
put it on some website, and have it used as "a study" to back up the claims
of some magic weight loss or penis enlargement pill in an infomercial. The
whole point of peer review is to vet the quackery so that only studies that
can be duplicated and have their results verified by professional scientists
and accepted as valid science.
Death
"crack baby" <cr...@backdoho.net> wrote in message
>
> And it degrades science, because it allows any quack to compose a manifesto,
> put it on some website, and have it used as "a study" to back up the claims
> of some magic weight loss or penis enlargement pill in an infomercial. The
> whole point of peer review is to vet the quackery so that only studies that
> can be duplicated and have their results verified by professional scientists
> and accepted as valid science.
Supporters point out that rushing research to the public could accelerate scientific discovery,
while online critiques may help detect mistakes or fraud more quickly.
"The fact that you get published in PLoS ONE isn't going to tell you whether it's a brilliant
paper. What it's going to say is that this is something worth being in the scientific
literature, but you need to look at it more closely," Surridge said. Another open peer-reviewed
journal, Philica, launched earlier this year takes a more radical approach.
"Imagine if somebody puts up absolute garbage, you will have plenty of reviews that will say,
'This is terrible, terrible, terrible,"' he said.
Academics are eyeing the open peer-review experiment with interest.
"If we don't serve the community well, we will become irrelevant," she said.
GMCarter
wrote:
snip
>State health officials say tuberculosis is under control in Arizona despite growing national
>concern over imported drug-resistant strains of a disease that hasn't flourished in the United
>States since the mid-1900s.
Crap. Now look what you've done. I've got TB
GMCarter
wrote:
snip
>
>And it degrades science, because it allows any quack to compose a manifesto,
>put it on some website, and have it used as "a study" to back up the claims
>of some magic weight loss or penis enlargement pill in an infomercial. The
>whole point of peer review is to vet the quackery so that only studies that
>can be duplicated and have their results verified by professional scientists
>and accepted as valid science.
Clearly, you haven't even looked at the PlOS website. You oughta.
Death
>
infect anyone, behavior did.
GMCarter
wrote:
Being that I'm a disagreeable bitch, I will disagree with this too!!
Stigma comes in a variety of forms. Stigma against gay people make sex
more attractive--the forbidden--and more dangerous. Look at that
miserable fuck, Foley. He was a big whopping lying hypocrite--it
didn't MAKE him have sex--but it played with the way he did it. Sleazy
shit.
But for others, it can be that stigma makes people do desperate things
like not use a condom.
Then you have more stigma if HIV enters into it.
Stigma is horrific.
George M. Carter
Death
>
Perhaps, but it never infected anyone.
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Stigma is horrific.
>>
>Perhaps, but it never infected anyone.
Literally, no. No more than words literally killed anyone (although
some that cast evil eye spells may disagree).
Such literalism is the hallmark, however, of the kind of small minds
that say "guns never kill anyone" and it has about as much
significance.
George M. Carter
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
>
> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Stigma is horrific.
> >>
> >Perhaps, but it never infected anyone.
>
> Literally, no. No more than words literally killed anyone (although
> some that cast evil eye spells may disagree).
>
> Such literalism is the hallmark, however, of the kind of small minds
> that say "guns never kill anyone" and it has about as much
> significance.
>
In the USofA, cars kill more people than guns have
but I'm sure you had a point somewhere.
What was and is at hand is you throwing out false statements
about stigma being responsible for the spread of hiv/aids.
You have through the years avoided the subject of personal responsibility
for behavior that spreads dis-eases.
The main topic here seems to be the search for the magic pill
that will erase past bad choices in life.
Some post here and whine that the magic pill kills rather than perform miracles.
They are easy to spot, just follow the word toxic or poison.
The other side whines that the magic pill does indeed work.
Look for their talking point, extends life.
Then you have a few that want to argue the fine points of the magic pill.
They are so impressed with themselves they never see the train coming.
GMCarter
wrote:
>
snip.
>In the USofA, cars kill more people than guns have
>but I'm sure you had a point somewhere.
Possibly true. Usually drunken NRA members? Data?
>What was and is at hand is you throwing out false statements
>about stigma being responsible for the spread of hiv/aids.
I disagree. The statements were not false. Stigma contributes to the
spread of HIV. People being afraid of HIV and the concomitant stigma
are less likely to get tested, for example.
>You have through the years avoided the subject of personal responsibility
>for behavior that spreads dis-eases.
This is a blatant lie. But coming from an anonymous bigot, it matters
little. Personal responsibility works in the context of a society--and
can be amplified or oppressed by the features of micro- and
macrocultures.
>The main topic here seems to be the search for the magic pill
>that will erase past bad choices in life.
That's the Repugnicans' view of the world. Foley--well, gosh, let's
look to the future. Time to move on....that is, run away from the
crime and the cover up!
If by that, though, you mean a cure for HIV disease? You bet! I'd like
cures for cancer, obesity, dengue, TB, etc. as well.
>Some post here and whine that the magic pill kills rather than perform miracles.
>They are easy to spot, just follow the word toxic or poison.
The currently available treatments are toxic to one degree or another.
They are very effective for the majority in providing a longer
life--perhaps for many, a shot at a normal life span. They are not a
cure.
>The other side whines that the magic pill does indeed work.
>Look for their talking point, extends life.
People that support the use of ARV do not need to "whine" about it.
Bigots that would rather see people with AIDS, however, probably
would.
>Then you have a few that want to argue the fine points of the magic pill.
>They are so impressed with themselves they never see the train coming.
The train of bigotry that you are on will lead to only more suffering.
You are part of the problem, anonymous devil you.
So you've expended some time writing a response that says pretty much
nothing.
George M. Carter
Death
> spread of HIV. People being afraid of HIV and the concomitant stigma
> are less likely to get tested, for example.
>
Stigma does not contribute to the spread of aids in any way shape or form.
If someone who has a behavior that places them in position that they feel
needs to be tested in the first place, can only blame his behavior.
If that behavior is such that he dreads the out come of the test, then let
him look to his own fears.
The stigma of aids wasn't enough of a deterant to prevent him from bending
over and letting an infected faggot fuck him up the ass.
> >You have through the years avoided the subject of personal responsibility
> >for behavior that spreads dis-eases.
>
> This is a blatant lie.
Is it, read on.
> But coming from an anonymous bigot, it matters
> little. Personal responsibility works in the context of a society--and
> can be amplified or oppressed by the features of micro- and
> macrocultures.
>
Another example wasn't necessary, but thanks anyway.
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I disagree. The statements were not false. Stigma contributes to the
>> spread of HIV. People being afraid of HIV and the concomitant stigma
>> are less likely to get tested, for example.
>>
>
>Stigma does not contribute to the spread of aids in any way shape or form.
This is utterly incorrect. Stigma may have a positive impact in
reducing transmission among those very afraid of people with HIV on
the one hand. On the other, and more likely, fear of HIV may inhibit
being tested.
For example:
Balabanova Y, Coker R, Atun RA, Drobniewski F. Stigma and HIV
infection in Russia. AIDS Care. 2006 Oct;18(7):846-52.
Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, London.
Few studies have examined the personal and social consequences of
stigma associated with HIV infection in Russia, a country with one of
the most rapidly advancing HIV epidemics globally. By May 2005, Samara
Oblast, Russia had 24,022 notified seropositive individuals.
Focus-group discussions with randomly sampled seropositive and
seronegative individuals, matched by age, gender and education were
selected from the general population and used to provide an informal
forum for discussion of attitudes to HIV and potentially stigmatizing
behavior. The results demonstrated that the perception that HIV was
associated with immoral behaviour underpinned stigma. Discriminating
attitudes are strongly associated with misperceptions regarding
transmission and frequent over-estimation of risks from casual
contact. The general population was unforgiving to those who had
become infected sexually or through drug use. Infection through a
medical procedure or from an assault was perceived as a likely route
of infection. Knowledge of population attitudes and perceptions, as
well as those who are HIV-positive, is critical for successful
interventions and to encourage people to come forward for HIV testing.
This research offers insights into the distance that needs to be
traveled if stigma is to be addressed in wider efforts to control HIV
in Russia.
PMID: 16971297 [PubMed - in process]
>If someone who has a behavior that places them in position that they feel
>needs to be tested in the first place, can only blame his behavior.
LOL....that's the point. Blame as the game IS stigma.
George M. Carter
****
See also:
Kaplan AH, Scheyett A, Golin CE. HIV and stigma: analysis and research
program. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2005 Nov;2(4):184-8.
705 Mary Ellen Jones; CB 7290, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
27599-7290, USA. aka...@med.unc.edu
Despite advances in our understanding of HIV transmission and optimal
treatment of people with HIV infection, stigmatizing attitudes are a
significant barrier to HIV prevention and treatment. Several studies
demonstrate that stigma directed towards people with HIV infection
presents an obstacle to getting tested for HIV, obtaining optimal HIV
care, and engaging in safe sex practices. We review the literature on
individual and societal factors associated with HIV-associated stigma
and propose a framework for intervention design.
jdach
Bennett wrote:
> jdach wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I find it had to undersand how you can say that
> > isnt the case at all, when it is a direct quote from the paper. It is
> > as if you are saying the verbiage in the paper reads one way but really
> > means something else. Perhaps in conversation the authors say one
> > thing, but when you read the paper , the words are placed into string
> > which imply something else.
> >
> > How do you read the statement :"Presenting RNA levels predicts the CD4
> > decline only minimally in untreated persons" which is a direct quote
> > from the paper?
>
> Here is another direct quote from the paper:
>
> "Our findings confirm previous observations that the magnitude of HIV
> viremia, as defined by broad categories of presenting HIV RNA level, is
> associated with the rate of CD4 cell loss and extend this observation
> to patient populations comprising both men and women."
>
> Which is exactly what I said, and what Mellors said. The existing
> paradigm is not wrong, merely incomplete. That's how science works -
> it's called progress.
>
> If you read my AIDSMYTH blog (I assume you have, if you have taken the
> time to research me a little) you will find the points you raise
> discussed and put into their proper context - as indeed the paper's
> authors have done.
>
> You've shown that you can cut and paste from an internet forum
> (Deansworld). If you can make any sense from Harvey Baily's ramblings
> from that 'debate' you're welcome to try.
>
> Duesberg incidentally stopped writing to me once I gave him several
> references dismantling his ideas: my emails to him are all posted on
> DW.
>
> Dean credits me because he thought I was lying about Duesberg not
> replying to me (hence the disingenuous comment), when in fact he is
> merely unable to read the posting date and time of various posts made
> to his website. Dean sadly falls into the same category of people like
> those who follow "intelligent design" (such an ironic name...) as an
> excuse for failing to understand what it is they're trying to discuss.
> God of the Gaps...
>
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> And my personal favorite...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism
>
> Sadly, like HIV, there is no cure for stupidity. This is however a
> cure for ignorance - it's called "education". Hang around - these
> political activists, HIV positive gays, and other monkeys banging on
> typewriters (all financed by the great pharmaceutical cartels of the
> world of course - they do pay in banana's don't you know) might just
> teach you a thing or two. Heaven forbid these guys have been debating
> this topic for the last decade or more and might know something about
> it!
>
> Cheers
>
> Bennett
reply from drdach:
I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 JAMA
article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on
the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how
all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite
meaningful line. This scattergram is the finding which indicates that
HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4
cell loss in HIV infection and challenges the concept that the
magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of
CD4 cell loss at the individual level.
as Dr Bennett would say: bingo
I invite all readers to visit my web site and post your comment on my
contact page. Where's your web site Dr Nick Bennett?
Cheers from www.drdach.com
Death
>
try it again if you think it has any merit.
Death
> look to the future. Time to move on....that is, run away from the
> crime and the cover up!
>
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A radical activist on a mission to "out" conservative homosexual lawmakers and Capitol Hill
staffers held on to information about Rep. Mark Foley's relationships with underage male pages,
suggesting the story would break at the time of mid-term elections.
Blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit points to a campaign by two activists who had Foley on their
"target list" of 20 people and shared the information with the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee.
Foley abruptly resigned Friday as reports surfaced of inappropriate e-mails with a male page.
Later, ABC News released online instant messages of more salacious exchanges. Foley has issued
a statement saying he checked himself into an alcohol rehabilitation program at an undisclosed
location.
In July 2004, the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reported the two activists, Mike Rogers
and John Aravosis, were "loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill" ahead of the
Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar same-sex marriage.
Among nearly 20 names on the "target list" provided to the Blade were Foley and Democratic Sen.
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
The paper said a spokesman for Foley declined to comment after Aravosis asserted on his website
the previous week that Foley is "gay."
"Both members of Congress have long been the subject of rumors about their sexual orientation,"
the paper said.
Rogers - in a March 4, 2005, post on his website BlogActive.com - declared Foley to be "gay"
and, therefore, a hypocrite for voting for legislation against the homosexual agenda. The post
said: "MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN
THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT."
More than a year ago, in a March 2005 post, Rogers said he had thought hard about what kind of
action to take and said that while none would be taken at the moment, "When we get closer to
the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface."
Rogers did his own investigation of Foley, writing that through his recorded discussions with
current and former staff members he learned how the congressman "hit on" young men at the
Republican convention.
In a post Sunday, Rogers wrote about his attempt to communicate with Democrat officials, saying
"the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it."
Rogers said that prior to the Foley story breaking Friday, he called the DCCC's director of
communications, Bill Burton, to let him know that the information about Foley - and another
case - were "coming down the pike."
Burton had promised to have someone e-mail or return Rogers' call but apparently didn't follow
though. Now, however, since the story broke Friday, said Rogers, "I am glad he followed up on
my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running."
Rogers added: "The bad new is they are still not paying enough attention. ... There are others
within reach. ... If the Democrats would only fight half as hard as the Republicans."
Rogers said he posted comments about Foley on the DCCC website, but they were deleted.
In another post, Rogers admitted he had possession of the lurid Foley e-mails before they were
posted on the Web.
"As people know, it's not always possible for me to disclose my role in some of the activities.
I can say this. I had the emails before they were on the net. Additionally, I had the
additional emails, written by the page to a friend. The story was being written by a number of
outlets and I provided additional information to reporters involved in the breaking of this
story.
Was (I) the central figure in reporting on Foley's latest scandal? Never said I was. Was my
work on the case important to helping make sure it came out before the election? Yes.
Did I have any idea that the GOP leadership was engaged in a cover-up? Nope. Do I love the fact
that they are trying to spin this as "naughty emails?" Yup. because it shows how out of (touch)
they are about queer closet cases."
Aravosis, in his AmericaBlog, shows his anger at Foley for keeping his homosexuality hidden
while backing President Bush, calling the congressman "our latest closeted gay hypocrite."
Aravosis said Foley made the target list for putting politics ahead of his own community by
"whoring for an anti-gay president."
Foley, who at the time was running for the Senate, responded to the "outing" by Aravosis by
holding a telephone press conference with Florida media in which he called the discussion about
his sexual orientation "revolting." He refused to answer any questions about the charge and
later abandoned his bid for the Senate, citing concerns over his father's health.
Blogger Hoft believes, however, Foley dropped out of the Senate race "because of pressure by
Aravosis and the radical gay movement to make his life hell for being a closeted homosexual."
jdach
Chris Noble wrote:
> jdach wrote:
> > Bennett wrote:
> > > jdach wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reply from drdach:
> > > >
> > > > I have read the JAMA article and noticed the 2 charts on page 1502 for
> > > > the study cohort and the MACS cohort (Mellors) which were similar.
> > > > However, Mellors work is mainly an affirmation of the idea that viral
> > > > load predicts prognosis.
> > >
> > > Oh deary me. Mellors work _started_ the idea that viral load predicts
> > > prognosis.
> > >
> > > The Sept 27 JAMA paper presents a major
> > > > challenge to this idea, by stating that "Presenting HIV RNA level
> > > > predicts the rate of CD4 decline only minimally in untreated
> > > > persons." In other words, the results this study challenges one of
> > > > the basic concepts that HIV replication causes AIDS. Some patients
> > > > with low viral load went on to AIDS while some patients with high viral
> > > > load did not proceed to AIDS.
> > >
> > > That isn't the case at all. But the RATE at which they progressed had
> > > a poorer relationship to viral load, at the individual level, than it
> > > did at the subgroup level.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The is a major paradigm shift in thinking similar to the discovery that
> > > > gastric ulcers were caused by a microbe H. Pylori, or that Vitamin C
> > > > deficiency causes scurvy, or that that simple
> > > > lumpectomy could replace radical mastectomies for breast cancer
> > > > treatment.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that it's mostly only a paradigm shift to the dissidents, as
> > > frankly this study wasn't a huge surprise to me!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would also like to add that laboratory measurements such as viral
> > > > load and CD4 levels are useful, but the most important parameter of
> > > > treatment evaluation is clinical outcome and the ultimate parameter of
> > > > failed clinical outcome is death. Viral load measures or any other lab
> > > > measurement should not replace assessment of clinical outcome in
> > > > therapeutic trials.
> > >
> > > market surrogate markers are needed. The facts are that suppression of
> > > viral load does correlate very well indeed with improved survival and
> > > less opportunistic infections.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the quote (see above) from the last author of the paper
> > > > Michael M. Lederman MD in which he laments that the people who
> > > > misrepresent the work as being unable to think clearly or unable to
> > > > read, I would only ask if he was involved in the actual writing or
> > > > composition of the paper. It is well known that the last author may be
> > > > uninvolved in the actual thought process of the paper.
> > >
> > > Ah,so the conspiracy starts.
> > >
> > > In addition,
> > > > some papers published in medical literature may be ghost written by
> > > > writers paid by the funding drug company and the authors may never see
> > > > the data. (Actonel Paper) Since the work was funded by the NIH, I doubt
> > > > that is the case. However, because of the NIH funding, the authors
> > > > would be inclined to reach conclusions which are politically correct
> > > > according to NIH guidelines, making his after the fact comments rather
> > > > expected.
> > >
> > > LOL! And yes, yet more cherry picking.
> > >
> > > You clearly aren't aware of the background to this group of
> > > researchers, or this work in particular. From the Nature website
> > > (subscription only I'm afraid):
> > >
> > > ", a group of scientists calling itself 'The Bad Boys of Cleveland'
> > > reports evidence that rebels against one of those principles. The
> > > findings cement a feeling that has been growing in the HIV research
> > > community: that the virus enlists patients' own defences to dismantle
> > > their immune systems."
> > >
> > > It's worht repeating "A FEELING THAT HAS BEEN GROWING IN THE HIV
> > > RESEARCH COMMUNITY" (i.e. nothing unexpected).
> > >
> > > "The Bad Boys were first convened by Michael Lederman, head of the Case
> > > Western Reserve University Center for AIDS Research and senior author
> > > of the recent paper. "The idea was to have a relaxed but intense forum
> > > where we could present our unpublished data, share ideas, then go back
> > > to our lives and work some more," Lederman says. "We've been doing this
> > > on a shoestring - people pay their own air fare. They come because they
> > > like the atmosphere in which we work."
> > >
> > > So Michael is hardly likely to have been outside of the loop, but the
> > > NIH almost certainly was ;-) With you being wrong on so many counts,
> > > could you be wrong on one more?!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Bennett
> >
> > reply from drdach:
> >
> > isnt the case at all, when it is a direct quote from the paper. It is
> > as if you are saying the verbiage in the paper reads one way but really
> > means something else. Perhaps in conversation the authors say one
> > thing, but when you read the paper , the words are placed into string
> > which imply something else.
> >
> > How do you read the statement :"Presenting RNA levels predicts the CD4
> > decline only minimally in untreated persons" which is a direct quote
> > from the paper?
>
>
> On average viral load correlates well with the rate of CD4+ cell
> depletion. This is clearly demonstrated in figure 1 in the paper. The
> paper far from being support for Duesberg's nonsense is in fact very
> good evidence against it. Anyone that claims otherwise has serious
> cognitive problems.
>
>
> However although on average the relationship between viral load and
> progression rate is clear on an individual basis viral load is not a
> good predictor of progreesion rate. There is no mystery and no
> contradiction.
>
> Chris Noble
reply from drdach:
The Sept 27, 2006 JAMA article (Figure 3 page 1504) contradicts an
important part of the HIV AIDS explanation: Here is the accepted
explanation of HIV and AIDS:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579757/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus.html
When HIV enters the body, it infects lymphocytes, which are a type of
white blood cell in the immune system. HIV uses its glycoproteins to
attach itself to receptors on the surface of a lymphocyte. The outer
envelope of HIV then fuses with the lymphocyte, enabling the HIV capsid
to enter the lymphocyte itself. HIV commandeers the genetic material of
the lymphocyte, instructing the cell to replicate more viruses. The
newly formed viruses break free from the host, destroying the cell in
the process. The new viruses go on to infect and destroy other
lymphocytes.
Over a period that may last from a few months to up to 15 years, HIV
may destroy enough lymphocytes that the immune system becomes unable to
function properly. An infected person develops multiple
life-threatening illnesses from infections that normally do not cause
illnesses in people with a healthy immune system. Some people who have
HIV infection may not develop any of the clinical illnesses that define
the full-blown disease of AIDS for ten years or more. Doctors prefer to
use the term AIDS for cases where a person has reached the final,
life-threatening stage of HIV infection.
The recent JAMA article contradicts the above idea destruction of
lymphocytes and AIDS progession (on an individual basis) is caused by
replicating virus. In this study, on an individual basis, there was no
correlation (or very poor correlation) between viral replication
measured by viral load levels and lymphocyte count.
I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 2006
JAMA
article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on
the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how
all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite
meaningful line. There should be a straight line here ( or dots which
are trying to make a line).
This scattered scattergram is the finding which indicates that
HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4
cell loss in HIV infection and challenges the concept that the
magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of
CD4 cell loss at the individual level.
regards from www.drdach.com
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> LOL....that's the point. Blame as the game IS stigma.
>>
>
>try it again if you think it has any merit.
It does. The data support the notion.
You prefer to stew in the comfortable stench of your bigotry and
ignorance.
GMCarter
>
snip
>I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 2006
>JAMA
>article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on
>the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how
>
>all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite
>meaningful line. There should be a straight line here ( or dots which
>are trying to make a line).
>
>This scattered scattergram is the finding which indicates that
>HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4
>cell loss in HIV infection and challenges the concept that the
>magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of
>CD4 cell loss at the individual level.
I haven't had a chance to read the JAMA article but would like to if
anyone could email me a copy. I do not trust Dach's interpretations.
However, presuming he is representing the data accurately--which I
concede here is possible--I think it is not so surprising.
Most of the CD4+ lymphocytes that die are not infected. This has long
been known. Mechanisms for the destruction of uninfected CD4 cells
include oxidative stress, immunological aberrations, effects of HIV
proteins (env, tat, nef, etc.) and so forth.
We know that the blood compartment, easier to access and test, is not
the real site of the activity, which is in lymphoid tissue.
And we know that people do NOT see a steady decline of CD4 counts to
zero except in extraordinary circumstances.
Like infection with HIV.
HIV causes AIDS. How it does so is an extremely important question for
which data are emerging based on sensible hypotheses. That's science.
Maybe dach will get it eventually. But I doubt it.
George M. Carter
jdach
reply from drdach:
For all members of the AMA: you can read the article online.
full text of the JAMA article is available on the AMA web site
https://subs.ama-assn.org/ama/exec/guest?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjama.ama-assn.org%2F
If you are not a member, then you have to wait 6 months for it to be
free :
Registering as a Guest is FREE. Registered Guests access to JAMA -
Full text and PDF access to original research articles, review
articles, special communications, and editorials 6 months after
publication.
regards from drdach.com
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >
> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL....that's the point. Blame as the game IS stigma.
> >>
Lisp not withstanding
> You prefer to stew in the comfortable stench of your bigotry and
> ignorance.
>
I gave you the opportunity to try that again if you thought it had merit.
Instead you passed and for good reason.
You came up with a strawman that had nothing to do with the subject.
My bigotry and ignorance has nothing to do with stigma and it supposedly
spread of hiv/aids.
Again you think my opinion has more effect on the lives of infected MSM
than their behavior as I said earlier.
Thank you for the high opinion you have of me.
Bennett
jdach wrote:
> I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 JAMA
> article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on
> the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how
> all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite
> meaningful line.
But there is a trend, which is reflected in the subset relationship
between high viral load being associated with more rapid progression of
CD4 T cell loss. The trend allows them to say that approx 4-6% of the
specific individual loss of CD4 T cells is directly related to the
viral load value. A true "shotgun" scatter plot would give zero
correlation and look like a circle.
This scattergram is the finding which indicates that
> HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4
> cell loss in HIV infection
No, wrong - it is not a reliable predictor of the EXACT RATE of CD4 T
cell loss in any one individual. It is still a predictor of whether or
not T cell loss will occur...
and challenges the concept that the
> magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of
> CD4 cell loss at the individual level.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's "the main" determinant any more
since Hellerstein's and others work on T cell kinetics. People with
higher viral loads _tend_ to progress faster, as do people with
particular immune genetics, or people with super-infections with
multiple HIV strains, or people who are depressed. Many factors play
into it - we've known this for years. The authors of the paper state
this explicitly.
I find it astonishing that you somehow think yourself better qualified
to analyse the results of a paper than the authors themselves or indeed
anyone else with specialist qualifications in the relevant field
>
> as Dr Bennett would say: bingo
>
> I invite all readers to visit my web site and post your comment on my
> contact page. Where's your web site Dr Nick Bennett?
>
And, unlike you, I'm not trying to sell anything on my site :o)
Now, my turn to ask a question - where's your research background in
HIV (or even microbiology in general)? Why should I trust what you say
versus what every microbiologist/epidemiologist/clinician and
researcher I've ever met tells me about how to analyse a paper and
judge and interpret the evidence?
I ask because if I didn't know better I would say you had no relevant
experience upon which to base your views and are incapable of correctly
interpreting scientific evidence in context! ;-)
Cheers
Bennett
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> LOL....that's the point. Blame as the game IS stigma.
>> >>
>
>Lisp not withstanding
See? Bigot.
I provided you data regarding the relationship between stigma and the
spread of HIV disease. You choose to call it, inaccurately, a "straw
man."
Bigots, though, tend to be ignernt cusses.
George M. Carter
GMCarter
>
snip
>For all members of the AMA: you can read the article online.
>full text of the JAMA article is available on the AMA web site
Thanks for the worthless information!
DavidT
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/more_distortion_of_peerreviewed_data_by.php#more
GMCarter
wrote:
>George, look at Orac's blog.
>http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/more_distortion_of_peerreviewed_data_by.php#more
Thanks, DavidT, for the USEFUL information.
What a delight to learn of all these terrific blogs! Is there a Blog
Resource list? I'd like to make it available along with links to
relevant URLs to counter the denialist horseshit.
Before it kills to many more people.
George M. Carter
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
> >
> >Lisp not withstanding
>
> See? Bigot.
>
> I provided you data regarding the relationship between stigma and the
> spread of HIV disease.
No you did not. A stigma is associated with a mental illness...
wait, perhaps you did after all.
>You choose to call it, inaccurately, a "straw
> man."
>
I call em the way I see em, faggot.
GMCarter
wrote:
snip
>> I provided you data regarding the relationship between stigma and the
>> spread of HIV disease.
>
>No you did not. A stigma is associated with a mental illness...
>wait, perhaps you did after all.
No, it is not. You compound your ignorance with error!
>
>>You choose to call it, inaccurately, a "straw
>> man."
>>
>I call em the way I see em, faggot.
That's your nature. It is the source of stigma, too, in fact. A neat
demonstration--thank you.
Your ugliness is what you die with.
George M. Carter
Chris Noble
You are not very good at this.
The figure that you refer to demonstrates that if you atke one HIV+
person and measure their HIV viral load that this will not be a good
predictor of the rate of CD4+ cell loss.
However, if you take a hundred people with a low viral load and
measure the average rate of CD4+ cell depletion this will be
significantly lower than that for a hundred people with a high viral
load.
The statistics show that there is a significant difference. If HIV has
nothing to do with the loss of CD4+ cells then there should be no
relationship whatsoever.
Is the relationship just another wild coincidence?
The first one is that HIV just happens to infect the exact cells that
are lost in AIDS. What a wild coincidence that a harmless passenger
virus just happens to infect these cells.
The striking thing about HIV "rethinkers" is their complete failure to
address these coincidences with any integrity.
Chris Noble
jdach
> I would direct your attention to Figure 3 page 1504 of the Sept 27 JAMA
> article by Rodriguez which shows scatter plots of CD4 T cell change on
> the vertical axis and HIV Viral Load on the horizontal axis. Notice how
> all the dots are placed like shotgun pellets and don't form a definite
> meaningful line.
bennett wrote:
>But there is a trend, which is reflected in the subset relationship
>between high viral load being associated with more rapid progression of
>CD4 T cell loss. The trend allows them to say that approx 4-6% of the
>specific individual loss of CD4 T cells is directly related to the
>viral load value. A true "shotgun" scatter plot would give zero
>correlation and look like a circle.
drdach replies:
Look again at the scattergram Figure 3 on page 1504 of the Sept 27
JAMA.
The R-squared (COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION) value is 0.04 for 1289
data points and the image looks like a swarm of bees or a shotgun blast
on the wall.
.04 is close to zero. The idea is that in order for the data to be
predictive, we are looking for a number close to 1.0 here, not a
number that is almost zero (indicating no predictive value). To
require the R-squared to be exactly zero in order to conclude that the
data has no predictive value is a red flag that means you need take out
your Linear Regression book and read it. Are you sure you want to be
quoted as making the statement that data with an R-Squared best fit
value of close to zero ( 0.4 ) was still predictive data? Wouldn't
you be more comfortable with study data which showed an R-Squared value
near ( 1.0 ) to say that it has predictive value?
R-squared is a ratio of the amount of variation in the data that is
accounted for by the model over the total amount of variation in the
data. An R-squared value of 1.0 means that all variability in the data
is explained by the model (a perfect fit). A low value for R-squared
indicates that very little of the variability in the data can be
accounted for by the model (poor fit). High R-squared values (near
1.0) would support the hypothesis, while low R-squared values (near 0 )
would serve to reject it.
My Dear Doctor Nick Bennett, it is difficult to believe that you did a
PHD in molecular biology without ever understanding Linear Regression
Analysis, but it probably happens more than we know. Since it is never
too late to learn, I have given you a link to a Power Point slide
presentation that will explain it to you. (see below)
Power Point presentation on Linear Regression Analysis
http://www.cba.hawaii.edu/remus/courses/zsimplereg.ppt
Of course Linear Regression is a tool used by many researchers, and not
preserved exclusivly for use only in HIV research papers.
An R-Squared value of .04 (close to zero) is why the authors state:
" HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of
CD4
cell loss in HIV infection (at the individual level), and challenges
the concept that the
magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of the speed of
CD4 cell loss at the individual level. "
You can deny this all you want, but that is the data, that is the
R-Squared value, and that is the authors conclusion which is merely
stating the obvious. This finding is important it challenges a key
part of the HIV/AIDS dogma, namely that HIV viral replication is
killing off the CD4 cells in the individual.
jdach wrote:
> This scattergram is the finding which indicates that
> HIV plasma RNA level (Viral Load) is not a reliable predictor of CD4
> cell loss in HIV infection
bennett wrote:
>No, wrong - it is not a reliable predictor of the EXACT RATE of CD4 T
>cell loss in any one individual. It is still a predictor of whether or
>not T cell loss will occur...
bennett wrote:
>I'm not sure anyone is saying it's "the main" determinant any more
>since Hellerstein's and others work on T cell kinetics. People with
>higher viral loads _tend_ to progress faster, as do people with
>particular immune genetics, or people with super-infections with
>multiple HIV strains, or people who are depressed. Many factors play
>into it - we've known this for years. The authors of the paper state
>this explicitly.
>I find it astonishing that you somehow think yourself better qualified
>to analyse the results of a paper than the authors themselves or indeed >
>anyone else with specialist qualifications in the relevant field
>My web site: http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com
>And, unlike you, I'm not trying to sell anything on my site :o)
drdach replies:
There are no products for sale on my web site, there is no shopping
cart and no mechanism to collect payment for products for that matter
on my web site. I do mention various drugs and/or nutritional
supplement products during discussions about various health topics
(some of which I recommend from various independent sources). If and
when I go commercial, you will be the first to know.
Also, I would disagree with your statement that your web site :
http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com
is not trying to sell something. Obviously, your web site is selling
the orthodox view of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Unlike your site, my web
site does not sell any beliefs regarding HIV/AIDS, pro or con.
Bennett wrote:
>Now, my turn to ask a question - where's your research background in
>HIV (or even microbiology in general)? Why should I trust what you say
>versus what every microbiologist/epidemiologist/clinician and
>researcher I've ever met tells me about how to analyse a paper and
>judge and interpret the evidence?
drdach replies:
The reader is invited to review my CV which is posted on my web site.
You did your PHD thesis on molecular biology of HIV and are now doing a
pediatric residency in NY employed by the state of New York. I
graduated from Medical School in 1976, and Internship and Residency
1976 - 1980. My fellow ship in CT/US and Interventional Radiology in
1980. I didn't have time for a PHD in molecular biology because I
went right into clinical medicine. I am not employed by the
government, so I have the liberty of engaging in discussion which may
question government agency dogmas.
.
Of course, not even your friend, Chris Noble, the Australian MRI
fellow, did a PHD in molecular biology or any training in HIV. This
is true of most practicing physicans who go directly into clinical
medicine. And of course your other friends, the ACT UP activists GM
Carter (not sure what his job is), and David Thomson (computer
programmer), have no formal education in medicine or biology yet they
pontificate as if they had advanced degrees.
Bennet wrote:
>I ask because if I didn't know better I would say you had no relevant
>experience upon which to base your views and are incapable of correctly
>interpreting scientific evidence in context! ;-)
drdach replies:
Now it is my turn to be astonished that you would suggest that this
Sept 27 2006 JAMA article was not written specifically for me to read
and interpret. JAMA as you know is the Journal of the American Medical
Association and is written specifically for the members of that
organization. I have been a member of the American Medical Association
and have been reading JAMA since 1976, which is before you were born.
I was reading JAMA when you were in diapers, my youthful friend.
I've had thirty years of experience reading and interpreting JAMA.
How many years have you had?
The reader is invited to post comments on my contact page at
www.drdach.com
Regards from www.drdach.com
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>
> snip
> >> I provided you data regarding the relationship between stigma and the
> >> spread of HIV disease.
> >
> >No you did not. A stigma is associated with a mental illness...
> >wait, perhaps you did after all.
>
> No, it is not. You compound your ignorance with error!
>
LOL, you wish that were so, but alas, you fucked up again. How faggot of ya.
> >
> >>You choose to call it, inaccurately, a "straw
> >> man."
> >>
> >I call em the way I see em, faggot.
>
> That's your nature. It is the source of stigma, too, in fact. A neat
> demonstration--thank you.
>
I play to your mental illness. You have to have a mental illness to bend
over and let another male fuck you up your ass. How faggot of ya.
It really is too bad that you insist on being so illiterate
The Chicago Consortium for Stigma Research (CCSR) is dedicated towards understanding the
phenomenon of stigma, developing and testing models that explain why it occurs, and evaluating
strategies that help to diminish its effects. Special focus is on understanding the stigma of
mental illness through application of models developed through basic behavioral research. CCSR
is a multidisciplinary group of scientists from Chicago area academic institutions.
Death
>
Here ya go, a free lesson in the English language
Medical Dictionary
One entry found for stigma.
Main Entry: stig·ma
Pronunciation: stig-m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural stig·ma·ta /stig-mät-, stig-mt- /; or stigmas
1 : an identifying mark or characteristic; specifically : a specific diagnostic sign of a
disease <the stigmata of syphilis>
2 : PETECHIA
3 : a small spot, scar, or opening on a plant or animal
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> I provided you data regarding the relationship between stigma and the
> >> spread of HIV disease.
> >
Like I said faggot, no you did not.
Here you go, another one for your ignorant self:
stigma , pl. stigmas, pl. stigmata (stigm, -m-t)
Visible evidence of a disease.
Syn: follicular stigma
Any spot or blemish on the skin.
A bleeding spot on the skin, which is considered a manifestation of conversion hysteria.
The orange-pigmented eyespot of certain chlorophyll-bearing protozoa, such as Euglena viridis,
which serves as a light filter by absorbing certain wavelengths.
A mark of shame or discredit.
`````````````````
Tell me again how an orange pigmented eyespot spreads hiv/aids
or prevents faggots infected with the deadly dis-ease from being tested.
LOL, what a moron!
Chris Noble
Which particular book is that? The same one where you can find
Duesbergian statistics?
If there is no relation between HIV viral load and the rate of CD4+
cell depletion then we would not expect to see figure 1.
Take 176 people with HIV viral load <= 500 copies per m and 330 with >
40000 copies per ml. Is there a significant difference in the CD4+
depletion rate between the two groups? What is your conclusion?
Chris Noblel
js
" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
8ycUg.44240$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "jdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I suggest you learn how to read. Or perhaps this JAMA article
> > threatens your belief system so that you do not allow yourself to read
> > it.
> >
> > "The results of our study challenge the concept that CD4 depletion in
> > chronic HIV infection is mostly attributable to the direct effects of
> > HIV replication." quote from JAMA study Sept 27 2006.
> >
>
> The Local6.com Health Encyclopedia
>
> Online Science Journals Challenge Peer-Reviewed Counterparts
>
> October 2, 2006
>
> LOS ANGELES -- Scientists frustrated by the iron grip that academic journals hold over
their
> research can now pursue another path to fame by taking their research straight to the
public
> online.
>
>
> Democratizing the peer-review process raises sticky questions. Not all studies are
useful and
> flooding the Web with essentially unfiltered research could create a deluge of junk
science.
>
We don't have to worry. In fact, it's exactly the peer review practice that has turned
science into junk.
Peer review=Friends judge friends, then friends publish friends ==> quickest way to junk
science.
DavidT
jdach wrote:
> The reader is invited to review my CV which is posted on my web site.
We have. If you have had ANY relevant experience in any field relating
to HIV, you are disguising it extremely well. You are a "specialist" in
"anti-aging medicine" LOL!
> Of course, not even your friend, Chris Noble, the Australian MRI
> fellow, did a PHD in molecular biology or any training in HIV. This
> is true of most practicing physicans who go directly into clinical
> medicine. And of course your other friends, the ACT UP activists GM
> Carter (not sure what his job is), and David Thomson (computer
> programmer), have no formal education in medicine or biology yet they
> pontificate as if they had advanced degrees.
Computer programmer? I wish. I know less about computer programming
than you know about HIV. I thought last time you checked I was a
hospital ward clerk, anyhow.
You still don't get it do you, you patronising, pompous idiot. You came
to this site boasting of your medical credentials, expecting them to
confer upon you the mystical status of "expert in all things HIV",
pouring derision upon any who had no higher qualification in medicine.
You ignore the fact that we value rational discussion of facts and
evidence, and pay attention to what people say and not who they are.
Not only do we find you don't know what you are talking about, we also
discover you are actually in the totally irrelevant field of
"anti-aging" medicine, and have no HIV expertise whatever. Then when
the experts like Chris N and Nick B (whose records in the clinical and
research fields of HIV make the "accomplishments" of denialist
"scientists" like the Perth Group look infinitesmal in comparison)
showing you the error of your ways, you start grasping at straws and
appealing to fallacies such as the fact that you have been reading JAMA
for longer than anyone else, so you must be right.
Do you have the faintest idea how ridiculous you look?
Please respond, your readers are keen to know your views on this matter.
GMCarter
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> No, it is not. You compound your ignorance with error!
>>
>I felt bad that you had to go away as dumb as you arrived.
>Here ya go, a free lesson in the English language
LOL...got ya, didn't I? There you are, squealing, and trying to
justify not only your ignorance, but throwing about your bigotry.
While hiding behind an internet alias. (Though we do know who you
are.)
Wow. As usual, the minds most full of hate and ugliness are the
smallest.
You're like Cheney and Bush.
George M. Carter
jdach
DavidT wrote:
> jdach wrote:
> > The reader is invited to review my CV which is posted on my web site.
>
> We have. If you have had ANY relevant experience in any field relating
> to HIV, you are disguising it extremely well. You are a "specialist" in
> "anti-aging medicine" LOL!
>
> > Of course, not even your friend, Chris Noble, the Australian MRI
> > fellow, did a PHD in molecular biology or any training in HIV. This
> > is true of most practicing physicans who go directly into clinical
> > medicine. And of course your other friends, the ACT UP activists GM
> > Carter (not sure what his job is), and David Thomson (computer
> > programmer), have no formal education in medicine or biology yet they
> > pontificate as if they had advanced degrees.
>
> Computer programmer? I wish. I know less about computer programming
> than you know about HIV. I thought last time you checked I was a
> hospital ward clerk, anyhow.
drdach replies:
Now that you have brought up the subject, Mr. DavidT. Why won't you
reveal to your readers what your job is and what your training and
exertise has to do with HIV/AIDS? My background and training are
listed on my web site. The reader is invite to visit my web site and
leave a comment on the contact page. Where's your web site?. Is your
job or background so embarassing that you cannot find the courage to
reveal it to your readers?
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach
drdach replies:
There are plenty of generic Linear Regression Anaysis learning
resources on the web, none of which are in any way connected to the web
sites you find offensive. Here is one for you
Power Point presentation on Linear Regression Analysis
http://www.cba.hawaii.edu/remus/courses/zsimplereg.ppt
regarding the Sept 27 2006 JAMA article:
Yes you are correct about Figure 1 on page 1502 which shows the Study
Cohort data confirms the MACS Cohort data which looks at the data as a
GROUP. The Figure 1 obviously shows a correlation between Viral Load
and CD-4 count as anyone can see.
However, when the data is evaluated on an INDIVIDUAL basis using linear
regression (see Figure 3 page 1504), the coefficient of determination
is only .04 which means that there was no (or very little) predictive
value when Viral Load is plotted against CD4 count. This number R
squared varies from a high of one (most predictve) to a low of zero
(least predictive). They got .04 (point zero four) which is least
predictive. I find it difficult to understand why this is so hard for
you to accept. Obviously, the JAMA editorial board and peer review
process accepted it and allowed publication.
By the way, what's it like being an MRI fellow?
The reader is invited to visit my web site and place a comment on the
contact page.
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
jdach wrote:
> Now that you have brought up the subject, Mr. DavidT. Why won't you
> reveal to your readers what your job is and what your training and
> exertise has to do with HIV/AIDS? My background and training are
> listed on my web site. The reader is invite to visit my web site and
> leave a comment on the contact page. Where's your web site?. Is your
> job or background so embarassing that you cannot find the courage to
> reveal it to your readers?
I didn't bring the subject up - you did.
You first: - What has your training and expertise got to do with
HIV/AIDS?
Your website, which you constantly refer to as though it is some some
holy grail of authority, mentions nothing about the subject. (Actually
I don't care if you have a Nobel Prize in HIV research - its what you
say and what evidence you produce to back up your claims that are
relevant.)
As for me - I don't have a web site - I do not have NPD, nor do I have
something to sell like you appear to do. And yes, it is embarassing to
say, but you have finally convinced me to out myself - I am a rhesus
macaque banging away at a keyboard. The lab controller lets me do this
to stave off boredom when I am not being experimented on with toxic
AIDS drugs produced by big pharma.
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>
> >"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> No, it is not. You compound your ignorance with error!
> >>
> >I felt bad that you had to go away as dumb as you arrived.
> >Here ya go, a free lesson in the English language
>
> LOL...got ya, didn't I?
No, you just provided me with a laugh with your ignorance
> There you are, squealing, and trying to
> justify not only your ignorance, but throwing about your bigotry.
>
I see that you now understand what a stigma is.
So much for another of your rote chantings.
Death
"js" <me@nospamplease> wrote in message
> We don't have to worry. In fact, it's exactly the peer review practice that has turned
> science into junk.
>
> Peer review=Friends judge friends, then friends publish friends ==> quickest way to junk
> science.
>
You credited me with the statement you replied to.
My opinion is the same as yours in this matter.
The kickbacks from grubment grants will soon be stopped.
Papers will no longer be held back due to some petty grudge
someone carried over from college.
No doubt there is a list of reasons I haven't thought of.
Chris Noble
You completely fail to understand the difference between the predictive
value for an individual and that for an aggregate.
Men are on average taller than women but height is not by itself a
useful predictor of gender.
The authors of the JAMA paper understand this. The JAMA editorial board
understand this. The only people that appear to have trouble with this
concept are people that haver the preconceived idea that HIV does not
cause AIDS.
If you really think that this paper supports the idea that HIV does not
cause AIDS then write a letter to JAMA.
>
> By the way, what's it like being an MRI fellow?
I don't know. What about you?
Chris Noble
Chris Noble
Just to clarify. Drdach.com is at least correct in that I have no
expertise in a HIV related field. I have never claimed otherwise.
Anything that I say is only as good as the evidence that I provide. On
the other hand you have drdach.com trying to portray himself as an
expert when he is not.
The authors of the JAMA article do have expertise in this field and do
not share drdach.com's contrarian interpretation of the results. In
fact anyone that is not a dogmatic "rethinker" can see that the results
described in the paper are logically inconsistent with drdach.com's
misinterpretation.
Chris Noble
jdach
reply from drdach:
I would think the letter to JAMA asking them to retract the paper
would come from you since you are objecting to the authors conclusions.
By the way, I noticed that my friend, Dr. Chris Noble has been busy
making posts to this web site concernig the very same Sept 28 JAMA
article. Your readers might be interested in what you had to say:
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml#2307
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach
drdach replies:
Allow me to clarify my claims regarding my background and training
which is posted on my web site. If anyone can point to any false
statements regarding my posted background or training, please bring
this to the attention of our readers. This information is correct to
the best of my knowledge. All readers are invited to review my
background and training as posted on my web site and post a comment on
the contact page. www.drdach.com
My "interpretation" of the Sept 27 JAMA article is essentially a
requote of the authors conclusions. If the authors conclusions are
disturbing to you or your ACT UP friends, then I would suggest you send
a letter to the JAMA editors asking for a retraction of the paper.
I noticed that there is a very extensive examination of this Sept 27
JAMA article including a large amount of discussion by my friend, Dr
Chris Noble at this web site:
Chris Noble
No you twit. I am not objecting to the authors conclusions. This is
just a stupid rhetorical trick on your part.
The PI has in fact made it very clear in his comment who is doing the
misrepresentation.
"The idea that our findings published today in JAMA can be taken to
support the concept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is ludicrous. The
role of HIV as the cause of AIDS has been proven over and over again.
Clearly the people who are misrepresenting our work are not only
incapable of clear thinking, they are also apparently unable to read."
If you really think that the paper shows that HIV does not cause AIDS
then write a letter to JAMA and stop trying to tell other people what
the authors really meant.
>
> By the way, I noticed that my friend, Dr. Chris Noble has been busy
> making posts to this web site concernig the very same Sept 28 JAMA
> article. Your readers might be interested in what you had to say:
Yes, the same people there have also misrepresented a number of other
"orthodox" papers. This is the result of starting with the conclusion -
that HIV does not cause AIDS - and trying to find something that you
can twist into providing support for the unsupportable idea.
> http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml#2307
>
> regards from www.drdach.com
Chris Noble
Chris Noble
You have misrepresented this paper as providing support for your
assertion that HIv does not cause AIDS. At least one of the authors has
come forward to say that this is ludicrous.
Nobody here is arguing against the conclusions of the paper that HIV
viral loads in individuals do not have a high predictive value for the
rate of CD4+ cell depletion. We are arguing against your ludicrous
assertion that the paper really argues that HIV does not cause AIDS.
You are consistently misrepresenting the paper and the arguments of
those people who are objecting to these misrepresentations.
>
> I noticed that there is a very extensive examination of this Sept 27
> JAMA article including a large amount of discussion by my friend, Dr
> Chris Noble at this web site:
>
> http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml#2307
>
> regards from www.drdach.com
Chris Noble
GMCarter
wrote:
>
snip
>No, you just provided me with a laugh with your ignorance
Laughter's good for ya. 'cept when it stix in yer craw.
GMCarter
wrote:
>
snip
>Nobody here is arguing against the conclusions of the paper that HIV
>viral loads in individuals do not have a high predictive value for the
>rate of CD4+ cell depletion. We are arguing against your ludicrous
>assertion that the paper really argues that HIV does not cause AIDS.
>
>You are consistently misrepresenting the paper and the arguments of
>those people who are objecting to these misrepresentations.
That's all that he can do, apparently.
I think there is some argument from folks like Ho and others who want
it all to be just about the virus. But even cancer is as much about
the "soil" as it is the "seed" as a recent paper underscores.
Part of my frustration with denialist cant is that it deflects from
more interesting debates about HOW HIV causes AIDS. The Douek crowd
and others like Frank Miedema and Haase and others have had far more
interesting points of view that address immune hyperactivity.
All of them recognize HIV as the proximate cause of AIDS. Uninfected
CD4 cells dying in greater numbers don't mean that HIV is not the
primary culprit in that steady and persistent decline to zero if left
untreated.
And the denialists have dismally failed to come up with ANY
explanation, except for Duesberg's dingbat ideas about recreational
drugs.
George M. Carter
js
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
08kbi2hr86bc4dnhs...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Oct 2006 20:24:52 -0700, "Chris Noble" <Chris...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Part of my frustration with denialist cant is that it deflects from
> more interesting debates about HOW HIV causes AIDS.
>
What dummy you are! HIV is a nonsense entity we only now from artist impressions so why
debate on HOW its might cause anything?
>
> And the denialists have dismally failed to come up with ANY
> explanation, except for Duesberg's dingbat ideas about recreational
> drugs.
>
There must be a thousand explanations other than HIV but each time you meet one, you run
away in panic.
Hey Carter, are you from ACT UP New York? Did you read my open letters? It's strange, they
never took my helping hand. I think they're great stuff. I'll send them again to this
board in case you missed them.
GMCarter
>
>"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
>08kbi2hr86bc4dnhs...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Oct 2006 20:24:52 -0700, "Chris Noble" <Chris...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Part of my frustration with denialist cant is that it deflects from
>> more interesting debates about HOW HIV causes AIDS.
>>
>
>What dummy you are! HIV is a nonsense entity we only now from artist impressions so why
>debate on HOW its might cause anything?
Get infected and find out for yourself?
js
Get infected with what ?
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
> >
> snip
> >No, you just provided me with a laugh with your ignorance
>
> Laughter's good for ya. 'cept when it stix in yer craw.
>
I'll go with your life experiences as proof this time.
Death
Uninfected CD4 cells dying in greater numbers don't mean that HIV is not the
> primary culprit in that steady and persistent decline to zero if left
> untreated.
>
old news
University Of California San Francisco
Date: January 7, 1999
Major Clinical Findings By California AIDS Team: HIV Does More Than Kill Off T Cells
A team of California AIDS researchers has found the first direct clinical evidence that HIV
does more than kill off Tcells in the body's immune system. The skillful virus also prevents
the production of new, healthy versions of these vital cells.
The scientists--from the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology at UC San Francisco and
from UC Berkeley--report their research results in the January issue of NatureMedicine. The
study involved 21 patients.
"These studies focus our attention on the ways that HIV infection might stop the production of
new T cells," saidJoseph M. McCune, MD, PhD, senior study investigator and associate professor
within the Gladstone Institute at UCSF. "To treat the disease, not only do we need
potentanti-retroviral drugs to stop the virus from spreading and destroying T cells, we may
also need additional therapies to ensure that T-cell production starts anew."
The findings are significant in understanding the puzzle ofT-cell turnover in the HIV
population, an area that has remained controversial among leading AIDS researchers who have
proposed different theories to explain why T-cell counts decrease during the course of HIV
disease.
Scientists use "turnover" to describe the natural process ofT-cell death and new cell
production that takes place in all individuals but that is altered after HIV infects the body.
The precise mechanism that HIV uses to derail the different parts of this process have been
unclear, but the end result is a collapse of the immune system that makes the body vulnerable
to the opportunistic infections that causefull-blown AIDS.
It had been previously thought by many investigators thatHIV decreased the T-cell count by
causing the destruction ofthese cells. The new studies indicate that a more important
contribution to disease may be the ability to stop T-cellproduction.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990107074141.htm
Don Saklad
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus
GMCarter
wrote:
neener neener.
LOL. Time to purchase a clue, diablo.