...I'm sure they'll be happy to see that Gambia's president is curing AIDS:
From the pockets of his billowing white robe, Gambia's president pulls out a plastic container, closes his eyes in prayer and rubs a green herbal paste onto the rib cage of the patient -- a concoction he claims is a cure for AIDS.He then orders the thin man to swallow a bitter yellow drink, followed by two bananas.
"Whatever you do, there are bound to be skeptics, but I can tell you my method is foolproof," President Yahya Jammeh told an Associated Press reporter, surrounded by bodyguards in his presidential compound. "Mine is not an argument, mine is a proof. It's a declaration. I can cure AIDS and I will."
Foolproof, y'hear? Who needs research when we have an assurance like that?
More after the jump...
The only good news about this is that, as far as African countries go, Gambia's rate of infection is still fairly low--the article puts it at 1.3%. Additionally, Jammeh hasn't publicized (yet) what the "cure" is comprised of, so for now, patients must be treated by him individually--you can't make it in your own backyard. However, he does require that patients go off their antiretroviral meds in order to be "cured" by him. (Patients must also forgo coffee, tea, alcohol, and sex). But hey, he backs it up with science!:
Jammeh has gone to great lengths to prove his claim, sending blood samples of the first nine patients to a lab in Senegal for testing. A letter on the lab's stationery indicates that of the nine, four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads, a result posted on the government's Web site as proof of a cure.
This is problematic, though, for a number of reasons. First, as noted in the article, there was no baseline measurement taken for this. Those who had undetectable viral loads easily could have had them at that level prior to treatment, so it can't be said that the treatment reduced the viral levels in the blood. Second, one with "moderate" and three with high viral loads--and he's touting that as "proof" of his cure?
Of course, in the end, it all comes down to the anecdotal evidence, science be damned:
"It feels as if the president took the pain out of my body," Ousman Sowe, 54, told the AP. Diagnosed with HIV in 1996, he is among the first nine men and women Jammeh has treated and has been under the Gambian leader's care for nearly a month."My appetite has come back and I have gained weight," said Lamin Ceesay, thin from a nine-year battle with HIV.
Small comfort, I suppose, that at least they're not claiming that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (as far as I know; otherwise, the viral load tests would seem to be rather pointless).
And of course, what would a magical cure be without invoking god?
Jammeh then held up the Quran, pointing it at each of the patients: "In the name of Allah, in three to 30 days you will all be cured," he said.
Comments
Tara writes:
Another odd thing...nine patients had their blood tested, but there are only 8 when you add up the "four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads".
What happened to the other guy??
Posted by: Dave S. | February 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Your choice of headline betrays your propensity for "Schubladendenken" (compartmentalization). What does this crackpot have to do with people who question the HIV/AIDS theory? As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an "orthodox" crackpot!
Posted by: pat | February 21, 2007 11:49 AM
"Patients must also forgo... sex..."
That seems helpful.
Posted by: dukkillr | February 21, 2007 11:52 AM
besides, "viral load" explains disease progression only 5% of the time. So if your viral load is high relax; there's a 95% chance that it means absolutely nothing.
Posted by: pat | February 21, 2007 12:04 PM
pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name.
Posted by: Wic | February 21, 2007 12:13 PM
Enter stage left, WIC (hurling insults)
"pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name." -Wic
"pat the moore you talk about rodriguez..." mmm, either a typo repeated twice or an attempt at humour.
"...only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4%-6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level"
"CONCLUSIONS: Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. These findings have implications for treatment decisions in HIV infection and for understanding the pathogenesis of progressive immune deficiency."
"Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection"...go figure.
Posted by: pat | February 21, 2007 12:35 PM
I know what causes AIDS! It's obviously another of Lord Voldemort's plots! He's come up with a new curse, and from the looks of it, it should be unforgivable.
Posted by: Stephen | February 21, 2007 1:51 PM
Posted by: ERV | February 21, 2007 9:54 PM
ERV already beat me to it, but exactly--his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y'all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from "HIV doesn't exist" to "AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs." That it can be "cured" in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn't put him on the side of science.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | February 21, 2007 10:06 PM
You forgot to mention Iran's recent contribution to AIDS quackery.
Iran's AIDS "Cure"
Matthias Rath, Hulda Clark and many othe quacks that claim to cure AIDS are all on the "rethinker" list.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 21, 2007 10:58 PM
Tara, thank you for sharing with us your belief that any of the anti-HIV antiretrovirals are, as you called them: "proven drugs. However, I am not sure what you mean by that.
I realize you have heard the fable many times over that these drugs are "life saving" or "life extending". But none have ever been tested against either placebo or no treatment at all.
If this is what you meant, it seems Lancet's page 451 of Vol 368, August 5, 2006 disagrees with you that any of these are "proven drugs" in any healthy way.
The study involved 22,217 HIV positive people in Europe and North America, including many from sub-Saharan Africa, who had never taken ARVs before, and about 75% had no AIDS symptoms at the start of medication.
As the Lancet says in its own comment, HAART's first decade: success brings further challenges,p 427,
"The major findings are that, despite improved initial HIV virological control (percentage no reduction in all-cause mortality, and a significant increase in combined AIDS/AIDS related death risk in more recent years."
Why, Tara, are you claiming that antiretrovirals are "proven drugs" when the orthodox studies show them to be proven ineffective, toxic, and even deadly?
Were you just not aware of this study? Are you unaware that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is actually liver failure, which is not due to any virus?
As for these "proven drugs", they are not quite as fast at killing the patient as AZT, but obviously just as ineffective at preventing illness, and perhaps also quite "proven" effective at causing other damage such as lipodystrophy, neuropathy, kidney failure, and of course, as I said, the study of 5700 gay american HIV positive deaths done by Amy Justice/2002, shows the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is now liver failure with a direct corelation to taking these drugs.
Tara, what exactly did you mean by "proven" drugs? Did you mean as in "proven deadly" or "proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?
Surely you did not mean proven effective in any healthy healing curing way, as the science on this does not currently back you up.
Posted by: lincoln | February 21, 2007 11:47 PM
lincoln the study which you refer to says nothing that could honestly be interpretted in the way that you have.
HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.
The strongest possible conclusion is that HAART in 2002-2003 is no more or slightly less effective than HAART in 1995-1996. The study also provides some explanations for the lack of improvement the foremost being that the demographics changed in this time period.
In classic Schubladendenken "rethinkers" fail to note table 1 which gives the median CD4 count at the iniation of HAART for the different years. In 1995-1996 it was 170. This rose to 269 in 1998 but fell to 202 in 2002-2003.
This directly contradicts Celia Farber's claim parroted from Peter Duesberg that HAART accounts for 75% of AIDS. CD4 depletion and immune deficiency in the vast, vast majority of cases had occurred before iniation of HAART. So unless the effects of HAART can travel back in time it cannot have caused the depletion of CD4 cells and AIDS.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 22, 2007 1:25 AM
Chris thank you for your propaganda. Your vast intellectual understanding of the issues is much appreciated.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 2:16 AM
Linoln, rather than make ad homs against Chris Noble (who has merely alerted you to the conclusions of the Lancet paper) you would do better by rationally responding to the points made. Or perhaps you prefer to stick to quoting misinterpreted study conclusions that you have cherry-picked for the express purpose of promoting your denialist agenda.
If you want some other data on survival, why not see look at this study which shows a median survival of 35 years with treatment?
Posted by: DT | February 22, 2007 9:34 AM
lincoln here's an honest question. what are the references for liver failure as the most common cause of death.
Posted by: Wic | February 22, 2007 9:53 AM
lincoln sorry I was lazy but I decided to look it up since you'd just send me to some science fiction sight like healtoronto. here's something more recent than your upmc study that doesn't say what you say it says anyway http://www.natap.org/2005/CROI/croi_36.htm
23,411 patients on HAART followed for four years. 1248 deaths (5.3%). 30% of deaths from AIDS and strong correlation with CD4 count. 14% of deaths from liver disease. Most liver deaths 79% were from viral hepatitis. Less than three percent of deaths were from non-hepatitis liver disease and that includes alcohol effects.
What are we down to lincs close to 0%?
Posted by: Wic | February 22, 2007 10:11 AM
The thing about deaths from things such as liver disease (which can sometimes be related to drug toxicity) is that they are not that much more common as an overall cause of death in absolute terms than they were 10 or 15 years ago.
What has changed is that now they are relatively more common, and therefore account for a significant proportion of overall deaths. So if 15 years ago, for example, there was an mortality of 18 per 100 person years in AIDS patients, (because most were dying of AIDS) but 3 had died from liver disease (a sixth), today with the dramatic drop in AIDS mortality because of the drugs, there might only be 6 deaths/100py (of which 3 might still be liver related). This is 50%!
(cue shock and horror and major denialist wailing about this representing a major leap in drug toxicity - when as you say, most liver deaths are due to concommitant hepatitis anyway)
Posted by: DT | February 22, 2007 10:50 AM
Another study to look at that has Amy Justice as an author is alcohol abuse in HIV+ veterans almost a third of them are chronic abusers and guess what that much alcohol does to your liver.
Then there are the IDUs guess what injecting drug use does to the liver.
Seems those "toxic" ARVs might not be so bad in fact NOT TAKING HAART correlates nicely with higher risk of Hepatitis C. That's from P Braitstein et al AIDS 2006 and yes lincoln your friend Amy Justice is a coauthor maybe you don't like her so much anymore?
Posted by: Wic | February 22, 2007 6:22 PM
Hey Wic. You are correct that alcohol abuse is very high in the supposed group affected by this issue. You would also be correct to point out that the vast majority of AIDS cases in the US and Europe are also drug addicts.
Obviously you are not too bright of a bulb, or you yourself would have figured out that the entire issue of AIDS was correctly hypothesized to be an issue of toxic abuse of the body, and not an issue of a virus.
But as you are most likely either a paid off shill of either drug companies or HIV research, these are not issues you wish to face or admit to.
In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public. Your attitude smacks of either being paid off, or being a closet case gay, or making a living off of HIV for you to continue to spout your trash to those of us that live in the midst of this.
To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs. Come out of your closet Mr. Wic, and come clean with us as to who you are and what your vested or closeted interest in pushing your propaganda actually is, if you are at all capable of any honesty.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 6:52 PM
In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public.
But Duesberg, Rasnick, the Perth Group etc. do?
To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs.
Is this meant to be a parody?
To most people it looks like you are inventing reasons for ignoring the evidence that is presented to you.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 22, 2007 7:20 PM
Golly Gee, Chris! My statement seems to have pushed your buttons too, there Mr. Software Animation Programmer and espouser of all wisdom on HIV and AIDS! Which one are you, while we are asking? I would guess a deeply closeted gay man who uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet, or perhaps just an egotistical computer troll that wants to come off as being someone important. Gee Chris, why did you allow all of those people to call you Dr. Noble, and not correct them? Why did you never answer people when they asked you what you did for a living or what your connection to the HIV issue was? Tell us Chris, why you allowed others to believe you were an HIV specialist, but suddenly come clean yesterday in admitting that all of the trash you have posted is nothing but the uneducated opinion of some backwoods Australian computer animation hack!
No wonder Val Turner and Eleni would not give you the time opf day! You obviously have no sincere interest in getting sincere answers to your questions or in finding truth. Your only interest has obviously been to argue with those whom hold different beliefs than you do.
What a poseur, what a fraud, what an egotistical jerk you seem to be Chris. How dare you volunteer to be a know it all to those who have been diagnosed HIV that have followed these threads on this, NAR, BMJ, and other sites. How dare you allow yourself to be presented as an HIV expert or doctor to these people, Mr. Poseur of all HIV and AIDS wisdom?
Mr. Computer animator and wannabe expert on HIV and virology! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
If you weren't so pathetic Chris, it really would be funny!
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 7:42 PM
lincoln--knock it off. You've already been banned once for this type of thing.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | February 22, 2007 8:08 PM
Hey Lincoln,
Do you know how you come across?
As an ignorant fool who parrots arguments he doesn't understand.
Your profound inability to properly use who/whom as subject/object of a sentence only compounds this impression.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 8:09 PM
Helo Roy. How does the following article from today's "The Australian" newspaper come across? Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!
Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
Jeremy Roberts
The Australian, 22 February 2007, p7.
COURTS should not jail men for sexually transmitting HIV to partners, according to a private email by a prosecution expert who testified this month against a man convicted of exposing three women to HIV.
Emeritus professor Peter McDonald sent the email to scientists in the US on Saturday, three days after he told an Adelaide court he "had no doubt" HIV caused AIDS.
Defence lawyers were sent the email and showed it to Supreme Court judge John Sulan in a hastily arranged hearing on Tuesday. Justice Sulan has called Professor McDonald back to be cross-examined on the document next Wednesday.
Professor McDonald was pivotal in marshalling more than six highly regarded HIV scientists and clinicians to give evidence. He is an expert on infectious diseases and for 15 years up to 2002 chaired the national committee that provided funding for HIV research.
The witnesses appeared in the appeal of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, who was convicted last year of endangering the lives of three women with whom he had unprotected sex despite knowing he was HIV-positive.
The prosecution was rebutting members of the HIV sceptic Perth Group, who claimed HIV had never been adequately identified in the laboratory and could not be said to cause AIDS.
In the email, Professor McDonald says Parenzee's jailing was "inappropriate". He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.
However, he told The Australian his email did not contradict his testimony. There was "some conjecture" among scientists about the mechanism by which HIV leads to AIDS, he said, but this "in no way destroys the notion that HIV causes (immune system) cell reduction and causes AIDS".
HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
You great defenders of HIV just crack me up!!!
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 8:25 PM
lincoln,
I have consistently told anyone and everyone that I do not work in a HIV related field. This hasn't stopped numerous people from accusing me of being a pharma-shill.
If you really want to be consistent then I, unlike Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, do have a PhD. I would never encourage anyone to call me Dr Noble but it is technically correct.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 22, 2007 8:28 PM
Dear Mr. Chris J Noble, P(iled) H(igher)& D(eeper). Thank you so much for clarifying that daddy paid for your schooling to make sure the family has some bragging rights.
I notice you never bothered to correct anyone who believed you were an HIV or medical doctor! You, even with your PHD, are still, a backwoods of australia computer hack, and how dare you allow people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive to be misled into believing your bullcrap opinions were from an MD? You hack and poseur and fraud!
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 8:40 PM
Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!
Stop playing silly word games. This is not what Professor McDonald said.
The article itself is vague and deceptive.
He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.
Why do "rethinkers" rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 22, 2007 8:41 PM
Why do "rethinkers" rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?
Were it not for quote mining and misrepresentation they would not be able to maintain even a veneer of rationality.
Posted by: Dale | February 22, 2007 8:48 PM
An exact copy of the email douchebag!
It was brief and to the point! There is nothing quote mined about his exact words:
"Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone"
From: Peter McDonald
Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:46:17 +1030
To: Kary Mullis
Cc: Robyn Richardson, Attorney General's Department of South Australia
David Crowe
Christine Maggiore
Subject: HIV/AIDS/legal proceeding
Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my request.
Your views were helpful in terms of confirming the validity of PCR in which you were being quoted as "having no confidence in the technology".
Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.
I personally do not believe that it is appropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV - but that is the law!
I thank you for your assistance and would be happy to keep a dialogue.
Kindest regards from down under
Peter
Hey Dr. Fraud with the Piled High and Deep!
Are you incapable of understanding the professors own and exact words????
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 8:56 PM
And please notice Dr. Hack, that the item you claim I had quote mined were the EXACT WORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER WRITER, and NOT MINE, Dr. Douche.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 8:58 PM
It comes across as further evidence for your inability to read with comprehension, to do your own research, and that you simply parrot things you find elsewhere rather than doing any thinking for yourself.
If Dr. McDonald does not believe that people who transmit HIV sexually should be prosecuted, that is one thing. The question before the courts, however, is somewhat different: whether someone who knowingly transmits HIV by lying to his partner about his HIV+ status is guilty of a crime. Under the Australian law it's clear that he is guilty of a crime. Whether Dr. McDonald agrees with this law or not (his email does not make clear) is wholly irrelevant.
I think you'll be disappointed when he's called back on the stand.
Also, the email exchange between Karry Mullis and McDonald comes across as indicating that everyone agrees that defense witness and Perth group denialist Valendar Turner, if left in a fully equipped molecular biology lab, could not discriminate between his ass and a hole in the ground any better than you can discriminate between the subject or the object of a sentence.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 9:00 PM
And just what is your interest in all of this Roy? Have you been diagnosed HIV? Are you a gay man? Are you black?
Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?
Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.
Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don't have access to?
Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 9:15 PM
And thank you Roy, for clarifying what the issue before Superior Court Judge John Sulan actually is. No doubt you think the judge to be incapable of deciding this for himself. I am sure he will be eternally grateful for your telling him what the purpose of his court is to be.
I think you'll be disappointed when this appeal has ended.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 9:21 PM
And just what is your interest in all of this Roy?
I like to see the truth prevail, especially in matters of science.
Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?
Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it.
Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.
Unfortunately I'm not qualified to be a "pretty" anything.
Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don't have access to?
Well,... I am able to understand what I read.
Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?
Nope, you seem to be the only one of those whom(sic) has graced Tara's blog with his presence this evening.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 9:26 PM
Roy, you said: "Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it".
Isn't that special! My ex lover died from AZT. My ex partner died from AZT. Several of my friends have died from AZT. Many of my friends and many of the people who come to my HEAL San Diego meetings are suffering from the side effects of the drugs they have been taking. Effects such as liver problems, neuropathy, lipodystrophy, brain tumors. I have taken people into my home who were almost destroyed by taking AIDS drugs and nursed them back to health. I consult with mothers who are threatened by the court with the removal of their children if they refuse to give AIDS drugs to their children. Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara's forums!
Personally Roy, I think you are a liar and a coward!
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 9:32 PM
Well, as usual, when lincoln realises that he is losing the debate, he moves from misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data and the words of others, sprinkled with ad hominem attacks to a a blend much richer in bile and ad homs.
Chris's area of expertise is less important than his understanding of science behind HIV/AIDS.
Hell, I don't have ovaries, breasts, and I don't smoke, but that doesn't keep me from researching ovarian, breast and lung cancer, does it?
When someone points out that a denialist is wrong and untrained, it is different from saying that someone is wrong because they are untrained.
Posted by: Robster | February 22, 2007 9:48 PM
And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It's not an argument.
If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV's you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting... If I talk statistics you'll talk sores... If I talk about increased life expectancies you'll talk about tombstones and funerals...
So where does that leave us?
Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose?
Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara's forums!
What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one's suffering?
That's a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I'm afraid I'll have to decline.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 10:07 PM
And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?
Are you personally effected by this? Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster? Just what is it that you know more than those of us who have been directly affected?
Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV? Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?
Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?
Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?
Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?
Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?
Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don't have access to?
Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 10:08 PM
Mr. Hinkley. You said: "So where does that leave us"?
Where it leaves us, Roy, is knowing that you are another troll that has nothing to add to the discussion. Someone who likes to pretend to be knowledgeable and knowing. It shows you to be a phoney and a fraud and a fake and a liar.
But most of all, Roy, again, it shows you to be incapable of critical and unbiased thinking. Of being another egotistical jerk-off know-it-all who has no direct experience whatsoever on either side of the issues.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 10:14 PM
Yes Lincoln, of course.
And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 10:24 PM
What's the matter Roy? I must presume you also did not get enough attention as a child unless it was negative attention. Is this the case. Someone who seeks to provoke a negative response is attention seeking. Do you not even know yourself well enough at this point to see this trait quite clearly?
Please share with us the trauma of your child abandonment issues so we can get to the bottom of what ails you.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 10:26 PM
Look at the top of the page Lincoln. Look at what Tara has written in this and the last thread concerning HIV. Look at your participation in this and other blogs.
Then, think about who exactly it is who is courting negative attention by being here.
Then maybe you should get some help with the issues you so clearly, and understandably, are dealing with.
Best Wishes
RH
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | February 22, 2007 10:45 PM
Notice that Lincoln doesn't bother to substantiate his case anymore, instead choosing to slide into ad hominem attacks. Who knows, he might even be the closet gay.
Posted by: Shalini | February 22, 2007 10:46 PM
"And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It's not an argument."
If you dare take a leap you'll easily see that your own argument is of value either way you see the debate. Everyone harbors the "emotional defense".Emotions run high everywhere. Take a side but abandon the argument because it serves all sides.
"If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV's you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting... If I talk statistics you'll talk sores... If I talk about increased life expectancies you'll talk about tombstones and funerals...
So where does that leave us?"
In disagreement. Don't panic, it happens everyday. You'll quickly realizer that only YOU are in control...if you want to be...
"Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose? What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one's suffering?"
Its called "expressing grievences 101", "my vomitting is more green than yours..."
"That's a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I'm afraid I'll have to decline."
Bend over then...
"And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?"
Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted "factoids". Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system...listen and weep.
Posted by: pat | February 22, 2007 10:47 PM
"Who knows, he might even be the closet gay"
And you're white trash maybe?....
Posted by: pat | February 22, 2007 10:48 PM
[Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted "factoids". Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system...listen and weep.]
And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?
Posted by: Shalini | February 22, 2007 10:52 PM
AP news story today
Studies: Circumcision reduces HIV risk
"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of
the World Health Organization's AIDS department.
I understand Dr. de Cock does all his circumcisions in an office.
I wonder if he shares the office with proctologist, Dr. Elliott de Finger.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 10:59 PM
Hey Shalini. You are obviously another tres mucho bright bulb.
You said in reference to me: "Who knows, he might even be the closet gay".
Did you ever consider I might be an "OUT OF THE CLOSET" GAY MAN????>
Do you have some personal problem with that?
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 11:03 PM
[Do you have some personal problem with that? ]
Nope. Remember, you were the one who said the following:
"proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?
I was just wondering where your blatant homophobia (and racism) came from. It could be that you're actually ashamed of your own issues. It happens.
Unless you're willing to subtantiate your opinions with solid science, I don't think I'll bother to change my opinion of you.
Posted by: Shalini | February 22, 2007 11:12 PM
Hey Shalini! Certainly you are bright enough and capable enough of typing AIDS DRUG SIDE EFFECTS into any web search to find a few thousand ORTHODOX and MAINSTREAM information pages to verify my statement:
"proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?
But just in case you are not intelligent enough or not interested enough to do so, here are just a handful of descriptions from
http://www.aidsmeds.com/lessons/DrugChart.htm
ZERIT:
Special warnings:* Buildup of acid in the blood (has been fatal in pregnant women when combined with Videx/Videx EC); fatty liver; damage to the pancreas (when combined with Videx/Videx EC). Numbness, tingling, or pain in the hands or feet (peripheral neuropathy); lipodystrophy; muscular weakness (rare); increased cholesterol and triglycerides.
* "Special warnings" reflects side effects reviewed in the "Black Box Warnings" that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to list in the package inserts for some HIV drugs. These are the most dangerous side effects that healthcare providers and people living with HIV should be aware of. However, drugs without Black Box Warnings can still have serious side effects.
Aptivus:
Special warnings:* bleeding in the brain; hepatitis (extra care needed for HIV-positive people with hepatitis B or hepatitis C). Rash, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia.
CRIXIVAN:
Kidney stones, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, increased bilirubin (not harmful), increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia. Others: headache, weakness, blurred vision, dizziness, rash, metallic taste, low platelets, hair loss, anemia.
INVIRASE:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
KALETRA:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, weakness, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
LEXIVA:
Skin rash, nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
NORVIR:
Special warning:* Taking Norvir with certain allergy medications, sedatives, heart medications, and migraine medications can increase the risk of their side effects.
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, numbness or tingling around the mouth and in the limbs (paresthesias), increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, hepatitis, weakness, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
PREZISTA:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, inflammation of the nose and throat, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
REYATAZ:
Increased bilirubin (not harmful), abnormal electrocardiogram results, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 11:30 PM
Hey Shalini!
If you or anyone else think these drugs are so wonderful, maybe you should take a few fistfulls of them for yourself. I certainly have many people who would be glad to give their AIDS drugs to someone such as yourself now that they do not take them!
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 11:32 PM
Hey Shalini! LUCKY YOU!
A dear friend of mine just volunteered to send you his unused injections of FUZEON:
Skin reactions where Fuzeon is injected can include itching, swelling, redness, pain or tenderness, hardened skin, or bumps; increased risk of bacterial pneumonia; serious allergic reaction.
Posted by: lincoln | February 22, 2007 11:39 PM
Perhaps you should check out this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17227932&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus
on the survival rates in the late highly active antiretroviral therapy era. I did not say that those drugs were 'so wonderful', and I don't recall ever mentionning that antiretroviral drugs are free from side-effects. You are the one here that cherry-picks whatever you can find about the drugs to prop up your rants.
Bear in mind that you still haven't responded to the main point of:
"And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?"
Posted by: Shalini | February 22, 2007 11:42 PM
lincoln, nobody is denying that ARV drugs have serious and potentially fatal side-effects.
Everything you provide is taken directly from "orthodox" studies.
None of this in any way contradicts the evidence that HIV causes AIDS and that HAART can extend the life of people infected with HIV.
The paper you cited from previously
HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis. does nothing at all to support your assertion that these drugs have been "proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy. Suspect that you haven't read the paper although given your reading abilities it is not impossible.
I have already highlighted one finding of the study that the median CD4 count at iniation of HAART was 202 cells/mm^3 in the 2002-2003 period. This totally refutes the "rethinker" claim that it is HAART itself that causes the CD4 depletion.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 22, 2007 11:53 PM
Table 4 in the study that Shalini cited nicely refutes some of the claims that lincoln and other "rethinkers" have made regarding deaths from non-HIV related causes in patients taking HAART.
">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17227932&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus">
Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005.
For the cohort in the 1995-1996 pre HAART era 19% of deaths were non-HIV related compared to 37% in the 2000-2005 late HAART era.
This would be interpretted by "rethinkers" to mean that HAART is killing patients or that HAART is ineffective.
However, when you look at the absolute mortality rate (non HIV related) per 1000 person years it has actually fallen by more than a factor of two from 23.1 to 9.4.
In the same time the mortality rate from HIV-related causes fell by a factor of ten from 71.2 to 7.0.
Deaths from all causes have fallen. However mortality from HIV realted cuases has fallen fast and hence non-HIV causes now account for a greater realtive (not absolute) number of deaths.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 23, 2007 12:14 AM
Someone upthread quoted the Rodriquez paper re the correlation between viral load and CD4 cell depletion.
Here's the editorial in JAMA by Dr. Keith Henry:
"These findings provide support to those who favor non-virological mechanisms as predominant causes of CD4 cell loss."
What "non-virological" mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?
If HIV is not the predominant cause of CD4 cell loss, then, by definition, HIV is not a sufficient cause of AIDS.
Posted by: Barrry A | February 23, 2007 12:19 AM
What "non-virological" mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?
The Rodriguez paper actually discusses this.
The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.
Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.
Posted by: Chris Noble | February 23, 2007 12:30 AM
"As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an "orthodox" crackpot!"
"ERV already beat me to it, but exactly--his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y'all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from "HIV doesn't exist" to "AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs." That it can be "cured" in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn't put him on the side of science."
the versatility of "Schubladendenken"...there is no end to it. I'm glad you've mastered it; it makes for a carefree living, don't it?
Proven drugs? You're kidding right? HIV/AIDS, 25 years, ZERO saved. Got it?
Posted by: pat | February 23, 2007 1:09 AM
"And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?"
I don't actually take "sides"; I'm free from that shit.
Posted by: pat | February 23, 2007 1:11 AM
Dr. Noble, I saw you wrote that mortality from 'HIV-related causes' has gone down. I was wondering, if you had some thougts about the recent drop in 'HIV-related' foot pain?
"The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy.
Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale.
"These results provide evidence that there is measurable medical benefit to smoking cannabis for these patients," said Dr. Donald Abrams, the University of California, San Francisco professor who led the study."
The Bush administration is against pot smoking for medicinal purposes. How about you, Chris; do you think it would be worth it to see if pot smoking could reduce 'HIV-related' liver failure?
Posted by: Pope | February 23, 2007 2:23 AM
And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?
I'm a scientist. I am interested in good science and evidence based medicine.
Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster?
No. But I am a strong supporter of the LGBT community. Why, exactly, would this make my statements more or less accurate? I have evidence on my side. My sexual preference is of no importance to the evidence, or vice versa.
Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV?
Close to me? No. Friends, aquantances. Yes. But that doesn't change the evidence.
Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?
Yes. Doesn't change the evidence.
Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?
Because I have examined... yes, the evidence. Direct knowledge is not needed to read and interpret articles.
Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?
Actually, I have, but feel free to ad hominem some more.
Memo
To: Pot
From: Kettle
Re: Black
Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?
Nope. I am happily medicated. And it doesn't change the evidence.
Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?
Science. Oh, and evidence.
Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don't have access to?M/i
Yes. It is to be found at www.pubmed.gov
Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?
See above memo.
Posted by: Robster | February 23, 2007 2:53 AM
Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.
"Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV. "
Perhaps you will share a study of even a handful of HIV postives that don't take illicit or hiv drugs and have proper nutrition, to prove your obviously flawed statement? The multitude of long term non progressors and people who have trashed their aids drugs says you are a still a liar, a faker, a poseur, and a fraud!
Posted by: lincoln | February 23, 2007 2:56 AM
Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above? Perhaps you will show us proof in any study of HIV doing anything destructive in any cell of the body. Don't you think you should have proof before you believe, let alone espouse your claim:
"And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?"
Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life!
Posted by: lincoln | February 23, 2007 3:05 AM
[Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above?]
As Robster mentioned previously, it is to be found at www.pubmed.gov.
[Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life! ]
As usual, lincoln resorts to unrelated ad hominems when he fails to answer rational, sensible questions. Is he really that stupid or simply wilfully ignorant?
Posted by: Shalini | February 23, 2007 3:42 AM
Just a couple of years ago, leading HIV/AIDS researcher, Dr. Zvi Grossman, said that HIV pathogenesis was a "conundrum." When it stops being a conundrum, someone call me. For now, I'll wait until Dr. Grossman -- certainly no rethinker, but is a very respectable scientist, tells me otherwise. Should people really take chemotherapies in order to defeat a virus for which pathogenesis is currently a "conundrum?" I don't think I would.
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2007 6:16 AM
And by the way -- there is also "proof" that Vioxx is safe and effective at www.pubmed.com. I mean, really! Referring to PubMed? There are a lot of mistakes and corrections within the voluminous library of PubMed. How about a more specific citation?
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2007 6:19 AM
BTW Tara, when do you go up for tenure? And what is the process of outside reviewers submitting documents to your file?
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2007 6:20 AM
One thing to keep in mind, Tara, when you belittle "rethinkers" you are belittling many, many HIV+ individuals. Folks who have been through the treatment gamut, ARVs and all, like myself. Now, if you (God forbid) developed cervical cancer, and decided to try a treatment that was not FDA approved and that many scientists disagreed with, I wouldn't belittle you. In fact, I'd be supportive of your attempts to preserve your health -- that's called giving someone human dignity. There isn't a lot of that going on around here. Can I suggest something, Tara? From now on, take exception if you'd like with the scientists you don't agree with, but make sure not to belittle the patients. Deal?
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2007 6:38 AM
Of course, if you or anyone else developed cervical cancer and lost a significant amount of weight -- you'd have "AIDS" if you were HIV+ and "ICL" if you were HIV-. Strange, isn't it, how cervical cancer, just fine on its own, has become an AIDS-defining illness. I thought cervical cancer was related to another virus entirely. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2007 6:43 AM
lincoln calls people fascists if they can pronounce the word epidemiology he is ignoring the real fascists in the denialist movement and i'm not joking since i think neo-nazis and white supremacists would go in that category.
Here you will find an article on HIV denial by of a fellow traveler of lincoln and mark
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=168
This little hatesite has a slogan "No Jews. Ju