Aetiology

This is a classic example of the paradox of vaccination: when do you stop vaccinating because the risks outweigh the benefits?

We had the honor of having Donald Henderson, who led the campaign to eradicate smallpox, give a talk here a few years ago. You would not want to go back to those days. After 9/11 and the 10/4 anthrax attacks there was a lot of real concern about smallpox, but does the military really need to keep up this vaccination program now? Would it not be more sensible to stockpile the vaccine, in case it ever is needed, preferable in multiple locations?

Posted by: Andy | May 8, 2007 3:37 PM

Unfortunately, the smallpox vaccination campaign was begun with political spin posing as a scientific decisionmaking process--not untypical of the kind of information our current administration often uses for its decisionmaking process.

Vaccinia was an excellent vaccine for eliminating smallpox. There was no good reason to start vaccinating all of us against it, or even our troops. But as he and his lot built the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Cheney either became convinced or pretended to become convinced that Iraq had smallpox stores. He pushed the CDC's advisory committee into recommending that 10 million Americans get the vaccine (only 40,000 civilians did).

There was some circular reasoning at work here. If Saddam was evil enough to be stockpiling smallpox, he was evil enough to invade. If he was evil enough to invade, he must be stockpiling smallpox. The evidence? We had decided to start vaccinating against it--which we wouldn't have done if it wasn't a real threat, right? This was a hall of mirrors. DA Henderson initially fed the flames though he has since said there was never any evidence that Iraq had the stuff.

Posted by: arthur allen | May 8, 2007 10:16 PM

Stephen,
The vaccinia virus is not the disease virus. It will give you immunity against the disease, and it's a real virus, but it's not smallpox (variola). Vaccinia can spread, but only rarely and by direct contact like Tara says. Variola spreads by direct contact and can also be airborne.
Which word came first?
Well, they both come from 'cow' since cowpox was used for variolation. I would guess vaccination came first and then 'variola' and 'vaccinia' as the different pathogens were identified. Anyone else know?

Posted by: Adele | May 9, 2007 11:17 AM

It's worse, isn't it? With 40,000 civilians vaccinated, isn't there that much more chance someone we don't want to have real smallpox could get some? It's like telling a thousand people to keep a secret. [make up some embarassing secret and publish it here].

They say you're much more likely to be shot if you own a gun.

So which came first: the word vaccination, or vaccinia?

Posted by: Stephen | May 9, 2007 12:53 PM

This seems really pointless. If someone had been working on small pox as a biological weapon, wouldn't they go to the trouble of tinkering with it so the existing vacciation did not work?

Posted by: Corbs | May 9, 2007 9:46 PM

AIDSBLOG of the month: available online at

http://securebar.secure-tunnel.com/cgi-bin/nph-freebar.cgi/110110A/http/scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/04/well_isnt_this_interesting.php

Dear Dale and Adele,

Dale. Suffice it to say, you are right, I am not "a medical doctor" (thank The Intelligent Designer): But I do have to teach pathology at the largest medical school in the United States to second year medical students (about 250/course/year), cell biology (only graduate students these days-thank whom ever), oncology and cancer biology (to young doctors here who work with me on such projects as trying to transform MCF 10A cells, and normal cervical cells with live "HPV" (acquired from patients condemned and whose lives have been ruined by Digene's kit or Merck's fraudulent vaccine). On a daily basis I teach my grad students and post docs about what I have learned about breast cancer and melanoma reversion using simple ECM molecules found in embryos, and oncolytic herpes viruses and CMV. With my bioengineering students (typically small groups of senior undergrad students) we design and build projects in a year-long course-they won both First and Second Place awards in the Chicago-Wide UIC bioengineering EXPO competition two years ago-and yes I was proud of them http://www.uic.edu/depts/enga/current_students/expo2005.htm), and believe it or not, I also teach piano (in 1975 I first went to The University of Iowa as a Freshman on a music scholarship, but got interested in the Iowa Writer's workshop, dropped out of college to live at a commune in Iowa City called Black's Gas Light Village, and then started reading F. Nietzsche, J. Joyce, Nikos Kazantzakis (who I named one of my son's after), and others, but I decided I could never write "as good as them guys" so I got a degree in physical anthropology and primate studies-which couldn't get me a job as Reagan had just been elected and the NIH budget cut so a guy I wanted to study lemers with in Madagascar couldn't take me, so I stayed an extra year at Washington University after I graduated and taught Human Osteology to premed students and archaeology students, and forensic scientists, etc, etc. Then to feed myself and my woman, I started tissue culturing as a lab tech in different labs in St. Louis and Berkeley CA for 5 years before deciding to get my PHD in cell biology. After I got my PhD at Berkeley, I was on Judah Folkman's vascular task force for several years at Harvard as a post-doc while working out the basis of endothelial receptor signaling in the context of normal tissues and cancer. While at The University of Iowa, and contrary to the anti-angiogenesis hypothesis I helped explore with Folkman while a postdoc, I did make a minor discovery that tumors make their own vascular system if they are malignant, and the vasculature is made from tumor cells, and not endothelial cells in a variety of malignant cancers. Some 50 independent groups have confirmed the findings since I first reported the phenomenon in 1999. Unfortuately, the finding predicted the failure of anti-angiogenesis for cancer-a 12 or more billion-dollar industry, which has occurred despite the hype regarding avastin or other so-called anti-angiogenesis inhibitors (Call up Sloan-Kettering, M.D. Anderson, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, The NIH, Dana Farber, or other leading cancer institutions-and ask them about their trials with Avastin, Endostatin, Angiostatin, or VEGF-inhibitors if you don't believe me). So yes you are correct, I am no DOCTOR and I don't really have any basis for asking a question about medicine, or biology.

Adele, You can tell me to go to hell and that I am a self-deluded fool, and you can make fun of how I spent the money donated at my father's funeral on Alive and Well AIDS alternatives (its amazing how you found this out, but then I remembered it was on his obit-amazing what you can learn on line these days that is potentially damaging to a fellow like me), and how that makes me incapable of thinking rationally. But somehow, I am not at all surprised. You guys like to taunt and terrorize the survivors of dead loved ones, like Christine and Robin, while you advocate such things as The Nazi State taking their children away to test and drug them to death as they did at ICC and elsewhere, despite their good health and parents observations (ever have your own children-better get them "HIV" tested even if you yourself test inconsistently positive 6 different times, as did Christine Maggiore)? Regarding inconsistently testing 6 times in a row, as she did, and this of course is very important to consider regarding the case of Eliza Jane (whose funeral I attended), is that in science, I was taught that if something happens, say in a Petri dish, once, it is a fluke (like testing positive on an Eliza or WB or PCR): if it happens twice, it is a coincidence. If it happens 3 times in a row, then you got a line to draw on a graph-etc. For someone like Christine, who has tested inconclusive, positive, inconclusive, positive, negative, and positive, I don't think that qualifies as any kind of reality regarding her "HIV-status" in any epistemology (except perhaps religion), if you see what I mean.

However, I am disappointed by both of your learned criticisms of me. Once again, and despite all your learned and well-considered responses, you didn't answer my simple question about the T-cells. Just for the record, I forwarded the money to Christine's organization because at that difficult time during the demise and loss of my father from brain cancer at 73, and because of the insistence of his DOCTORS at his hospital who insisted on testing him for "HIV" dementia against my wishes, and my demands to not do so. I felt that Christine Maggiore was at that time the most articulate spokesperson on the subject of how "HIV-positive" folks are stigmatized and brutalized by the AIDS establishment and Public Health Service, and by people such as you and your ilk. As a consequence, I thought that Christine's organization may be able to reach more of the folks whose lives have been victimized and often destroyed- and who have been terrorized by people like you, and I felt that her organization was more worthy of support than all of the quack scientists and Church of Modern Medicine folks:

1. who continue to advocate such things as failed "HIV" vaccines and "HIV" vaccine trials (that contain dangerous adjuvants such as MF-59-or squalene, used to intentially evoke non-specific immune reacions, because, to date, and as Barre-Sinoussi concluded at Toronto last summer in her talk, 15 failed "HIV" vaccine trials (at taxpayers expense exceeding $120,000,000/ for some of them) have not evoked humoral, cellular, or mucosal immunity, or demonstrated T-cell activation to date (see the 1995 Congress of the United States: Office of Technology assessment. Adverse Reactions to HIV Vaccines: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues-Roger C. Herdman, Director-a document which claims there were at least 30 such trials conducted before 1995, and as many as 80 trials that were aborted or not fully disclosed-I guess Barre-Sinoussi didn't read the congressional reports detailing adverse reactions and legal issues involved with any "HIV" vaccine, and she only was aware of the recent 15 failed "HIV" trials),

2. who continue to advocate that although almost a million Americans supposedly have antibodies to "HIV" in their bodies and should test "HIV-positive," as demonstrated by the production of antibodies to "HIV," and that contrary to what is understood about how the immune response is supposed to work by first identifying antigens in the universe that are non-self, and which appear to the immune system as non-self (which "HIV" apparently does according to your logic since about 1,000,000 "HIV" positive Americans can't all be artifacts), that somehow, "HIV" vaccines are the way to go if you can only ignore the fact that thousands of people in "HIV" vaccine trials who have been injected with components supposedly derived from "HIV" have not, and will not develop those same "HIV-positive" antibodies to whatever the non-defined shit is that the "HIV" vaccinees are being jabbed and inoculated with, because whatever these molecules are, they are not viewed by the immune system as non-self, and cannot evoke a humoral, cellular, or mucosal responses, or even stimulate T-cells without adding squalene or other toxic adjuvants that cause autoimmune diseases in rats (and soldiers),

3. who continue to advance the idea that although "HIV" vaccine components could not have been derived from anything unique and exogenous because no humoral, mucosal, or cellular immunity is evoked, that adjuvants such as squalene are good for ya because there is evidence that they have evoked autoimmune diseases in every sick Gulf War I veteran tested that have antibodies to squalene found in their blood (P. B. Asa et al., Exp. Mol. Pathol 68, 196-197, 2000; Asa PB, Wilson RB, Garry RF. Antibodies to squalene in recipients of anthrax vaccine. Exp Mol Pathol. Aug;73(1):19-27, 2002; see Gary Matsumoto's book, Vaccine A, Basic Books Publisher), and, in addition, squalene is the molecule of choice if you are trying to get a grant that proposes the induction of arthritis, lupus-like syndromes, or neurodegenerative diseases, or other autoimmune diseases in rats, or other experimental animals,

4. who continue to advocate Nazi-like initiatives such as failed cancer drugs like AZT or other DNA chain terminators that wipe out the immune system at the dosages given to a generation of gay men during the 1980's and early 90's, or in many cases infants and pregnant women, before it was found (by the Veterans Affairs and Concorde study and many, many others) that "AZT disproportionately harmed Blacks and Hispanics, and provided no benefit to the quelling of advancing immune suppression in Caucasians (1); and that "The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptom-free HIV-infected adults, and call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy (2);" and that children born to ZDV-treated mothers "are more likely to have a rapid course of HIV-1 infection compared with children born to untreated mothers, as disease progression and immunological deterioration are significantly more rapid and the risk of death is actually increased during the first 3 years of life" (3),

5. who continue to advocate smearing microbicides on the genitals of every African is a good thing, despite at least 2 large studies that were stopped because it was found that these microbicides increased the formation of lesions and increased the incidence of "HIV-positivity" in these folks who were told to use them to help curb their wild sexual behavior since they are black,

6. who now advocate we chop off a part of every black-male's penis in Africa as they cheerfully "line up around the clinics" to be circumcised following the recommendations of studies performed on 100% of persons that visited STD clinics for STD treatments (chlamidia, syphilis, etc) according to Robert Bailey, who is at my institution, and who did the recent much touted, circumcision study that was published by newspapers world-wide before the peer review study emerged a month or two ago ( and which Charles Geshekter and I wrote a report that totally demolishes these claims because African statistics are not given by Africans themselves, because when they are, no such numbers come even close to those of the AIDS establishment, or Bailey's),

7. who ignore Max Essex's nevirapine-induced "virological failure" of 41.7% versus 0% in the 875, 000 African mother-child pairs in which nevaripine was "tested" (despite Tremont's admitted fudging of the nevaripine trial results and Fishbein's dismissal for blowing the whistle on him the year before -"AIDS Research Chief Rewrote Safety Report." By John Solomon, Dec 2004. Associated Press Writer. www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/12/15b.php):

"Well over 875,000 women and infants have received a single dose of nevirapine. A single dose of nevirapine is the cornerstone of the regimen recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to prevent mother-to-child transmission among women without access to antiretroviral treatment and among those not meeting treatment criteria. However, nevirapine resistance is detected (with the use of standard genotyping techniques) in 20 to 69% of women and 33 to 87% of infants after exposure to a single, peripartum dose of nevirapine. Among 60 women starting antiretroviral treatment within 6 months after receiving placebo or a single dose of nevirapine, no women in the placebo group and 41.7% in the nevirapine group had virologic failure (P

8. who continue to advocate such Nazi-like initiatives as universal "HIV" testing, despite the fact that even "AIDS experts" like Klausner and others have stated that the hapatitis B vaccine [5], the flu vaccine [6,7,], and more than 70 known reasons or syndromes will evoke a positive "HIV" test at rates as high as 2%-5% ?% of "low risk" (read white) populations of soccer moms and golf-enthusiasts living in the suburbs.

Somehow, I ain't surprised by your statements or responses to my simple question. And you still haven't answered my question:

I will state it again: Is AIDS a disease of too few lymphocytes (less than 1000/ul as given by the WHO), or is it a disease of too many lymphocytes, like cancer, or as in the case of Eliza Jane who had 10,800/ul, and who died of a classic delayed hypersensitivity reaction to b-lactams, as described by a huge literature on Medline?

Gee wizz guys-I ain't asking for much here. Don't make fun of my father's death or the fact that I chose to make his funeral contributions go toward helping stigmatized "HIV-positive" folks. Please don't make excuses on how children can have 10,800 T-cells and be considered AIDS patients. Please don't insult our ability to know the difference between the numbers, 1000 and 10,800. For example, 1000 lymphocytes is 1 more that 999 lymphocytes, right? And 10,800 lymphocytes is 1 more than 10,799 lymphocytes, right?

"AIDS" in children is considered to occur according to the WHO publication I referenced above, when T-cells are at or around 1000/ul. You can't have 10,800 lymphocytes and have PCP or a nervous system infection. It don't work that way.

So, it is always good to talk "science" with you on such a "upcoming" "intellectual" website. And no, I ain't A DOCTOR!

Cheers,

andrew

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 7, 2007 1:23 PM

The Eliza-Jane case is sad because a tragic loss of a child was turned into a political football. It is clear that a second autopsy was done on the child with manufactured results for political reasons to intentionally discredit the political activities of the mother.

I agree with Andy Maniotis who has an excellent grasp of this issue, and is an excellent academic molecular biologist. Andy is absolutely correct. PCP requires immunosuppresion to produce pneumonia. A normal lymphocyte count precludes immunosupression and precludes a diagnosis of AIDS.

Andy is not alone in his questions regarding many of the common practices of medicine which are based more on financial gain than on good science.

Indeed, all of science has been up for sale to commercial and political interests for decades. HIV/Aids is merely one example of a pervasive problem. The proposition of treating a retroviral nucleotide base sequence after it has been incorporated into the host genome with cytotoxic drugs is not only wrong, it is ineffective and immoral.

If and when respectability returns to science will remain an open question.

Posted by: Andy's Defender | June 7, 2007 5:03 PM

"The Eliza-Jane case" there's no hyphen idiot, is tragic because if this child had gotten basic standard medical care she'd be alive today.
PLEASE.
If anyone says one more time a child can't die from PCP if they have high total lymphocytes I'm gonna scream so loud they'll hear me in the next province.
Here's something I copied from an article "Science Outsold" on AIDStruth, aidstruth dot org.:

Nevertheless, diagnostic differences do separate adult and pediatric criteria, and for good reason. Quantitatively and qualitatively--and including the response to HIV [74, 75]--the immune systems of infants and toddlers are different from those of older children and adults. It is thus not a particular surprise that an immunodeficient child might fall prey to diseases seen relatively rarely in the immunocompromised adult (and vice versa; see earlier discussion of KS). A pediatrician must be on the lookout for symptoms that might not appear in adults, hence several unique conditions are CDC criteria for a pediatric AIDS diagnosis [76]. Treatment recommendations are also different for young (i.e.

Here are the references.
74. Palumbo, P.E., et al., Predictive value of quantitative plasma HIV RNA and CD4+ lymphocyte count in HIV-infected infants and children. Jama, 1998. 279(10): p. 756-61.
75. Church, J.A., HIV disease in children. The many ways it differs from the disease in adults. Postgrad Med, 2000. 107(4): p. 163-6, 169-71, 175-6 passim.
76. CDC, 1994 Revised Classification System for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in Children Less Than 13 Years of Age, 1994, CDC.
77. Urschel, S., et al., Withdrawal of Pneumocystis jirovecii prophylaxis in HIV-infected children under highly active antiretroviral therapy. Aids, 2005. 19(18): p. 2103-8.
78. Thea, D.M., et al., Benefit of primary prophylaxis before 18 months of age in reducing the incidence of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and early death in a cohort of 112 human immunodeficiency virus-infected infants. New York City Perinatal HIV Transmission Collaborative Study Group. Pediatrics, 1996. 97(1): p. 59-64.

There you have it. Kids can die of PCP even with total cell counts like EJ. Now can any of you three denialist out there give me a single report where a child died of Type IV reaction 48 hours after FIRST EXPOSURE EVER to ANYTHING?

PS, hey thanks for the comment on my age I wish I was still 20-something!

Posted by: Adele | June 7, 2007 5:30 PM

Wow. Sorry. I missed the little arrow. Let me try again.
Heres the whole thing.

"Nevertheless, diagnostic differences do separate adult and pediatric criteria, and for good reason. Quantitatively and qualitatively--and including the response to HIV [74, 75]--the immune systems of infants and toddlers are different from those of older children and adults. It is thus not a particular surprise that an immunodeficient child might fall prey to diseases seen relatively rarely in the immunocompromised adult (and vice versa; see earlier discussion of KS). A pediatrician must be on the lookout for symptoms that might not appear in adults, hence several unique conditions are CDC criteria for a pediatric AIDS diagnosis [76]. Treatment recommendations are also different for young (i.e. LESS THAN 6 year old) children. For example, whereas prophylactic treatment for fungal pneumonia is recommended for adults with CD4+ counts under 200/ul, it is encouraged even at higher CD4+ counts for children up to six years of age and for all HIV+ infants in the first year, regardless of CD4+ count. This is because the average young child has a much higher total number of CD4+ lymphocytes than the average adult. In contrast to adult disease, the "risk of developing PCP in this age group is only weakly dependent on the T-helper cell count" [77]. In other words, even children with "high" CD4+ T-cell counts can develop AIDS-defining conditions. One study of perinatally-infected infants found Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in a child with a total lymphocyte count of about 10,000 [78]; several other children with PCP also displayed higher-than-average counts."

Posted by: Adele | June 7, 2007 5:35 PM

Dear Adele,

I felt I needed to respond to your criticisms, and tried several times to post on the http://securebar.secure-tunnel.com/cgi-bin/nph-freebar.cgi/110110A/http/scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/04/well_isnt_this_interesting.php
site, but it kept saying "page not found." I saw that you also post on the Aeteology site, so I took a chance that you might see my response. You might want to inform Tara about the other site "isn't it interesting..." being unpostable. She won't respond to any info I send her.

First the info I relayed to you about Christine's inconsistent testing came from reference 3, her book. I have never seen her records, as she is quite private about that sort of thing, probably because she is perfectly healthy. But I have no reason to believe she would lie about her stigmatization and how it occurred over and over again during the 6 inconsistent tests.

Regarding your response to my post this morning: (and I have included refs that are from a much longer analysis I wrote when Eliza Jane died, so they don't begin at 1,2, and there is a gap-you can figure it out:

Nobody can claim to be an expert on adverse reactions to drugs: the science that studies them is at its infancy. However, it is widely appreciated that adverse reactions for all kinds of pharmaceutical interventions are under-reported, or aren't reported at all. No physician or hospital wants to be responsible for the tragic event that a prescription, meant to alleviate suffering, caused an adverse reaction or death of a patient. Yet the history of drug and vaccine trials show that responses to these and other medical interventions are always associated with unpredictable adverse responses, as the physiology of every human is different. When adverse reactions do occur, they may be difficult or impossible to pigeonhole as a stereotypical series of complications. Nevertheless, and despite under reporting, beta-lactam adverse reactions are frequently reported. Most doctors indeed ask, "are you or is your child allergic to penicillins or other antibiotics," before they are prescribed.

The World Health Organization puts the figure of adverse reactions to this class of drugs at around 0.7%-10%, depending on the nation studied (14).

In a 2000 case report, da Fonseca reported that (15):

"Penicillin is the drug that most often leads to allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. The incidence of adverse events triggered by penicillins is believed to be between 1% and 10%. Up to one-tenth of these episodes are life-threatening, with the most serious reactions occurring in patients with no history of allergy."

Investigators who study allergic reactions, such as Gomes et al., reported that: (16):

"The prevalence of self-reported drug allergy was 7.8% (181/2309): 4.5% to penicillins or other betalactams, 1.9% to aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and 1.5% to other drugs. In the group 'allergic to beta-lactams', the most frequently implicated drug was penicillin G or V (76.2%) followed by the association of amoxicillin and clavulanic acids (14.3%)."

"Women were significantly more likely to claim a drug allergy than men (10.2% vs. 5.3%). The most common manifestations were cutaneous (63.5%), followed by cardiovascular symptoms (35.9%). Most of the reactions were immediate, occurring on the first day of treatment (78.5%).

Out of 2409 spontaneous adverse event reporting from 1991-1996 in Bulgaria:

" 29% of the adverse drug reaction reports concerned the patients in the age groups of 0-5 year old, and amoxicillin is a drug with a majority of reports for the period" (17).

A group in Spain reported similar findings where amoxicillin caused the most adverse reactions (18).

So-called delayed reactions with amoxicillin are also frequent, and are a subject of intense investigation. For example, there is a developed literature on the subject with titles such as: "Diagnosing nonimmediate reactions to penicillins by in vivo tests" (19), "A diagnostic protocol for evaluating nonimmediate reactions to aminopenicillins" (20), "Diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to betalactam antibiotics" (21), "Role of delayed cellular hypersensitivity and adhesion molecules in amoxicillin-induced morbilliform rashes" (22), "Nonimmediate reactions to betalactams: prevalence and role of the different penicillins" (23), "In vitro T-cell responses to beta-lactam drugs in immediate and nonimmediate allergic reactions" (24), "Skin test evaluation in nonimmediate allergic reactions to penicillins" (25), "Two cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis caused by delayed hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics" (26), "Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity from penicillin (27), "Incidence of beta-lactam-induced delayed hypersensitivity and neutropenia during treatment of infective endocarditis" (28).

Nevertheless, in their allopathic training, most medical students are only taught that "a true amoxicillin allergic reaction" is rapid and stereotypic, would present as tachycardia and produce its symptoms within seconds or minutes instead of hours or days, and would be rapidly reversible by administration of epinephrine. This misinformation ignores the developed literature on delayed hypersensitivity reactions indicated above. The weight of Eliza Jane's heart as reported by the ME at autopsy was 131% of normal. This evidence of ventricular hypertrophy (or edema) is best attributed to loss of pressure due to loss of fluid over a period of hours from the capillaries in the heart, and subsequent widely observed compensation by the heart muscle to pump more fluid. It also ignores the likelihood that electromechanical dissociation (EMD), may have been responsible for the slowed rhythms of her heart and the pulseless state that were noted by the ER staff (rather than tachycardia), in association with hypotensive multiple organ failure accompanying massive edema (loss of fluid from the vasculature). If there is significant loss of blood volume from the vasculature, because 40% of it has leaked out into the tissues due to the toxic effects of amoxicillin, and if the vasculature continues to be permeable, as indicated by the measurements of Eliza Jane's abnormal organ weights, then as long as the antibiotic was present and inducing a series of reactions leading to vascular permeability, it wouldn't matter if the heart was restarted or even working normally, or how much IV solution she was infused with. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that although the ER treatments of epinephrine transiently stimulated the heart to beat on several occasions, before she was given more antibiotics of an undisclosed type at the hospital, and presumably more IV's, the multiple boluses of epinephrine couldn't stabilize her heart for very long, or restore normal blood pressure or normal pulse. The IV fluids repeatedly administered could have killed her by continuing to swell her heart as they leaked out, causing EMD, and drowning her lungs (and kidneys) with extravasated proteins and fluids leaked from the vasculature. However, the fact that her abdomen and liver were protruding by the time she arrived at the ER may have meant that she had already leaked too much fluid from her own vasculature to ever recover normal vascular blood volume, even before the multiple IV's were administered, principally from the delayed adverse reaction to the amoxicillin itself (2):

"On May 14th, in a follow-up visit, one of the physicians found that her lungs were clear, but noted redness in addition to fluid in her right eardrum. He prescribed 400mg of amoxicillin twice a day to the beta-lactam-naïve child" (1).

"After the third dose of amoxicillin, she vomited several times, and she became agitated. Her mother noticed that her face became pale, her arms changed color and were cold to the touch. She became lethargic and ran a low fever. Then she fell unconscious and stopped breathing, and no pulse could be felt by the emergency team or by the admitting physicians" (2). (Do you think this is consistent with the kind of morbidity typically observed by children who are running around happy and healthy hours before and die of "AIDS?")

"The Los Angeles City Fire Department RA 239 was dispatched on May 16th at 0003 and arrived at Eliza Jane's home at 0006 (1,2). Upon the paramedic's arrival, Eliza Jane was found pulseless and apneic on the floor. She was cyanotic with cold extremities and asystolic on the cardiac monitor."

"Eliza Jane was presented at the emergency room of Valley Presbyterian Hospital at 0026 on May 16th. On arrival, she was pulseless, had no spontaneous respiration, and appeared very pale. Her pupils were mid position and fixed."

"The treating physician examined Eliza Jane and found that her abdomen and her liver were distended. Her extremities were cold and poorly perfused with non-palpable pulses. Her oral mucous membranes were pink and there was a lesion on her lower lip."

"At 0105 her heart rate began to slow down into the 40-60 b/min range and she did not have a papable pusle. CPR was restarted. She was bagged with 100% O2 and given high dose epinephrine 1.3mg, atropine 0.26 mg, and sodium bicarbonate 13 mEq. Her heart rate began to increase, it came up to 113 b/minute, and she had a palpable pulse."

"At 0137, no blood pressure could be obtained and Eliza Jane was started on dopamine drip at 5 microgram/kg per hour. Her blood pressure reached to 41/28 and was taken to CT scan. While in CT scan, she had another episode of asystole and she was given atropine, and sodium bicarbonate. She developed a pulse again and was transferred to the Pediatric ICU."

"At the PICU, her heart rate reached approximately 120b/min but she did not have a pulse. She was given fluid boluses, as well as being placed on dopamine 10 microgram/kg/hour and dobutamine 10 microgram/kg per hour. She did not have a pulse and her blood pressure was not obtainable in spite of these treatments. She was also started on antibiotics."

(Jesus H. Christ-I guess people have a lot of faith in antibiotics-that they can reverse cardiac arrest! I wonder what antibiotic they gave her in the ICU????)

The type of antibiotic given in the PICU is not disclosed, but is of concern, given that Eliza Jane presented with classic signs, and a package-insert-perfect description of an adverse reaction to amoxicillin, rather than end-stage AIDS, as stated by the Medical Examiner's office.

Amoxicillin package inserts (29) describe most if not all the reactions manifested by Eliza Jane in their warnings (I have underlined the adverse events manifested by Eliza Jane as described by her parents, the hospital, and the coroner's report)."

Beta lactam antibiotics-
Anaphylactic reactions manifested by urticaria, flushing, pruritus, laryngeal edema, and cardiovascular collapse may occur within minutes or, less frequently, hours after administration of beta lactam antibiotics (ie, drugs that have a common beta lactam ring structure)."

SIDE EFFECTS AND SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
Gastro-intestinal side effects including diahrroea, nausea and vomiting may occur quite frequently. Pseudomembranous colitis has also been reported.Super-infection is relatively common. Doses should be reduced in severe renal failure.

Nausea and vomiting occurred after Eliza Jane's second dose of amoxicillin. Eliza Jane's kidneys were measured at 146% of normal, without significant damage exhibited microscopically, consistent with massive edema and recent injury.

"The most feared adverse events attributed to beta-lactam antibiotics are IgE type I immediate or accelerated reactions. These develop within minutes to hours of drug administration and cause hypotension, laryngeal edema or bronchospasm. Such reactions occur when patients with preformed beta-lactam-specific IgE antibodies, which are bound to tissue mast cells and circulating basophils, are exposed to the drug or tissue protein complex, resulting in the release of inflammatory mediators."

"Unpredictable reactions occur independent of the dose and route of administration and reflect such factors as drug intolerance, allergy, and other idiosyncratic responses. These reactions seem to preferentially affect certain body systems, most commonly blood, skin, and liver."

Eliza Jane's bood work was abnormal to the extent that she was profoundly anemic and exhibited a low hematocrit (Her hemoglobin and hematocrit counts were low (6.3 g/dl instead of 12-16g/dl, and 21% instead of 37-48%, respectively). (2). Her neutrophils were measured at 12% (normal=45-74%) (2). Her monocyte percentage was in the normal range at 8% (normal is 4-10%) and her platelet count (214 k/µl) was in the normal range (130 k/µl -400 k/µl) (2).

And as indicated on the amoxicillin package insert:

"Additional unique life-threatening reactions caused by beta-lactam antibiotics are referred to as "late" reactions. They include such events as hemolytic anemia, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and exfoliative dermatitis."

Her liver findings were abnormal as well: Eliza Jane autopsy showed liver changes consistent with an immune reaction to amoxicillin, which in some cases of acute toxicity has been noted to resemble pregnancy-fat-like-accumulation and steatosis (30-33).

It is also now emphasized during the early training of many clinicians, as well as in the literature (16), that the effects of amoxicillin on the liver are usually only found when used with another drug, clavulanate, but this misinformation is not supported by the primary literature in Medline: there are many reports that indicate the rate of acute reactions occur in multiple cohorts of patients who were studied for amoxicillin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate reactions, and both appear quite frequently, judging by the number of reports. Perhaps the most comprehensive report that surveys the growing literature on the subject of amoxicillin versus amoxicillin/ clavulanate is presented by Berg et al, and in connection to both fatal and non-fatal adverse reactions to amoxicillin/amoxicillin clavulanate, which they claim typically occur after antibiotic therapy was discontinued, and serves to reinforce the idea that none of these drugs can be considered as safe, even after they are withdrawn (34).

Eliza Jane was never administered any skin allergy tests for amoxicillin, which may have been a wise thing to do, for a bata-lactam-naïve child. Even so, there have even been references to amoxicillin-induced death when cutaneous sensitivity tests to the beta-lactam drugs are given at allergy testing doses (which are extremely small doses) to determine if someone is allergic to these drugs, before giving them a full dose (35).

One group of allergists have even postulated the technical term "flare-up" to describe these kind of delayed reactions as a Type IV mechanism, and described the difficulty in typifying these kinds of reactions. As stated by Reig Rincon de Arellano I et al., (36).

" We suggest that this phenomenon of Flare up occurs by a Type IV mechanism mediated by T-cells without participation of IgE antibodies. The betalactam hypersensitivity mechanism which has usually been described is an IgE mediated reaction, but there are other not very well known mechanisms that are responsible for the delayed reactions."

And yes, I would doubt Einstein, God, and James Watson if they didn't provide evidence for their claims. Why should I be any less critical about the junk science you call "HIV/AIDS?" You might want to check out a paper I wrote in 1998 regarding the non-activity of "HIV" integrase in a toposomerase study (Because of the extreme censorship of us by the AIDS establishment, I had to bury the "HIV" non-result to get the damn thing published as a negative control for DNA minor groove binding). Also, you might want to read Gallo's book, Virus Hunting, where it describes my former boss, Judah Folkman's dismissal of the fact that Kaposi's sarcoma couldn't have anything to do with "HIV."

Ah, those were the days when it all was still innocent. Well, it ain't innocent anymore. You all have had ample warnings and questions from "deluded" folks like me, Robert Root-Bernstein, Karry Mullis, Walter Gilbert, Lynn Margulis, Michael Lange, Stephan Lanka, Val Turner, about 3000 scientists, physicians, and others (on Crowe's website that signed a rather long document), and oh, how could I forget, Peter Duesberg and his correct mistake regarding the existence of "HIV," and the predictions he made that have all come true (I heard him lecture on it for the first time in 1985 in our departmental weekly seminar, and I was horrified as were many of us at Berkeley, at his suggestion that AIDS is not caused by a human retrovirus.

Regards,

andy

1. Autopsy report (Case No 2005-0367), Department of Coroner, Los Angeles California. September 15, 2005.

2. Medical record # 856441, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, 15107 Vanowen Street, Van Nuys, Ca, 91404.

3. Christine Maggiore. What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? American Foundation for AIDS Alterntives. 4th Printing, 2000.

14. Bull World Health Organ. 38(2):159-88, 1968.

15. da Fonseca Pediatr Dent. Adverse reaction to amoxicillin: a case report. Sep-Oct;22(5):401-4, 209, 2000.

16. Gomes et al. Self-reported drug allergy in a general adult Portuguese population. Clin Exp Allergy. Oct;34(10):1597-601, 2004.

17. Getov I, Dimitrova Z. Antibacterials: spontaneous report analysis for a six years period in Bulgaria. Boll Chim Farm. Apr;138(4):186-90, 1999.

18. Minguez MA, Zapatero L, Caloto M, Martinez-Molero MI. A study of allergy to penicillin antibiotics in 1995 in the Child Allergy Department of the Gregorio Maranon University hospital. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). Mar-Apr;26(2):43-6, 1998.

19. Romano A, Viola M, Mondino C, Pettinato R, Di Fonso M, Papa G, Venuti A, Montuschi P.Int Arch Allergy Immunol. Diagnosing nonimmediate reactions to penicillins by in vivo tests. 1: Int Arch Allergy Immunol. Oct;129(2):169-74, 2002.

20. Romano A, Quaratino D, Di Fonso M, Papa G, Venuti A, Gasbarrini G.A diagnostic protocol for evaluating nonimmediate reactions to aminopenicillins. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Jun;103(6):1186-90, 1999.

21. Romano A, Blanca M, Torres MJ, Bircher A, Aberer W, Brockow K, Pichler WJ, Demoly P; ENDA; EAACI. Diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics. Allergy. Nov; 59(11):1153-60, 2004.

22. Barbaud AM, Bene MC, Schmutz JL, Ehlinger A, Weber M, Faure GC. Role of delayed cellular hypersensitivity and adhesion molecules in amoxicillin-induced morbilliform rashes. Arch Dermatol. Apr;133(4):481-6, 1997.

23.Terrados S, Blanca M, Garcia J, Vega J, Torres MJ, Carmona MJ, Miranda A, Moya M, Juarez C, Fernandez J. Nonimmediate reactions to betalactams: prevalence and role of the different penicillins. Allergy. Jul;50(7):563-7, 1995.

24.Luque I, Leyva L, Jose Torres M, Rosal M, Mayorga C, Segura JM, Blanca M, Juarez C. In vitro T-cell responses to beta-lactam drugs in immediate and nonimmediate allergic reactions. Allergy. Jul;56(7):611-8, 2001.

25.Torres MJ, Sanchez-Sabate E, Alvarez J, Mayorga C, Fernandez J, Padial A, Cornejo-Garcia JA, Bellon T, Blanca M. Skin test evaluation in nonimmediate allergic reactions to penicillins. Allergy. Feb;59(2):219-24, 2004.

26. Romano A, Di Fonso M, Pocobelli D, Giannarini L, Venuti A, Garcovich A; Two cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis caused by delayed hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. Jan-Feb;3(1):53-5, 1993.

27. Fernandez de Corres L, Lobera I, Munoz D. Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity from penicillin. Contact Dermatitis. Mar;14(3):194-5, 1986.

28. Olaison L, Belin L, Hogevik H, Alestig K. Incidence of beta-lactam-induced delayed hypersensitivity and neutropenia during treatment of infective endocarditis. Arch Intern Med. Mar 22;159(6):607-15, 1999.

29. Amoxicillin Package inserts:
-Part 2: Summary Statements Evidence-Based Commentary - VII. Prototypes Of Immunologically Mediated Drug Hypersensitivity Ann Allergy 1999; 83:S665-S700
www.jcaai.org/pp/dh_7_prototypes.asp

30. Hautekeete ML Hepatotoxicity of antibiotics. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. May-Aug;58(3-4):290-6, 1995.

31. George DK, Crawford DH. Antibacterial-induced hepatotoxicity. Incidence, prevention and management.Drug Saf. Jul;15(1):79-85, 1996.

32. Brown SJ, Desmond PV. Hepatotoxicity of antimicrobial agents.
Semin Liver Dis. 22(2):157-67, 2002.

33. Liu ZX, Kaplowitz N. Immune-mediated drug-induced liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. Aug;6(3):755-74, 2002.

34.Berg P, Hahn EG. Hepatotoxic reactions induced by beta-lactamase inhibitors. Eur J Med Res. Dec 17;6(12):535-42, 2001.

35. Valyasevi MA, Van Dellen RG. Frequency of systematic reactions to penicillin skin tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Nov;85(5):363-5), 2000.

36. Reig Rincon de Arellano I, Villalon Garcia A, Cimarra Alvarez-Lovell M, Robledo Echarren T, Martinez-Cocera M. Allergol Immunopathol. Flare up to betalactams. Sep-Oct;33(5):282-4, 2005.

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 7, 2007 5:41 PM

Dear Adele,

The article (78) you quote which you feel supports your argument that PCP can occurr in children with normal lymphocyte counts does not in fact support your case.

The study was done on children of DRUG ADDICTS.

The mother of Eliza Jane was NOT a DRUG ADDICT.

This is a very large discrepancy.

In fact, all the studies of pediatric HIV/AIDS are done on drug addict mothers. The children of drug addicted mothers have a high mortality during the first 6 months of life because they are born from DRUG ADDICTS.

So Adele, before you call anyone else an idiot, call yourself one. Look it up.

78. Pediatrics. 1996 Jan;97(1):59-64. Benefit of primary prophylaxis before 18 months of age in reducing the incidence of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and early death in a cohort of 112 human immunodeficiency virus-infected infants. New York City Perinatal HIV Transmission Collaborative Study Group. Thea DM, Lambert G, Weedon J, Matheson PB, Abrams EJ, Bamji M, Straus WL, Thomas PA, Krasinski K, Heagarty M.

Posted by: Andy's Defender | June 7, 2007 6:43 PM

Dr. Maniotis,

You are far too gracious in your response to Adele. She's basically just an internet twit, who has done no serious scientific research on any topic, and wastes much of her time twiddling around on the internet.

Don't sweat it.

But, one question: Is there evidence of any girls dying from the HPV vaccination?

Posted by: Keven Tanna | June 7, 2007 7:35 PM

Dear Keven,

Please see the following:
Cheers,

Andy, the Homeopathologist (thanks Chris Noble! What a great title! Beats my current one for sure).

For Immediate Release
May 23, 2007 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188

Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine

Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil

(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for
human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine.
One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three
hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19,
reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via
the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions.
Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects
ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever,
nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the
adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more
serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre
Syndrome, and seizures.

"The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,"
stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Any state or local government now
beset by Merck's lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls
ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven
vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."

Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event
reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event
reports below.

(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned
the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)

###

Click here to
view the Garadsil Related Deaths Reported to VAERS as of May 11, 2007

Click here to
view the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

On July 14th the first report of a serious reaction to the vaccine was filed with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A 16-year-old Illinois girl was vaccinated July 7th and 13 days later developed symptoms eventually diagnosed as Guillian-Barre Syndrome. A 14-year-old girl in the District of Columbia was vaccinated on July 11th and complained of severe pain immediately following the injection, fell off the examining table and experienced a 10 to 15 second fainting spell ending up in the emergency room with a headache and speech problems. The report of this reaction, the first in the nation, was filed on July 14th, 15 days after the ACIP vote.

Six months later, 82 reports of GARDASIL reactions have been submitted to VAERS on behalf of at least 84 young girls and 2 boys.[1] Reaction reports have come in from 21 states and the District of Columbia.[2] Reactions were reported for children and young adults ranging in age from 11 to 27. Of the reports indicating what day the vaccine was given and the reaction occurred, 63 percent stated that the reaction occurred the same day the vaccine was given. All but three of the reports were for reactions that occurred within one week of vaccination.

This document is divided into three sections. The first section describes reaction reports for a number of reported adverse events: neurological symptoms including syncopal episodes and seizures, arthralgia and joint pain, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, and other immunological reactions. The second section addresses concerns related to vaccinating individuals already infected with HPV. The last section discusses issues that need to be
addressed by government regulators and the manufacturer and considerations for clinicians and consumers.

Reported Adverse Events

Presumably, the reactions described below occurred after the first dose of GARDASIL. GARDASIL is given in a three-dose series. None of the reports stated that the children and adults experiencing problems had previously been vaccinated with GARDASIL.

Syncopal Episodes and Seizures. One-quarter of all reports filed after GARDASIL vaccination were for neurologic adverse events including loss of consciousness, syncope, syncopal events and seizures. An additional five reports included symptoms of dizziness and feeling faint.

Syncope is defined as a temporary suspension of consciousness due to generalized cerebral ischemia (inadequate blood flow and lack of oxygen). The reports of syncopal episodes and their descriptions are remarkable. A physician from Washington State reported that in one morning, three patients experienced syncopal episodes. On August 8th another physician's office reported that two patients experienced syncopal episodes on the same day.

Although these reports did not detail what happened to the individuals experiencing these syncopal episodes, other reports did. The 14-year-old DC girl mentioned earlier experienced a syncopal episode combined with amblyopia (poor vision in one eye), abnormal speech, vomiting, and headache. Also experiencing vision problems, a 17-year-old New York girl reported feeling dizzy and her vision went "black for a few seconds" and she turned pale and lips turned purple and she also had fever and chills. Similar to
the DC girl, on July 18th immediately after being vaccinated, a 22-year-old Kentucky woman experienced slurred speech accompanied by pallor and shock. On August 29th, two hours after being vaccinated, a 15-year-old New York girl who had a history of asthma and was on four asthma medications experienced difficulty swallowing prompting a visit to the emergency room. On August 17th, 15 minutes after being vaccinated, a 14-year-old Pennsylvania girl passed out in the car on the way home.

Most of the reports do not describe what happened as a result of the syncopal episode but a few do. One 11-year-old Florida girl fell from the examining table and two Washington girls fell - a 16-year-old girl fell and hit her head on a carpeted concrete surface and a 14-year-old girl fell down and broke her nose.

Whether the 22 girls who experienced syncopal episodes actually experienced atonic seizures cannot be determined from these reports. Four girls, however, displayed observable seizure activity. The 11-year-old Florida girl who fell from the table also displayed "tonic posturing." Tonic posturing is a type of seizure where sustained contraction of muscles in the legs and arms occurs and consciousness is impaired. The 16-year-old Washington girl who fell and hit her head on the floor lost consciousness for one minute and displayed tonic posturing of her right hand. Additionally, a 15-year-old
girl from Virginia was described as having "a mild seizure." In California, a 13-year-old girl was walking down the hall after her vaccination, fell and had a 15-second tonic/clonic seizure. Tonic/clonic seizures are also known as "grand mal" seizures.

Additionally, there were reports of dyskinesia (difficulty or distortion in performing voluntary movements) and hypokinesia (slow or diminished movement of the body musculature) both of which have neurological implications.

Arthralgia, Joint Pain and Fever. Arthralgia is defined as pain in the joints. Concerns about arthritis were raised during the GARDASIL clinical trials. Reports of arthralgia in one or more joints accompanied by fever were noted in five instances from four young girls and women in Wisconsin, Texas and New York, and one 18-year-old New York male.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Reports state that two recently vaccinated 16-year-old girls - one from Illinois and the other from Mississippi - were diagnosed with Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with GARDASIL. In both cases, the onset of symptoms occurred 13 days after vaccination. According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

GBS is a serious disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until certain muscles cannot be used at all and, when severe, the patient is almost totally paralyzed. ... Vaccinations can trigger onset of GBS.

The Illinois girl described earlier was vaccinated on July 7th and symptoms were evident by July 20th. The girl also experienced gait abnormalities (trouble walking properly), asthenia (weakness without loss of strength), paresthesia (burning, prickling, tingling or numbness sensation usually felt in the hands, arms, feet and legs), and hyperkinesia (abnormal increase in muscle movement). The Mississippi girl was vaccinated on July 31st and by August 13th she had increasing numbness and tingling in her feet and hands
and was subsequently evaluated by a neurologist and diagnosed with GBS. The current health status of these girls is not known.

In both of these cases, the girls were also vaccinated with Aventis Pasteur's Menactra, a vaccine for meningococcal infections. Menactra has previously been associated with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and the FDA and others have issued alerts.

Other Adverse Reactions.

Additionally, a number of other reactions to GARDASIL are noted in VAERS reports and they include: urticaria (hives); pruritus (itching); macular and papular rashes; blisters and vesicles near the injection site; swollen arms; lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes); red, hot swollen knots at injection site; burning, stabbing, severe and
radiating pain at the injection site and in the affected limb during and after injection; nausea and vomiting; infections and skin ulcers, and other allergic reactions.

Other Considerations

GARDASIL is marketed as a "cervical cancer vaccine" and intended to prevent infection with specific HPVs - common viruses among sexually active women. It isn't clear what benefits or potential harms could arise from vaccinating sexually active women who have already contracted HPV. Of the 86 reaction reports filed with VAERS so far, 12 reports were generated by young women 18 and older who were taking hormonal contraceptives and presumably sexually active.

With respect to concerns related to vaccinating women with known HPV infections, adverse reaction reports were filed on behalf of a 17-year-old Texas girl who was already diagnosed with HPV and genital warts. Similarly, the 22 year-old Kentucky woman who experienced slurred speech following vaccination already had an abnormal pap smear with evidence of cervical dysplasia.

Implications

The early reports of potential safety problems with GARDASIL raise concerns and questions that need to be addressed by government regulators, manufacturers and prescribing physicians. Specifically, the following concerns need to be addressed:

1. Syncope, seizures and Guillian-Barre Syndrome have now beenreported with hours to a week after GARDASIL vaccination. GARDASIL manufacturer, Merck, should add these serious adverse events to the product manufacturer insert.

2. Considering that over 20 girls have experienced syncopal episodes sometimes combined with seizures and serious injuries, physicians should consider only giving GARDASIL when the patient is safely laying down on the examining table. Because there seems to be syncopal reactions up until 15 minutes after vaccination, patients should be asked to lie down for 15 minutes after receipt of GARDASIL.

3. The information provided by Merck indicates that it is safe to administer GARDASIL with Hepatitis B vaccine. The prescribing information states, "Results for clinical studies indicate that GARDASIL may be administered concomitantly (at a separate injection site) with hepatitis B vaccine (recombinant). Co-administration of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied." Due to the small number of girls aged 9 to 15 who appear to have been evaluated for GARDASIL safety in Merck clinical trials
(fewer than 2,000) and lack of publicly available information about how many of these girls were given GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine simultaneously, the safety of administering GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine to all pre-adolescent girls is uncertain.

4. Aside from Hepatitis B, Merck does not state that it is safe to simultaneously administer GARDASIL with any other vaccine. Considering that there are ongoing evaluations of a reported association between Menactra (meningococcal vaccine) and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and Merck does not explicitly indicate that it is safe to administer to administer GARDASIL and Menactra simultaneously, consumers and clinicians should question whether administering both GARDASIL and Menactra at the same time is safe.

5. Similarly, adverse reactions were reported when GARDASIL was administered with eight other vaccines: Hepatitis A, MNQ (?), MEN (Menactra), TD (Tetanus and Diptheria Toxoids), DPP (Diptheria/Pertussis/Polio), PNC Prevnar (Heptavalent pneumococca conjugate), DTaP (Diphtheria And Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine), and TDAP (Tetanus, Diptheria and Pertussis). Because Merck does not state that it is safe to administer simultaneously GARDASIL with any vaccine other than Hepatitis B, consumers and clinicians should question whether co-administration of GARDASIL and other vaccines is safe.

6. Most, if not all, of the reactions reported to VAERS were in response to the first of the three doses of GARDASIL. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) developed for HPV vaccine states that severe reactions include "any unusual condition, such as a high fever or behavior changes. Signs of a serious allergic reaction can include difficulty breathing, hoarseness or wheezing, hives, paleness, weakness, a fast heart beat or dizziness." The CDC also states that "anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to yeast, to any other component of HPV vaccine, or to a previous dose of HPV vaccine should not get the vaccine." Which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute a "life-threatening allergic reaction" and which, if any, of the children and young adults who experienced reactions should receive additional doses of vaccine? At the October 2006 ACIP meeting, CDC staff stated that only "three serious reports were reported to VAERS after HPV vaccination in females 14 and 16 years of age. One of these patients had vasovagal syncope and was hospitalized overnight for observation." [7]CDC's summary of the first 76 VAERS reports suggests that CDC doesn't regard the remaining reports as "serious." CDC needs to clarify which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute contraindications to further vaccination with GARDASIL and make this information available to the public and to prescribing physicians.

7. What were the short and longer-term outcomes for the individuals who experienced the reactions reported to VAERS? Is there information available that would help to predict the characteristics that predispose one to be at greatest risk of experiencing a serious reaction?

8. The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet indicates that allergy to yeast is a reason to avoid taking GARDASIL. Merck notes that contraindications to the vaccine include "hypersensitivity to the active substances or to any of the recipients of the vaccine. Individuals who develop symptoms indicative of hypersensitivity after receiving a dose of GARDASIL should not receive further doses of GARDASIL." The prescribing information provided by Merck does not specifically note that yeast allergy is a contraindication to taking GARDASIL. Government regulators and the manufacturer need to address the discrepancy between these documents and clarify the issues related to yeast allergy and make this information readily available to the public and prescribing physicians.

9. Additionally, Merck notes that vaccine ingredients include 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, and 35 mcg of sodium borate. These ingredients are not listed on the CDC's VIS sheet. The public needs this information so that they can identify whether they have "hypersensitivities" to any of the ingredients and whether they are at risk of experiencing a serious allergic reaction. Hypersensitivities and known allergic reactions are critical pieces of information that need to be communicated to prescribing physicians in order to make the safest possible vaccination decisions.

Government regulators including the CDC and FDA, in combination with Merck, should address the above safety concerns as soon as possible. Medical groups advocating use of GARDASIL should effectively communicate to physicians and patients the potential risks of using GARDASIL along with precautions to improve the safety of patient care.

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 8, 2007 1:14 AM

Dear Keven,
Second try to post:

For Immediate Release
May 23, 2007 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188

Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine

Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil

(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and
prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for
human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine.
One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three
hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19,
reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via
the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions.
Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects
ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever,
nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the
adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more
serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre
Syndrome, and seizures.

"The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,"
stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Any state or local government now
beset by Merck's lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls
ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven
vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."

Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event
reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event
reports below.

(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned
the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)

###

Click here to
view the Garadsil Related Deaths Reported to VAERS as of May 11, 2007

Click here to
view the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Reports as of May 11, 2007

The early reports of potential safety problems with GARDASIL raise concerns and questions that need to be addressed by government regulators, manufacturers and prescribing physicians. Specifically, the following concerns need to be addressed:

1. Syncope, seizures and Guillian-Barre Syndrome have now been reported with hours to a week after GARDASIL vaccination. GARDASIL manufacturer, Merck, should add these serious adverse events to the product manufacturer insert.

2. Considering that over 20 girls have experienced syncopal episodes sometimes combined with seizures and serious injuries, physicians should consider only giving GARDASIL when the patient is safely laying down on the examining table. Because there seems to be syncopal reactions up until 15 minutes after vaccination, patients should be asked to lie down for 15 minutes after receipt of GARDASIL.

3. The information provided by Merck indicates that it is safe to administer GARDASIL with Hepatitis B vaccine. The prescribing information states, "Results for clinical studies indicate that GARDASIL may be administered concomitantly (at a separate injection site) with hepatitis B vaccine (recombinant). Co-administration of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied." Due to the small number of girls aged 9 to 15 who appear to have been evaluated for GARDASIL safety in Merck clinical trials
(fewer than 2,000) and lack of publicly available information about how many of these girls were given GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine simultaneously, the safety of administering GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine to all pre-adolescent girls is uncertain.

4. Aside from Hepatitis B, Merck does not state that it is safe to simultaneously administer GARDASIL with any other vaccine. Considering that there are ongoing evaluations of a reported association between Menactra (meningococcal vaccine) and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and Merck does not explicitly indicate that it is safe to administer to administer GARDASIL and Menactra simultaneously, consumers and clinicians should question whether administering both GARDASIL and Menactra at the same time is safe.

5. Similarly, adverse reactions were reported when GARDASIL was administered with eight other vaccines: Hepatitis A, MNQ (?), MEN (Menactra), TD (Tetanus and Diptheria Toxoids), DPP (Diptheria/Pertussis/Polio), PNC Prevnar (Heptavalent pneumococca conjugate), DTaP (Diphtheria And Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine), and TDAP (Tetanus, Diptheria and Pertussis). Because Merck does not state that it is safe to administer simultaneously GARDASIL with any vaccine other than Hepatitis B, consumers and clinicians should question whether co-administration of GARDASIL and other vaccines is safe.

6. Most, if not all, of the reactions reported to VAERS were in response to the first of the three doses of GARDASIL. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) developed for HPV vaccine states that severe reactions include "any unusual condition, such as a high fever or behavior changes. Signs of a serious allergic reaction can include difficulty breathing, hoarseness or wheezing, hives, paleness, weakness, a fast heart beat or dizziness." The CDC also states that "anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to yeast, to any other component of HPV vaccine, or to a previous dose of HPV vaccine should not get the vaccine." Which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute a "life-threatening allergic reaction" and which, if any, of the children and young adults who experienced reactions should receive additional doses of vaccine? At the October 2006 ACIP meeting, CDC staff stated that only "three serious reports were reported to VAERS after HPV vaccination in females 14 and 16 years of age. One of these patients had vasovagal syncope and was hospitalized overnight for observation." [7]CDC's summary of the first 76 VAERS reports suggests that CDC doesn't regard the remaining reports as "serious." CDC needs to clarify which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute contraindications to further vaccination with GARDASIL and make this information available to the public and to prescribing physicians.

7. What were the short and longer-term outcomes for the individuals who experienced the reactions reported to VAERS? Is there information available that would help to predict the characteristics that predispose one to be at greatest risk of experiencing a serious reaction?

8. The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet indicates that allergy to yeast is a reason to avoid taking GARDASIL. Merck notes that contraindications to the vaccine include "hypersensitivity to the active substances or to any of the recipients of the vaccine. Individuals who develop symptoms indicative of hypersensitivity after receiving a dose of GARDASIL should not receive further doses of GARDASIL." The prescribing information provided by Merck does not specifically note that yeast allergy is a contraindication to taking GARDASIL. Government regulators and the manufacturer need to address the discrepancy between these documents and clarify the issues related to yeast allergy and make this information readily available to the public and prescribing physicians.

9. Additionally, Merck notes that vaccine ingredients include 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, and 35 mcg of sodium borate. These ingredients are not listed on the CDC's VIS sheet. The public needs this information so that they can identify whether they have "hypersensitivities" to any of the ingredients and whether they are at risk of experiencing a serious allergic reaction. Hypersensitivities and known allergic reactions are critical pieces of information that need to be communicated to prescribing physicians in order to make the safest possible vaccination decisions.

Government regulators including the CDC and FDA, in combination with Merck, should address the above safety concerns as soon as possible. Medical groups advocating use of GARDASIL should effectively communicate to physicians and patients the potential risks of using GARDASIL along with precautions to improve the safety of patient care.

Posted by: amanioti@uic.edu | June 8, 2007 1:24 AM

Andy's Defender,
"The article (78) you quote which you feel supports your argument that PCP can occurr in children with normal lymphocyte counts does not in fact support your case.

The study was done on children of DRUG ADDICTS.

The mother of Eliza Jane was NOT a DRUG ADDICT.

This is a very large discrepancy.

In fact, all the studies of pediatric HIV/AIDS are done on drug addict mothers."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. 1. Andrew said you can't have PCP and high total cell counts. Categorical statement no exceptions for drug use. The article I gave contradicts him. There are several children reported in this SINGLE article who have above avg cell coutns but still have PCP and some die of it like EJ. 2. I called you an idiot becuase you actlike you know about EJ but you don't even spell her name right. Ok, so I'm not the spelling bee winner either but for gods sake its the little girl's name! 3. Not all HIV babies are born to drug addicts. That's a classic lie from Duesberg. He says the 20 percent or whatever of HIV kids of non drug addicts are normal background of disease! That would make a good epidemiologists choke. Yeah sure most mothers with HIV like 80% got it from drug injection because parenteral transmission is efficient. But not all. And those who did don't all keep taking drugs in pregnancy. ANd others get HIV from sex. Like Maggiore got it from her Italian boyfriend.

Andrew,

"EJ is no medical first. She is a classic b-lactam package insert casualty of allopathic medicine."

Sure, Andrew. That is, if you take symptoms from various types of reaction that don't happen in 48 hour window and put them all together. And then throw in some stuff not in the beta lactam insert like giant cells in the brain (AIDS) p24 in the brain (AIDS) a pneumonia x-ray in the hospital and PCP organisms not just DNA in the lungs (AIDS).

Change the topic, repeat and repeat, say what you want about VAERS and additives and spontaneous abortion blah blah blah. Saying it again don't make it so. Still waiting for that example. Just one other 3 year kid who was "perfectly healthy" who took antibiotic for first time in her life and was dead in 48 hours.

Aetiology readers who know about vaccine science know what the vaccine adverse events reporting system VAERS is. Anytime anyone has a health problem AND had a vaccine recently they can go on the internet and blame it on the vaccine. Most of it is junk. If you have a cold after you get a HPV you can blame it on the vaccine. Auto accident, neck pain, heck you can even report an unwanted pregnancy, maybe the vaccine messed up your pill. The spontaneous abortion thing is really tragic. Do you know how many pregnancies end this way? ACtually most pregnancies. But usually before the mom even knows she's pregnant. A miscarriage is a terrible thing for someone who wants a child and it's understandable to want to blame it on something. So you go online and find Andrew and all these antivaxxer sites and there's your culprit.

Since they don't have any science the antivaxxers use this system that serves a good purpose but I would also call it the Venting Animosyity to Excellent Research Science VAERS.

You can't blame deaths on HPV vaccine unless you've done real studies. You can't blame a PCP death with inflammation in the brain and HIV proteins on beta-lactams either unless you've got studies, mechanisms. You guys don't. You just have a dude with access to PubMed who gives a lot of irrelevant publications kind of like Duesberg used to do.

Andrew is right on this, some parts of reaction science are in their infancy. That puts the burden of proof on the anti-vaxxers and denialists to show what we know so far after years of research is mostly wrong. They haven't done it yet.

Now unlike Andrew who seems to have alot of time I actually do work. I'll be waiting for that paper about the kid who died of antibiotic in 48 hours without ever having one before and got encephalitis and PCP in 48 hours too.

Posted by: Adele | June 8, 2007 10:49 AM

Andrew, despite what you might think, the scienceblog community is very anti-censorship, unlike the altie and woo communities. The only people to meet the banhammer that I know of are those that are especially abusive, or on Pharyngula, those who refuse to talk sensibly regarding evolution.

If the automatic filters are holding your comments, it is because it is programmed to catch certain keywords to prevent spam. Also, the entire system is being upgraded because of the traffic the community is receiving. Error messages are not uncommon, and if you get one, go back one page, refresh, and check to see that your post has gone up or not.

Cranks have a tendency to play the conspiracy and paranoia card as soon they see a chance to declare martyrdom. If your ego is so bruised by error messages or moderation, I would suggest that you set up your own blog.

To your comments, your attempts to establish your credibility via short listing your CV into a comment is an appeal to authority. It does nothing to argue your point. Science must stand on its own, without the appeal of names on the marquee. Andy's defender hurt you with a link to google scholar, where your contributing author position on a Medical Hypotheses article (pseudoscience journal with no credibility) and a link to barnesworld (a gathering place for AIDS denialists). From a quick skim of the links on google scholar, these were the only ones related to HIV or AIDS.

The allergic reaction hypothesis is an unlikely to the extreme, especially in light of the positive HIV protein staining in EJ's brain, and PCP in her lungs, and so many other important details. As someone who claims to study and teach on the subject of the progression of diseases, you should know that some disorders and diseases present and progress with variation between pediatric and adult patients. If she was an adult AIDS patient, weight gain and wasting would rule each other out, but she wasn't an adult. Some weight gain in a child is to be expected, but EJ's shallow growth curve and low weight for her age is consistent with pediatric AIDS.

Claims of a political autopsy are particularly unfounded but are expected hand-waving from conspiracy theorists. I can understand the psychological need of Christine Maggiore to deny that she played a role in the tragically short life of her daughter. The response to the autopsy report from Maggiore supporter and multi-conspiracy theory backer, Mohammed Al-Bayati, has been debunked in depth (Many links to other pieces found here also).

Al-Bayati's previous role in claiming vaccine injury in shaken baby cases should be illuminating as to his lack of qualifications, and how his statements should be valued, even after his response is discarded as lacking in evidence.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 8, 2007 1:03 PM

To Keven,

First of all, I'd like to be Adele's defender. You point out her lack of publications/young age/credentials as being unworth of my time or effort. She asks questions that require response: she may end up being Obama's or Ralph Nadir's Head of the NIH someday? Credentials don't matter. Well reasoned questions and evidence do. I intend to answer them. She wants me to find a dead 3 year old who died of amoxicillin (because she won't accept the WHO's studies and the others I sent, and I suppose no doctor ever asked her if she was allergic to penicillin before they jabbed her), then so be it! I don't think it will be difficult knowing as many parents who have come to us over the years with their dead children in their arms hours after vaccinations, adverse reactions to SSRI inhibitors because their children don't sit up in school and they are stigmatized as having "problems with their brain chemistry" etc. I need to work some today however, but will try to get to it this weekend.

To Robster:

Contrary to what you say about me:

"Cranks have a tendency to play the conspiracy and paranoia card as soon they see a chance to declare martyrdom. If your ego is so bruised by error messages or moderation, I would suggest that you set up your own blog,"

My statement about the webmaster "holding my info" as I expressed it, was indeed my mistake, that I saw corrected as soon as I tried to repost. It's just that
Tara's other site also rejected everything I tried to post numerous times initially in response to Adele's rebut to my T-cell argument about AIDS being a disease of too many T-cells with which she responded by reminding me (and the world) where my dead father's funeral proceeds were sent, so as a consequence, I don't have a leg to stand on scientifically, and I had felt the need to post on this one to answer Adele's question. Robster, my statement about the webmaster not so much the paranoia of a crank you detect here: its the 25 years of absolute censorship that we have experienced at the hands of Journal Editors like Maddox, the Good 'ol Boys at the helm in Science, the mainstream media, etc., the US government scientists like Fauci and Gallo who won't debate us or allow us to publish a word we have written, or even questions we need to ask, despite some of us being in the actual laboratories that were struggling with the AIDS issues early on, as I was with Kaposi's in Folkman's, as well as "HIV integrase," which I found didn't exist.

Furthermore, as a journal reviewer for a number of both first and second tier journals, I think you are in error when you state that:

"Andy's defender hurt you with a link to google scholar, where your contributing author position on a Medical Hypotheses article (pseudoscience journal with no credibility)"

Some of the most far reaching science that has ever been developed first appeared in Medical Hypotheses. It is a rare exception to the rank and file molecular reductionist crap that has ruined biology. Could I perhaps review some of your work sometime if you submit it to any of the journals I review for?

You shouldn't be so critical of Duesberg: he's not a liar. He's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fogarty Scholar, a cancer researcher, a very compassionate individual (at least I have never known him to say a cruel word about anybody), a husband, and a rather insightful gentlemen. Everything he has said, accept two or three things about the AIDS era, have come true. Remember when Gallo said "HIV" is like getting hit by a truck-you need no co-factors. Why don't you read Montagnier. Or is there something unusual about his sexuality or his mother, or perhaps he likes to surf and watch girls like Karry Mullis was accused of doing? Why don't you read his Lancet article on how treatments in vitro for mycoplasm infections abbrogate "HIV" positivity in vitro for some strange reason.

Montagnier et al., in their AIDS denialism went even so far as to suggest that "HIV" is not only not necessary, but a different pathogenic cause, mycoplasms, may cause B (immune collapse):

In a 1991 paper that was published in the journal, Virology (Laurent-Crawford, A. G., Krust, B., Muller, S., Rivière, Y., Rey-Cuillé, M.-A., Béhet, J.-M., Montagnier, L. & Hovanessian, A. G. The Cytopathic Effect of HIV is Associated with Apoptosis. Virol. 185:829-839, 1991), Montagnier and his colleagues not only denied the A,B,C's of "HIV" pathogenesis by asserting that PHA was essential for T-cell activation, but they suggested in addition, that mycoplasma played some role in "HIV" pathogenesis. In postulating a role for mycoplasma, the normal sequence of cause and effect during viral replication is reversed, because maximal viral production succeeded instead of preceded, the maximum number of viable virus-producing cells, thus violating what is known about viral replication being dependent on the presence rather than an absence of cells:

" in acutely HIV infected CEM cultures in the presence of mycoplasma removal agent, cell death (apoptosis) is maximum at 6-7 days post infection, whereas maximal virus production occurred at Days 10-17."

Cell culturists know that mycoplasma infections generate confusion, because they exert cytoplathic effects on cells similar to the way the "AIDS-virus" is believed to act in humans. Cells become "weakened" by this infectious pathogen over time, but cells are not killed outright, as in lytic viral infections.

But is should be stressed here that it defies logic altogether to claim that maximum virus production is on days 10-17 while maximum cell death occurs on days 6-7. For this to occur, Montagnier et al. would have us forget what is known about viruses. The production of viruses, and there are no exceptions, requires that viruses hijack cellular machinery and cellular materials such as cellular nucleic acids, cellular proteins, and cellular lipids to make more intact virions. Thus viral replication requires cells, not a lack of cells, to replicate, and maximal production of virus should precede and not succeed maximal cell death. Viruses (V) require cells (B) to make more V. There cannot be more V after V has killed most of B, because there would be no materials with which V can make more V, after most of B is killed off. So how are we supposed to accept the AIDS denialist hypothesis of Montagnier et al., that "HIV" actually produces more "HIV" (A) when there is less B (immune system cells)? This makes no sense.

Luc Montagnier et al., therefore advocated several forms of specific AIDS denialism:

Instead of:
"HIV" (A)-----------Immune collapse---(B)-------------------------AIDS-indicator----(C)
diseases

Montagnier et al. claimed:
(A plus but not minus PHA)------------ (B)------------------------------------------------(C)

And:
(A+Mycoplasma---------------------------(B)------------------------------------------------(C?)
removal agent)

RE: "As someone who claims to study and teach on the subject of the progression of diseases, you should know that some disorders and diseases present and progress with variation between pediatric and adult patients."

I do indeed. But this isn't even relevant to the case of Eliza Jane. People (children, adults, Ryan White, Rudoph Nuriev, Arthur Ash, Michael Glazer's wife and daughter, David Acer (the dentist who committed suicide when the CDC could't prove he'd infected anybody, which he hadn't, and they never even apologized to his relatives for ruining his life), don't die of AIDS in 36 hours, with 10,800 T-cells, while gaining weight, with their organs swollen 50-150% of normal in a few hours due to the extravassation of fluids (mostly from the IV's they gave her in the hospital, with only the distension of the liver was noted upon admission-I guess Christine and her 3 pediatricians are liars and EJ had these organ abnormalities for weeks before she died and they simply hid the distended organs in some baggy clothes-that's it), turning pale, etc. I will have to insist that we must agree to disaggree on the b-lactam late reaction literature I sent in a previous post as not necessarily being done by "idiots" and that you KNOW what all adverse reactions to drugs look like. If you aren't too engaged, would you like to come work for us so you can diagnose the enormous case load we have with your Godlike eye? I'll put a good package together for you.

To Adele,

Sorry to get to you last. But you must forgive me if I disagree with you that you are dead dead dead wrong about:

"That puts the burden of proof on the anti-vaxxers and denialists to show what we know so far after years of research is mostly wrong. They haven't done it yet."

When and if you, your sister or brother or whomever you love has children, I'm sure that you will insist that when a pharmaceutical giant comes knocking on your door with Homeland security in tow with guns drawn, you will want some kind of assurance that whatever poison they are injecting into your cherub's arm will do no harm. The burden of proof is in the court of anyone, and I mean anyone, who wants to inject foreign proteins, adjuvants, or any other shit into the bloodstream of an infant or your child. I have written on this extensively and you can find my work on how to predict epidemics, with references to small pox and every other goddamn vaccine posted on the Doctors For Emergency Perparedness website:

http://www.ddponline.org/vande.htm

Cheers,

andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 8, 2007 2:45 PM

DT said it much better than me. Antibiotic reaction didn't kill EJ any more than the purple people eater.

Andrew, thank you for your warning about pharmaceutical thugs, but every single one of my children was vaccinated on schedule just like I was when I was a kid. Hundreds of millions of people in this country were vaccinated as children. We're still alive and well. EJ isn't. Trusting the medical establishment is usually the right thing to do. There are bad doctors and it pays to stay informed, but I'll trust my kids' pediatrician over a conspiracy theorist who distorts published studies.

These antivaxxers are unbelievable! They talk about exposing kids to "foreign proteins and shit". Did you ever take an immunology course? A newborn gets exposed to bazillions of "foreign proteins and shit" every day. Immune overload is a lie. Everything outside your own body is "foreign". The entire antivax movement is built on fear and misunderstanding and preys on wellmeaning parents. Like I said before, its comfortable if you can blame someone when a child dies or when you miscarry. So you blame it on something you ate or a vaccine you had even without evidence. And people like the antivaxxers are there to help you support you and of course take your money. I mean contributions.

Posted by: Adele | June 8, 2007 3:09 PM

Robster, my statement about the webmaster not so much the paranoia of a crank you detect here: its the 25 years of absolute censorship that we have experienced...

Responding to suggestions of paranoia with paranoid delusions? Duesberg's lifestyle/behavior hypothesis was found lacking in evidence compared to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. That is why the denialists have to rely on lowest tier journals.

...the US government scientists like Fauci and Gallo who won't debate us or allow us to publish a word we have written,

Debate suggests that the opposition has some level of credibility, which the denialists lack. Scientific debate occurs in scientific journals. If you had real evidence instead of hanging on to discredited hypotheses, publishing in journals wouldn't be a problem. The HIV denialists have certainly managed to publish quite a few books, so the "allow us to publish a word" claim is silly.

You shouldn't be so critical of Duesberg: he's not a liar.

If he isn't a liar, then he is deluded. Good scientists can admit that they are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence. Duesberg isn't such an individual.

He's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fogarty Scholar, a cancer researcher, a very compassionate individual (at least I have never known him to say a cruel word about anybody), a husband, and a rather insightful gentlemen. Everything he has said, accept two or three things about the AIDS era, have come true. Remember when Gallo said "HIV" is like getting hit by a truck-you need no co-factors. Why don't you read Montagnier. Or is there something unusual about his sexuality or his mother, or perhaps he likes to surf and watch girls like Karry Mullis was accused of doing? Why don't you read his Lancet article on how treatments in vitro for mycoplasm infections abbrogate "HIV" positivity in vitro for some strange reason.

Appeal to authority, prophetic capacity, and emotion, straw men, ad hominem, did I miss any? I have read some Montagnier, and do not find it to suggest that HIV is not the cause of AIDS in any manner.

But is should be stressed here that it defies logic altogether to claim that maximum virus production is on days 10-17 while maximum cell death occurs on days 6-7. For this to occur, Montagnier et al. would have us forget what is known about viruses.

Some cells die off in a large number. Some cells survive and proceed to become major producers of virus.

Some of the most far reaching science that has ever been developed first appeared in Medical Hypotheses.

ROTFLMAO. I'm calling your bluff. Name one.

Could I perhaps review some of your work sometime if you submit it to any of the journals I review for?

Not likely. You don't show up on any of the editorial boards that I would typically send papers to. Which ones let you review?

People (...), don't die of AIDS in 36 hours, with 10,800 T-cells, while gaining weight, with their organs swollen 50-150% of normal in a few hours due to the extravassation of fluids (mostly from the IV's they gave her in the hospital, with only the distension of the liver was noted upon admission

EJ had AIDS for more than 36 hours. She was very small for her age, and growing but growing slowly (expected for pediatric AIDS). If Christine had mentioned to the hospital that EJ might have been HIV+, they might have looked for more serious signs and symptoms, and PCP would have been checked for immediately. But denying the existence of HIV kind of precludes such doctor/ parent interactions.

How may of the T cells were CD4+ cells? That is the important number.

I guess Christine and her 3 pediatricians are liars and EJ had these organ abnormalities for weeks before she died and they simply hid the distended organs in some baggy clothes-that's it), turning pale, etc.

Well, the pediatricians are certainly remiss and partly at fault for not insisting on testing EJ, or including the possibility in their diagnostic progress. EJ's honesty or at least her grasp of reality, should certainly be questioned.

I will have to insist that we must agree to disaggree on the b-lactam late reaction literature I sent in a previous post as not necessarily being done by "idiots" and that you KNOW what all adverse reactions to drugs look like. If you aren't too engaged, would you like to come work for us so you can diagnose the enormous case load we have with your Godlike eye? I'll put a good package together for you.

Sarcasm much? As a toxicologist, I do know a little bit about what allergic reactions look like, and EJ's death was almost certainly not one, especially when compared to the accepted postmortem diagnosis of pediatric AIDS with PCP.

When and if you, your sister or brother or whomever you love has children, I'm sure that you will insist that when a pharmaceutical giant comes knocking on your door with Homeland security in tow with guns drawn, you will want some kind of assurance that whatever poison they are injecting into your cherub's arm will do no harm.

Wow. An appeal to fear? Are you for real? Ripping off antivax fanfic?

I have written on this extensively and you can find my work on how to predict epidemics, with references to small pox and every other goddamn vaccine posted on the Doctors For Emergency Perparedness website:

I gotta say, go and check out this site. Some of their agenda is reasonable (light residential DDT use, maybe some of the terror articles (don't have time to read them right now)) but their printing of anti-global warming statements, antivax junk including mercury, lots of HIV denialism, linking to junkscience dot com, JAPS, etc... It isn't a place that I would tell people that I was part of.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 8, 2007 6:39 PM

Andy Maniotis is absolutely correct in his discussion of the problems with HIV/AIDS science, which can be described simply as an absence of good science, and about the adverse risks and dubious benefits of some of the recently invented childhood vaccinations such as Gardasil.

Rather than give us useful products backed by sound science, the drug giants use the lobby system to influence state legislatures, and television advertising to generate manufactured consent for their products.

Gardisil Objections Listed:

1. The vaccine is costly.
2. Lack of testing in 9-13 yr olds.
3. Lack of evidence of duration of protection
4. Efficacy has not been demonstrated and is unknown.
5. Benefit of Gardasil to 9-13 year olds is dubious. Cervical Cancer affects 45-55 year olds, 40 years later.
6. Questionable Safety when used in conjunction with other vaccines (Hep B and Meningitis ).
7. High rate of vaccine injury: the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is showing considerable serious injury from this vaccine, especially neurological and immune dysfunction. Included are reports of collapse, paralysis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, dizziness, vomiting, rash, syncope, seizures and headache.
8. Gardasil may actually cause an increase in cervical cancer due to a false feeling of security in the females who receive it and decline PAP smears.
9. Gardasil does not guarantee safety from HPV: Regular Pap screening tests with their incumbent costs will still be needed.
10. The incidence of cervical cancer is low, and it would cost $360 million to pay for vaccine to prevent only 1-2 deaths.
11. HPV is usually benign: The virus clears up on its own within 8-12 months.
12. Pap screening already works and has been very effective in reducing cervical cancer rates.

A common myth is that Vaccinations are mandatory.
They are NOT. There are three types of exemptions:

1) Medical exemption - all states.
2) Religious exemptions - 47 states.
3) Philosophical exemption - 22 states.

">http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1991>
HPV Vaccine trial showed only modest efficacy of 20%.

"a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time." authors of above reference.

Posted by: Andy's Defender | June 8, 2007 6:47 PM

I for one am interested in how Dr. Maniotis proved that HIV integrase does not exist.

To establish my credentials in the relevant field, I have at various times in the past proven that:

PCR does not work
humans do not have chromosomes
plants do not have DNA
bacteria do not have DNA
Southern blots do not work
....

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | June 8, 2007 7:58 PM

Dear Tara,
There is no problem-I said I made a mistake re: the posting, and it posted the second time. Thank you for the openness you are maintaining on the site. Some good exchanges/ideas from various folks, No?

To Robster:
RE:

"That is why the denialists have to rely on lowest tier journals."

"Debate suggests that the opposition has some level of credibility, which the denialists lack. Scientific debate occurs in scientific journals. If you had real evidence instead of hanging on to discredited hypotheses, publishing in journals wouldn't be a problem."

The first problem I have with your thoughtful reply is that I don't know your real name, so how on earth could I send you a manuscript that you would never publish in your "elite" journals? Perhaps I could send it through a friend or two, who would relay it to you through a P.O box?

With respect to Medical Hypotheses, The Journal of Theoretical Biology, and others, that aren't considered worthy, and regarding your challenge, the idea that pathogenic viruses change DNA in a short time began as an article in the journal Medical hypothesis (Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou J, Page B, Causer D, Alfonso H, Mhlongo S, Miller T, Maniotis A, Fiala C. A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(4):597-601), which asked the question why the AIDS establishment used reverse transcriptase as a marker for "HIV" for nearly 2 decades after Nobelist, Howard Temin who discovered reverse transcriptase (RT), and Nobelist and former NIH head Harold Varmus, claimed that reverse transcriptase "is a normal protein found in the uninfected cells of yeasts, insects and mammals [6]." More recently, other investigators have claimed RT is important for telomere replication at the tips of normal chromosomes [7], and has nothing to do with retroviruses. Once claimed by AIDS scientists to be a specific component required for "HIV" replication, RT is now seen in market magazines concerning biotechnology stocks [8, 9], and is thought to exist in a variety of normal, non-pathological contexts.

p24, another protein once thought to be unique to "HIV" is known to be expressed in the thymus glands of "HIV-negative children [10]." Other studies show that goats and cows test positive for proteins once thought to be derived from "retroviral HIV," and yet do not develop "GAIDS" or "CAIDS" [11] (Goat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or Cow Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), while 50% of dogs also exhibit "HIV" structural proteins but do not develop "AIDS" either [12]. Extensive work testing the ability of "HIV" integrase to interact with chromosomes derived from normal endothelial cells showed that the enzyme has no activity when compared side by side with histone H1, or the topoisomerases [13].

If those open minded and non-censored journals such as Nature, Science, etc. are your only truth-harboring journals you have found, then try reading the work of Mina Bissell, who came up with the idea of dynamic reciprocity in the context of how normal breast epithelium and breast cancer cells relay information between the extracellular matrix, and the genome Bissell MJ, Hall HG, Parry G. How does the extracellular matrix direct gene expression?
J Theor Biol. 1982 Nov 7;99(1):31-68). Even Robert Weinberg has written reviews in praise of it in recent years because the genocentric model has failed utterly, despite the billions invested in the "oncogene" myth. Bissell's ideas, for example, published in this lowly journal, have materialized at the NCI and world-wide in the form of the marvelous models she and her group(s) has (have) devised to begin to make sense out of testing cancer drugs in 3-D contexts. Therapeutics for cancer, alas, should after all be tested finally on cells behaving as they do in tissues, and with her Journal of Theoretical Biology paper, she (and others) eventually established the experimental basis for the reversion of breast cancer using simple ECM molecules found in embryos, and other agents.

You can find something she helped me write recently in and on the journal cover of last month's The American Journal of Pathology (another low-tier journal that accepts our stuff from time to time).
(http://ajp.amjpathol.org/content/vol170/issue5/).

If you are interested in viruses, you might find it interesting that, using Bissell's system, we found by accident a new way to test for viral pathogenicity and DNA exposure in samples harboring less than 0.01PFU in 2 hours, based on DNA sequestration and exposure tests and cell lysis (which was the way we determined that breast cancer DNA reverts to normal, following Bissell's dynamic reciprocity hypothesis, which is why DNA is epigenitically reversible, and applicable to real virus infections, and why aneuploidy doesn't drive cancer-it follows it, in contrast to other celebrated hypotheses recently discussed at some length).

You can get the virus articles if you send my your email at: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=
17386925&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.
PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_
RVDocSum)

Or you need to cough up some money...for the article.

I can't wait to test "HIV" in this new system ( I call it the RILA assay-Rapid Infectivity and Lysis Assay). It doesn't require PHA or IL2 to get a readout. Only a real viruses.

Finally, I'm not really "a denialist" who wants to debate anybody, as you put it. All I want is some clarification. You all are obviously very clever, experienced, folks, and have an ability to rapidly change the focus of the discussion (it is too deep at times for me to follow), to the point that I keep getting confused.

Therefore, I am asking you, no I am pleading with you, I am shouting it out to you to please, please tell me, once and for all:

IS AIDS A DISEASE OF TOO FEW LYMPHOCYTES, OR TOO MANY LYMPHOCYTES, AS IN THE CASE OF ELIZA JANE? COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE ME AN EITHER OR ANSWER!!!! I CAN'T HANDLE IT ANY LONGER!!

I KNOW YOU DON'T GOT TO HAVE "HIV" TO HAVE AIDS BECAUSE FAUCI INVENTED ICL AIDS, WHICH IS AIDS WITHOUT ANY "HIV" IN IT.

I KNOW "THE LIFE-SAVING" ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUGS SAVE VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY WHO TAKES THEM, AND THAT THERE IS NO CURE TO AIDS (Those good ol "HIV" vaccines ARE IN THE PIPELINE, THOUGH, to come I suppose-when they get their next installment of 875 million award for failing the AIDSVAX trial, which was severaly underfunded at 120 million).

I KNOW "HIV" HAS BEEN ISOLATED BECAUSE MONTAGNIER PLACED THE BLOOD SAMPLES FROM PATIENT 1 ON HIS LYMPHOCYTE CULTURES (Barre-Sinoussi, F,m J.C. Chermann J.C., Rey F., Nugeyre MT., Chamaret, S., Gruest J., Dauguet C., , Axler-Blin C., Vezinet-Brn F., Rouzioux, C., Rozenbaum R., & Montagnier L. 1983 Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Science 230: 868-871),
WHO HAD HAD 2 CASES OF GONORRHEA, HAD BEEN TREATED FOR SYPHILIS THE YEAR BEFORE, HAD HAD HERPES I AND II, AND CMV-(MAKING HIS SERUM AN IDEAL CHOICE TO TEST THE FIRST "HIV" ISOLATES, AND THEN OF COURSE TO "LOAN IT" TO GALLO TO "AMPLIFY IT"), AND I KNOW "HIV HAS BEEN ISOLATED BECAUSE NO VACCCINE TO DATE, OF THE 30 TESTED, HAVE EVOKED HUMORAL, MUCOSAL, CELLULAR IMMUNITY, OR INDUCED T-CELL ACTIVATION.

I KNOW THAT, UNLIKE EJ'S CASE, THERE IS A WHOLE CONTINENT FULL OF CHILDREN WHO ARE ORPHANS AND DYING LIKE FLIES BY THE THOUSANDS/HOUR BECAUSE OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS FREQUENTLY OCCUR IN AIDS PATIENTS WITH 10,800 LYMPHOCYTES, AND ALSO IN PERSONS HARBORING 1000 OR FEWER LYMPHOCYTES."

ALL THIS IS SO CONFUSING-I'D JUST BE HAPPY WITH AN ANSWER TO MY FIRST AND MOST TROUBLING QUESTION WITHOUT DEBATES, INSULTS, DISMISSALS OF MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF WHERE MY FATHER'S FUNERAL PROCEEDS WERE SENT, ETC.

ONE MIGHT THINK THAT THE THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN IN COHORTS IN THE 100,000+ AIDS PAPERS THAT ALL PROVE "HIV" CAUSES AIDS, T-CELL COLLAPSE, WASTING, ETC., THERE WOULD BE SOME EXPLANATION TO ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT WHILE IN EJ'S CASE, AIDS IS A DISEASE OF TOO MANY LYMPHOCYTES, IN VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAS DIED, CHILD OR ADULT, IT IS A DISEASE OF TOO FEW LYMPHOCYTES. AFTER REALIZING (DUE TO YOUR LEARNED COMMENTS) THAT AIDS IS A DISEASE OF 10,800 LYMPHOCYTES, I JUST DON'T SEE ANYMORE HOW I COULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT THAT T-CELLS BELOW 1000/UL) COULD EVER HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN FOR AN AIDS CASE!

A PROBLEM FOR THE NEW DEFINITION:

DOES THE NEW AIDS DEFINITION SET AT 10,800 T-CELLS/UL AND ABOVE MEAN THAT ALL (SOME) (A FEW) (ONE) OF THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE LESS THEN 1000 SUFFER A DIFFERENT DISEASE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT CD4 COUNTS, OR BETTER YET AND MORE ACCURATE, ACCORDING TO THE WHO, TOTAL LYMPHOCYTES COUNTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AIDS MUST FALL ABOVE THE 10,800 CELLS/uL RANGE TO NOW BE CONSIDERED AN AIDS CASE? WHAT DID ALL THE REST OF THOSE THOUSANDS OF AFRICAN ORPHANS WHO ARE DYING EVERY DAY FROM TOO FEW LYMPHOCYTES DIE OF, WHO ARE FORTUNATE NOW TO RECEIVE BUSH'S GENEROUS ROLLOUT OF YET ANOTHER MILLION OR TWO DOSES OF THOSE LIFE-SAVING DRUGS FOR ANOTHER 30 BILLION (I HOPE THEY REMEMBER TO GIVE THE CHILDREN THIS TIME SOME WATER TO WASH DOWN THE PILLS WITH- THEY FORGOT TO THE LAST TIME WHEN CHRISTINE AMMAPOUR DID HER STORY AND FREAKED OUT BECAUSE THE CHILDREN DIDN'T HAVE ANY WATER TO WASH DOWN THEIR NEVIRAPINE WITH).

I THEREFORE PROPOSE FROM HERE ON OUT, THAT, CONTRARY TO THE WHO'S DEFINITION, THAT AIDS CASES ARE THOSE WHOSE T-CELLS ARE AT OR ABOVE 10,800/uL LIKE EJ'S, and all those children dying every day in Africa AND IN PLACES LIKE INCARNATION ARE DYING FROM SOMETHING ELSE.

Ok. I said it. I've calmed down now. Perhaps there is a better definition of AIDS. AIDS is a disease characterized by there being either too many or too few lymphocytes? Then where or what becomes the role of anti-retrovirals? If it is good to have too few lymphcytes because AIDS is really a disease of having 10,800 or more lymphocytes, then who SHOULD you drug, and what will the failed cancer drugs turned into anti-retrovirals (such as 3TC, AZT, ddI) accomplish?

I suppose that since EJ is now the classic AIDS case harboring too many lymphocytes, and because according to the BWelcome package insert AZT causes a profound depression and hematological toxicities to all blood cells, then one should expect a decline in the number of T-cells in true AIDS patients (like EJ) who harbor 10,800 or more lymphocytes as E.J. did, and one should try to bring them down to a lower level (1000 cells/ul or less) so they have some different disease that probably wouldn't be 100% fatal like real AIDS is (except of course in those genetically mutated Long-Term Non-Progressors (Shish!) according to our new way of defining AIDS as a disease of >10,800 cells/ul?

Therefore, we should be maximizing approaches that DECREASE, not INCREASE the number of T-lymphocytes to 1,000 or lower, since EJ is the classic AIDS case (who unfortunately harbored too many T-cells). Radiation might be a good way? It really knocks back the T-cells better than any old AZT! So we ought to nuke em, or just continue leaving depleted uranium rounds lying around there in northern Africa to punish them terrorist Muslims!

I'm glad the problem is resolved, unless there is something I missed?

Robster: Cheers,and thanks so much for the helpful information you provided.

Andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 9, 2007 5:57 AM

Dr. Mantiotis, you are mistaking a surrogate marker of cellular immune deficiency with immune deficiency itself. Peripheral blood CD4 T cell counts are a pretty good surrogate marker for the underlying changes in immune cell homeostasis that cause immune deficiency in HIV infection, but they're not perfect - it's still possible for someone with a relatively high CD4 T cell count to develop an opportunistic infection if the relevant antigen-specific memory T cell population is compromised such that the pathogen can reactivate and cause disease. There are reports of this occurring in both adults and children.

Peripheral blood total lymphocyte counts are not as good a surrogate marker as CD4 T cell counts because they include CD4 T cells, CD8 T cells, B cells, NK cells, NKT cells and gamma-delta T cells. In the Lancet study you cited, between 0.4-20% of children with a TLC of 6000 progressed to AIDS or died (depending on the age bracket) - you could email the authors and ask if there were cases at higher levels (they only present "selected" numbers in the paper). The relevance of those data to EJ is also limited by the fact that the children included in that meta-analysis would have received appropriate care including prophylaxis for opportunistic infections, and OI prophylaxis delays disease progression such that progression events occur when lymphopenia is more severe. You could also email an experienced clinician like James Oleske and ask if PJP has been known to occur in a child with a TLC of 10,000 or above.

The underlying changes in immune cell homeostasis that peripheral counts are a surrogate for include: depletion of naive CD4 and CD8 T cells, elevated CD4 and CD8 T cell activation, increasing memory CD4 and CD8 T cell dysfunction (loss of proliferative capacity and IL-2 production i.e. anergy) and a narrowing of the CD4 and CD8 T cell repertoire. There is also a progressive loss of long-lived central memory T cells accompanied by an increase in the proportion of short-lived effector memory T cells. You can't make a definitive statement about how far this dysregulation has progressed based on a peripheral blood TLC count. CD8 T cells expand in respond to HIV infection, which is why the CD4/CD8 ratio almost immediately skews. In the setting of an active opportunistic infection, any reserves of naive T cells specific for that antigen will expand, and naive T cells divide prodigiously in response to antigen.

The literature makes it clear that acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of ICU admission for HIV-infected children. The most recent study on this subject actually found that higher TLC at admission was associated with an increased risk of mortality.

J Trop Pediatr. 2007 May 25; [Epub ahead of print]

Children with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection Admitted to a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit in South Africa.

Rabie H, Boer AD, Bos SV, Cotton MF, Kling S, Goussard P.
Department of Paediatrics and Child Health Tygerberg Children's Hospital & Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Background: Early data regarding the outcome of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children in paediatric intensive care units (PICU) suggested mortality as high as 100%. Recent studies report mortality of 38%. Survival depends on the indication for admission. Objectives: To describe the prevalence, duration of stay, and outcome of HIV-infected patients in a single PICU over a 1-year period. Additional objectives included describing the indications for admission as well as the clinical and laboratory characteristics of HIV-infected infants and children requiring PICU admission. Method: Retrospective chart review of all children with serological proof of HIV admitted to PICU at Tygerberg Children's Hospital from 1 January to 31 December 2003. Results: Of the 465 patients admitted, 47 (10%) were HIV-infected. For HIV-infected children the median age on admission was 4 months. The median duration of stay was 6 days, significantly longer than for the non-HIV group (p = 0.0001). Fifty-seven percent had advanced clinical and immunological disease. Seventeen died in PICU and four shortly afterwards, poor PICU outcome was significantly associated with HIV status (p = 0.001). Lower total lymphocyte count (p = 0.004) and higher gamma globulin level (p = 0.04) were paradoxically the only findings significantly associated with survival. Acute respiratory failure (ARF) accounted for 76% of admissions, including Pneumocystis jiroveci in 38%. Fifty-one percent had evidence of cytomegalovirus infection. Conclusions: HIV-infected children requiring PICU can survive despite the lack of availability of antiretroviral therapy.

Intensive Care Med. 2004 Jan;30(1):113-8. Epub 2003 Nov 13.

Children with human immunodeficiency virus admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit in the United Kingdom over a 10-year period.

Cooper S, Lyall H, Walters S, Tudor-Williams G, Habibi P, de Munter C, Britto J, Nadel S.
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, QEQM Wing, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.

OBJECTIVE: There is little published experience regarding the outcome of children with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection treated on a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). We describe the outcome of children with HIV infection in our hospital over a 10-year period. METHOD: We performed a retrospective analysis of all children with HIV infection admitted to our PICU between August 1992 and July 2002. Their ages ranged from 2 months to 11 years (median 4 months). Information collected included demographic data, clinical presentation, investigations, treatment and outcome. RESULTS: There were 42 children with HIV infection admitted to PICU during the study period, with 66 admission episodes. Sixteen (38%) children died in PICU, and 26 (62%) survived their last PICU admission. Of these, 5 died at a later date (between 1 and 32 months after discharge from PICU) and 21 survived to the time of reporting. The most frequent reason for PICU admission was respiratory failure, due either to Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (45% of admissions) or to other respiratory pathogens (32%). Over 80% of current survivors had good outcomes in terms of growth and development; 6 children had evidence of spastic diplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is significant mortality among children with HIV infection admitted to PICU, many of them survive their admission, and over 80% of the survivors have good outcomes with the currently available highly active anti-retroviral therapy. This provides evidence that intensive care treatment is appropriate for this group of patients in the United Kingdom.

An Esp Pediatr. 2000 Jun;52(6):537-41.

[Admissions of patients with AIDS to pediatric intensive care units]

Casanova Roman M, Rios Hurtado J, Garcia Martin FJ, Milano Manso G, Martinez Valverde A.
Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediatricos. Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas e Inmunodeficiencias. Departamento de Pediatria. Hospital Materno-Infantil. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Carlos Haya. Malaga.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the most significant clinical features of children with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome who required admission to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: Retrospective study of 12 patients with AIDS who required 13 admissions, between January 1988 and December 1997. RESULTS: Mean age at admission was 15 months (1 month-6 years). Seven patients were under 1 year of age; four were diagnosed during their stay in the unit. The most common reason for admission was respiratory failure (six patients), followed by cardiac failure. Six patients needed mechanical ventilation (5 for respiratory failure). Two patients died during their stay, one of pneumonia due to Pneumocystis carinii infection and one of septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients was diagnosed with HIV Infection during their stay at the PICU. Opportunistic infection was the initial manifestation of the disease. Consequently, with this type of infection, clinical suspicion should be high. The survival rate of up to 84.6% of the admissions to our unit as well as the new, highly active antiretroviral therapy, generally make HIV-infected children suitable for treatment in intensive care units.

Crit Care Clin. 1988 Oct;4(4):831-44.

The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: impact on the pediatric intensive care unit.

Wilkinson JD, Greenwald BM.
Cornell University, New York.

Increasing numbers of infants and children with AIDS are being admitted to the PICU, especially in certain geographic areas. Clear diagnostic criteria are available to aid in the diagnosis. As many as 50 per cent of these patients may be first diagnosed with AIDS during their PICU stay. Most patients are admitted because of ARF, but septic shock and CNS disorders are also common. Acute PICU mortality is in excess of 80 per cent, and presently the long-term mortality for this syndrome stands at 100 per cent. The economic impact of this epidemic is enormous and may become catastrophic if a national strategy to deal with these costs is not developed promptly. The PICU has an important role both in terms of resource use and cost containment. Awareness of unique stresses on medical and nursing staff caring for these children, as well as the unique psychoemotional needs of the patients themselves, is vital. Specific infection control, nutritional, and medical-legal strategies will facilitate safe, effective delivery of care to these infants and children in the PICU. The appropriate long-term role of the PICU in the care of children with an ultimately terminal disease has yet to be determined.

Posted by: Richard Jefferys | June 9, 2007 1:17 PM

Robster said: "For those not familiar with the case of EJ, here is the coroner's report and Bennet's an answer to al-Bayati's questioning of said report. This rebuttal discusses what amoxacillin reaction looks like, as well as what one would expect to see in a pediatric AIDS with PCP case. This should have put an end to the controversy, but denialists and conspiracy theorists have allergic reactions to reality (see above rant)."

The LA coroner Ribe had a reputation for deceit and dishonesty regarding previous autopsy reports as described in this report from the LA Weekly. "Prosecutors intentionally withheld information about Ribe's inconsistent testimony in other child-death cases"

The rebuttal to Al Bayati by Bennet is questionable for a number of reasons. One, Bennet is am AIDs apologist and heavily involved in the politics of AIDS and hardly an impartial observer. Bennet's credibility has been impugned on previous exchanges on various blogs and, quite frankly, he is not to be trusted.

Two, Bennet himself questions why neither a serum HIV serology report nor a HIV viral load report was included by Ribe in the autopy report. Both are elementary and standard tests for making the diagnosis of HIV, and both conspicuously absent suggesting strongly that the tests were done and results withheld because they were negative. Instead the coroner relied on P24 protein stains on the brain tissue which are not commonly used for diagnosis of HIV in the population of North America.

As Andy mentioned P24 can be found in thymus of HIV negative children.

P24 can be found in normal human placentas:Faulk WP, Labarrere CA. HIV proteins in normal human placentae. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 1991;25:99-104,. and it is well known that p24 is prone to "false-positive" reactions.

Regarding the misdiagnosis of pneumonia, whether from PCP or any other agent, here is a further microscopic evaluation of the lung tissue and a rebuttal to Nick Bennet's biased and canted comments.

The Ribe LA autopsy report was a political response not a medical one. There is a huge amount of money and reputations at stake in the politics of HIV. Why else would the tragic death of a little girl be turned into a political football? Andy has shown only a few of the many glaring inconsistencies and "problems" with HIV medical science. Its time to reevaluate the huge amount of tax payer dollars wasted on HIV Non-Science and as taxpayers we all say, " I'm Mad As Hell and Not Going to Take it Any More" Spend the money on more worthy projects.

Posted by: Andy's Defender | June 9, 2007 10:16 PM

Robster said: "For those not familiar with the case of EJ, here is the coroner's report and Bennet's an answer to al-Bayati's questioning of said report. This rebuttal discusses what amoxacillin reaction looks like, as well as what one would expect to see in a pediatric AIDS with PCP case. This should have put an end to the controversy, but denialists and conspiracy theorists have allergic reactions to reality (see above rant)."

The LA coroner Ribe had a reputation for deceit and dishonesty regarding previous autopsy reports as described in this report from the LA Weekly. "Prosecutors intentionally withheld information about Ribe's inconsistent testimony in other child-death cases"

The rebuttal to Al Bayati by Bennet is questionable for a number of reasons. One, Bennet is am AIDs apologist and heavily involved in the politics of AIDS and hardly an impartial observer. Bennet's credibility has been impugned on previous exchanges on various blogs and, quite frankly, his opinionins are not trustworthy.

Two, Bennet himself questions why neither a serum HIV serology report nor a HIV viral load report was included by Ribe in the autopy report. Both are elementary and standard tests for making the diagnosis of HIV, and both conspicuously absent suggesting strongly that the tests were done and results withheld because they were negative. Instead, the coroner relied on P24 protein stains on the brain tissue which are not commonly used for diagnosis of HIV in the population of North America.

As Andy mentioned P24 can be found in thymus of HIV negative children.

P24 can be found in normal human placentas: Faulk WP, Labarrere CA. HIV proteins in normal human placentae. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 1991;25:99-104,.

In fact P24 is NOT a protein entirely unique to HIV, and the P24 test is prone to "false-positive" reactions.

In order for PCP to cause pneumonia, there must be a LOW WBC count indicating immunosuppresion, not a high one. You can't have it both ways. A diagnosis of AIDS and immunosupression is incompatible with a normal lymphocyte count.

Regarding the misdiagnosis of pneumonia, whether from PCP or any other agent, here is a further microscopic evaluation of the lung tissue and a rebuttal to Nick Bennet's biased comments.

The 4 month delayed Ribe LA autopsy report was a political response because there is a huge amount of money and reputations at stake in the politics of HIV. Why else would the tragic death of a little girl be turned into a political football? Andy has shown only a few of the many glaring inconsistencies and "problems" with HIV medical science.

Its time to reevaluate the huge amount of tax payer dollars wasted on HIV by the NIH, and as taxpayers we all say, " I'm Mad As H_ll and Not Going to Take it Any More". After 20 years of highly expensive research at the expense of the taxpayer, we have had no vaccine, no mechanism of disease or cell death, no reasonable drug therapy, no heterosexual epidemic, and a series of failed predictions. HIV research money has become just another pork barrell project like the 200 milion dollar Alaska bridge to an island with 50 people. Inform your legislatures to turn off the money faucets for HIV research, and spend it on more worthy projects.

Posted by: just another guy | June 10, 2007 6:40 AM

I take it none of the HIV deniers are HIV+.

The equation HIV + No HAART = death is pretty reliable.

We're seeing one now. The guy knows full well what HIV and AIDS are. He just isn't facing the fact that he is probably infected and progressing.

Keeps showing up at the ER with opportunistic infections.
Losing weight. Doesn't look healthy.

Also seems to be coming down with neurological symptoms, not quite AIDS dementia but confused.

Best guess. He will be dead in 6 months to 2 years. This is a bad way to go.

With HAART he could recover, the confusion and infections would subside and he could live another 20 years. The few who are tying reality into pretzels don't have much at stake. In the real world, the stakes are much higher. In this case 2 years or 20.

Posted by: raven | June 10, 2007 10:42 PM

Robster,
You presumably didn't notice that "Andy's defender" and "just another guy" have submitted 2 virtually identical posts, and are presumably the same person. Perhaps there is a prosaic explanation, but from past experience I find it typical for denialists to try and create the appearance that there are always more of them than there actually are. Some kind of perverse argumentum ad populum fallacy, I guess.
Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if they were both Andrew's sock puppets.

Posted by: DT | June 11, 2007 4:57 AM

Andrew, we've been through the lymphocyte thing many many times. If you don't understand that total lymphocytes is not equal to CD4 counts after all the discussion here than I can't say anything more. You know what you're saying is fallacy, AIDS is NOT a "disease of too few lymphocytes" it's a disease of too few of a particular KIND of lymphocyte, and in pediatric AIDS its not even that all the time. You must know it's a fallacy. But you keep saying it to convince the people who are your real audience, the HIV positive people who don't have a PhD in biology and who you can fool into taking themselves off therapy and dying. Shame on you.

Insulting lab techs!!?? Andrew, youre just proving again you don't read any comments here. I AM a lab tech!! How many times have I said that?? I didn't insult 10,000 lab techs, I said that experience is alot better than Mullis opinion. I put lab techs ABOVE a Nobel-ist! And yes Kary Mullis did take LSD. Have you read his book? Looked at any interviews with him? It doesn't matter by itself you know but when you go around bragging about it and all the other stuff he did its good indication he's not all there.

And no Kary Mullis didn't invent quantitative real time PCR. He got a Nobel Prize for taking PCR mainstream. The people who did the concept did it back in the sixties. Mullis couldn't have done it himself without a load of colleagues who helped him. Look at the Wikipedia on Mullis if you don't believe me its documented.

But who cares? All I'm saying is a Nobel Prize doesn't make you god. If Mullis really thinks HIV can't be measured by RTPCR, who cares? I did a viral load RT-PCR last week. The infected cells had high copies. The cells that got a mutant virus had some copies but a lot lower. The cells with defective virus, no detectable virus. No virus, same thing. Me and my ten thousand fellow techs confirm Mullis was wrong on this every week. Full experiments, good controls. Oh, and RT? I did an RT on those samples too. Gues which ones had a significant reading? Only the infected ones! If your'e right, I should have got readings on the cells without virus. I didn't.

So there's your experiments, Andrew. Not that you'll accept them. And since you're so into misrepresenting everything I say, I repeat, I don't think you're a colleague or a conscientous scientist. You're a very bad logician and debater. I'll be following the good example of my senior colleagues so if I write anything more on this thread it will not be addressed to you. I'm sorry if its rude but Ive lost all respect for you and your misused intellect.

You want a forum for your wacko snake oil stuff? Go to late-night AM like I said. I'm not going to facilitate you anymore by responding to lies.

Posted by: Adele | June 11, 2007 8:58 AM

DT, I did notice the similarity, but decided to let it go.

Andrew, with all the logical fallacies (non sequitor, repeated appeals to authority) and above noted misinterpretations of data (and Mullis's drug use), your above response was useless.

I will respond to one item, as it is the crux of denialist claims, and accompanied by a blatant appeal to authority.

Awarded and respected AIDS scientists such as Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, inventor of PCR used to detect "HIV" were also quoted as saying (Sunday Times, London, Nov. 28, 1993):

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Despite being a 14 year old quote, it is repeated constantly throughout the denialist camp. It is also completely false. The innumerable "scientific documents," also known as research and review articles, have long ago demonstrated that HIV causes AIDS. The denialists lie about this, moving the goalposts and ignoring every month's addition to this knowledge.

In fact, this quote could be reworked in a variety of ways, without changing its scientific impact.

"If there is evidence that Darwinian evolution contributes to the diversity of life, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

or

"If there is evidence that human activity contributes to climate change, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

or

"If there is evidence that the germ theory of disease is correct, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

or (don't laugh, an HIV/AIDS denialist argued on this very blog that gravity is fake)

"If there is evidence that Newtonian concept of gravity, and all gravitational theories based on it are correct, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Some even claim that every setback for the denialists is a victory. Their worst abuse comes when an AIDS patient who had been convinced to stop treatment dies from AIDS related OIs, the denialists refuse to acknowledge their connection to the person, or claim that the patient had begun abusing drugs, leading to their death. In EJ's case, the untreated patient, infected by her mother (an apparently healthy carrier), her death was attributed by al-Bayati to an epically improbable linkage of parvovirus B19 and an amoxacillin reaction unlike any reaction seen before.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 11, 2007 1:19 PM

Classic denial, "another guy" confuses HIV and AIDS.
Raven: gives an advanced AIDS case, OIs, multiple symptoms, says he'll die in months or a few years.
AG: wonders why all HIV positive people don't die in six months.
Me: shaking my head. How do they keep up this ignorance level?

Posted by: Adele | June 11, 2007 4:43 PM

Sorry forgot the refs.

[1] FDAMedWatch 1/19/2005.
[2] FDAMedWatch 2/9/2005.
[3] FDAMedWatch 6/10/2005.

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 11, 2007 5:06 PM

To Adele and Raven:

Try speaking to the issue instead of useless ad hominem attacks which serve to announce the emptiness of your position.

Show us the medical study that shows that giving toxic drugs to this hypothetical ER HIV+ patient with opportunistic infections, and multiple symptoms will prolong his life.

Are you referring to the Concorde study which showed no improvement in mortality from HAART?

Where are the references from 1983 to 1985 which prove that HIV causes AIDS?

Where are the references that show that toxic drugs prolong the life of drug addict street people? Toxic drugs are designed for only one thing: to kill cellular life.

Your twisted logic that toxic drugs will somehow miraculously save the homeless drug addict is a delusion. Go peddle your toxic drugs on a different continent, like South Africa, the only government on the planet that has rejected your delusion that toxic drugs can ever possibly remove a nucleotide sequence imbedded in the human genome.

Posted by: another guy | June 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Another guy/Andy's defender:

Oh but you say we have miraculously eliminated mother to child transmission and made pediatric AIDs cases almost vanish with the use of these miraculous drugs. I say hogwash to that incredible lie. Using these drugs on pregnant mothers is a criminal act.

I suggest you look here and see how pediatric cases have declined from a peak of nearly 1000 cases in 1992 to only 146 in 2003. The reason? Implementation of HIV drug treatment for mothers to prevent transmission.
You are the liar and you know it.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/l262/l262-3.htm

Posted by: DT | June 11, 2007 7:38 PM

The lie I was referring to is not the decline in ESTIMATED numbers of pediatric AIDS case. It is the lie that antiretroviral drugs had anything to do with this ESTIMATED decline.

These numbers are ESTIMATED on the referenced GOVERNMENT WEB SITE because nobody knows the ACTUAL numbers.

For the sake of the Lurkers, I again repeat that the administration of toxic drugs to pregnant mothers is a hideous crime and those responsible will eventually be brought to justice.

Posted by: just another guy | June 11, 2007 8:44 PM

"CONCLUSIONS: The recent declines in morbidity and mortality due to AIDS are attributable to the use of more intensive antiretroviral therapies."

Antiretroviral drugs are one of the major success stories of modern medicine. I've copied two abstracts. I could have copied hundreds more. Why bother? If two don't get the point across, several hundred won't either.

1: N Engl J Med. 1998 Mar 26;338(13):853-60.

Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators.Palella FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, Loveless MO, Fuhrer J, Satten GA, Aschman DJ, Holmberg SD.
Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL 60611-0949, USA.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: National surveillance data show recent, marked reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). To evaluate these declines, we analyzed data on 1255 patients, each of whom had at least one CD4+ count below 100 cells per cubic millimeter, who were seen at nine clinics specializing in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in eight U.S. cities from January 1994 through June 1997. RESULTS:
*****************************************
Mortality among the patients declined from 29.4 per 100 person-years in the first quarter of 1995 to 8.8 per 100 in the second quarter of 1997. [This coincides with introduction of protease inhibitors. My note]
****************************************
There were reductions in mortality regardless of sex, race, age, and risk factors for transmission of HIV. The incidence of any of three major opportunistic infections (Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Mycobacterium avium complex disease, and cytomegalovirus retinitis) declined from 21.9 per 100 person-years in 1994 to 3.7 per 100 person-years by mid-1997. In a failure-rate model, increases in the intensity of antiretroviral therapy (classified as none, monotherapy, combination therapy without a protease inhibitor, and combination therapy with a protease inhibitor) were associated with stepwise reductions in morbidity and mortality. Combination antiretroviral therapy was associated with the most benefit; the inclusion of protease inhibitors in such regimens conferred additional benefit. Patients with private insurance were more often prescribed protease inhibitors and had lower mortality rates than those insured by Medicare or Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: The recent declines in morbidity and mortality due to AIDS are attributable to the use of more intensive antiretroviral therapies.

Posted by: raven | June 11, 2007 9:23 PM

I'll save Maniotis the effort.

Raven, all of those studies you cited are meaningless because the allopathic authors have to claim success or else they wouldn't get their pharmainc funding.

Posted by: Chris Noble | June 11, 2007 9:55 PM

another guy/defender,

Robster has essentially admitted with the above rant that there no scientific publications exist which prove that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and offers a number of illogical and weak excuses for suspending the normal rules of infectious disease for the "special case" of HIV which consumes 8 Billion a year of NIH research money paid out to the "HIV believers".

Reading comprehension. Try it. Also, no "normal rules of infectious disease" are "suspended." This is yet another lie from the denialists, and is an argument from incredulity/ ignorance.

One of the real reasons for HIV/AIDS denialism comes out in ag's screed. The denialists want in on the research money, even though they have no results to support their requests. When the behavior hypothesis was found to be post hoc, ergo propter hoc error (behavior is often linked, but not a cause), certain groups refused to update their research and understandably, were left behind.

They repeatedly point to a lack of a vaccine, while ignoring the difficulties in vaccine development. From the initial description of Poliomyelitus in 1840 (Andrew: Polio existed before this year), to the isolation of the poliovirus in 1908, the development of the first workable Polio vaccine wasn't produced for mass use until 1955.

The no vaccine tack is also a non sequitor, as many viruses don't have preventative vaccines. There is no hepatitis C vaccine, but this doesn't mean that the virus doesn't exist, or that the work on a vaccine has been a waste.

Next, Robster like most of his colleagues, will probably prove his point by showing us a Government web site that says "all scientists believe that HIV causes AIDS". You don't have to be a Nobelist to understand what this means.

This is a strawman argument, obviously some scientists don't agree with evidence based medicine, evolution, germ theory, etc. Contrarianism does not equal truth. Evidence does.

The website I would suggest to start looking at the scientific papers, as Raven suggested, is pubmed. Happy reading.

If so, it defies any form of logic to expect a toxic drug to provide any health benefit to a homeless psychotic drug addict, HIV positive or HIV Negative.

You obviously have no knowledge of toxicology. All things are toxic depending on the dose. Name a drug or chemical, and I can probably list a toxic effect based on dose. The side effects of some drugs overlap with the therapeutic window, but the facts are clear. HAART extends the lives of AIDS patients. Calling the drugs "toxic" only demonstrates that you don't understand how medicine works. Learn something about the field before you start organizing the lynch mob.

For example, Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) can be incredibly toxic. Extended exposure to DHMO in its solid form damages tissue (sometimes requiring amputation), while inhalation of even small amounts of DHMO can cause asphyxiation. Not so long ago, a woman imbibed a large amount of liquid DHMO, as part of a radio contest. It led to an imbalance of electrolytes, and the effects of intoxication directly caused her death. It has also been found in every cancerous tissue ever examined. Yet, it is completely unregulated in consumer products, is a combustion engine byproduct, has effects on global climate, and can be found in common tap water! This industrial solvent and fire suppressing compound is so difficult to remove that even after careful washing of fruits and vegetables does not remove DHMO. The press has widely treated this as a non issue, and few articles are published about the deleterious health and environment effects of DHMO, pointing to a massive conspiracy.

Put it that way, and water sounds like a horrific chemical, rather than the most precious molecule on earth.

Andrew,

Wait a minute! Kids were infected DESPITE prophylaxis? I thought that "the life saving meds" were promoting lifespan now for 24 years (for a disease discovered 25 years ago!!!!

You are replying to the wrong person, but again, you don't understand statistics. Prophylaxis is not 100% effective, and nobody ever claimed it was. Quit being dishonest.

Also, nice cut and paste job from your barnesworld piece. You deliberately confuse the age of HIV with the date of discovery. Excellent cherry picking job you have done. You missed your calling. You should be working for tobacco companies, casting doubt on the tobacco cancer linkage!

(I love your name and hope your students never learn about your extracurricular AIDS activities)

I specifically talk about HIV/AIDS denialism in my classes, and mention the different tactics that science deniers use (consider yourself honored, I'll talk about bad stats use and ignoring evidence next time). One of my first classes is called "Baloney Detection" and is based on Sagan's writings. You would do well to read up on logical fallacies. Besides, why would I be ashamed for standing up for evidence based medicine? I just find that when discussing the evidence for evolution or other socially charged topics, some students close their minds as soon as they learn your political or religious leanings.

You really are obsessing over this, aren't you?

As to the rest of your cherry picked quotes (it would be nice if you would include links to the articles so we can see them in context), one on prayer, and the other on toxicity issues... First, prayer? So someone checked out an altie method that relies on divine intervention? That certainly doesn't invalidate the entire field of research (if it did, the denialists would have long ago disappeared).

As to the "eek, toxic" game, please, pick up a copy of Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, perhaps a good pathology text, maybe a pharmacology text to go with your badly needed stats and epidemiology books. My biggest disappointment with scientists who pick up the mantle of pseudoscience is that they do such a bad job of it (see Michael Behe). Your stats, your misquoting and misrepresenting of research, reliance on logical fallacies all suggest that you don't take your denialist hobby as seriously as you do your day job. Of course, if you did, you would have to abandon your intellectually and ethically bankrupt position. You really should stick to cancer research.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 11, 2007 10:22 PM

The Concorde study showed NO mortality benefit from HAART which is the REAL STORY of what happens when a toxic drug is given to sick people, they die from the toxic drug.

Reading comprehension?

The Concorde study showed no benefit of early treatment with AZT (not HAART) compared to waiting until the onset of opportunistic infections or until CD4 counts dropped before iniating treatment.

If AZT were as toxic as you claim then it would be expected that there would have been a strong relationship between the amount of AZT taken and mortality. There wasn't.

Denialists claim that AZT kills within months ie. Kimberly Bergalis was "completely healthy" until she took AZT. The Concorde study actually refutes this claim.

I suspect that you haven't even read the studies. You just regurgitate what you read on Denialist websites.

Posted by: Chris Noble | June 11, 2007 11:52 PM

Quite correct, Chris.

"another guy" is parroting (really plagiarism) from barnesworld and an alive and well press release (link isn't working in scienceblog's comment system.

He doesn't have any original thoughts.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 12, 2007 2:10 AM

What's up with Barnesworld, anyhow? I see nothing has been posted for a month, not even under "recent" comments.

Posted by: DT | June 12, 2007 4:22 AM

AG, how many foeti were spontaneously aborted how many babies born with birth defects or cancer because of antiviral "toxic drugs"? Evidence any have? You have to give more than that fallacy above, after the fact so because of it. WHy isn't there evidence? I guess because like tens of thou of docs and nurses and scientists and techs have all joined up no exceptions to suppress it?

Yeah you can go back to Duesbergs book from ten years ago or one of his reviewrants from ten years ago and find a table with studies of AZT in mice rats and other animals. Duesberg says they all used physiol. concentrations like AIDS patients got back then. And the animals had fetal deformity or death or cancer. Shows what kind of a scientist he was. Most of those studies had much higher concentrations of AZT than you ever get in human blood even if the humans take 1500/day. The worst effects at more physiol. conc. were on two cell stage embryos. In vitro. Where you can keep the concentration indefenitly at the PEAK it reaches for like five minutes in humans. So sure AG in one study AZT at a higher concentration then you keep in human blood is not good for two cell stage mouse embryos. Hard to fast fwd that into Nuremberg trials even if it does apply to humans and that's not certain.

Duesberg lied. Or he's just dumb and deluded.

LEts keep going. At the two cell stage or even weeks later no one knows they're pregnant. So why would they be taking AZT? Those AZT studies showed mice and rats aren't affected by high dose AZT later in pregnancy. Which is when a pregnant woman MIGHT have it if ever. Duesberg left that out somehow like AG leaves out a thousand studies that disprove them and every line of #1001 except for the one sentence they take out of context.

AG, do you really want to compare a two cell embryo or even a blastocyst to six million victims of the German Nazis? If you do you got more problems than denial.

Posted by: Adele | June 12, 2007 11:02 AM

To Adele and Raven:

It has already been established from LANCET that giving HAART to your malnourished ER homeless addict can not possibly improve his health or longevity, nor have any impact on his mortality rate, contrary to your irrational belief in the "miracle of HAART" which is probably based on television advertising commercials and sensationalist newspaper pablum.

How about pediatric AIDS? What is it? It is the net effect on the developing fetus of maternal drug addiction.

Cocaine abuse during pregnancy is associated with various maternal and fetal problems. Cocaine, is a central nervous system stimulant. It has vasoconstrictive effects, significantly decreasing blood flow to the fetus, resulting in periods of decreased oxygen. Many cocaine users use other drugs, exposing the fetus to many drugs, compounding the problems. For women who use cocaine throughout pregnancy it has been proven that they are at a greater risk for premature births of their babes, and a greater chance of delivering still born babies.

Heroin easily crosses the placenta and fetal withdrawal may occur if the mother undergoes rapid withdrawal. An unborn fetus exposed to heroin has an increased rate of infection. Babies born to mothers who used heroin during pregnancy are also associated with a decrease in birth weight, and an increase in stillbirths. Babies born to mothers who have a heroin addiction must stay in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms which include hyperactivity, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, sleep abnormalities, and respiratory distress. Once discharged they may even experience abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, thus increasing the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seen in these children.

The effects of maternal heroin addiction may persist in the offspring for an extended period of time, resulting in poor growth and development. They may demonstrate behavioral abnormalities, including impaired organization and perception skills, impaired motor inhibition and mental retardation.

What Adele and Raven calls pediatric AIDS, the AIDS symptoms and death in the HIV positive baby, is in fact a description of symptoms and death in the baby from maternal drug addiction.

On top of the pre-existing problems of maternal drug addiction, giving a cytotoxic drug in this scenario to the mother and unborn child is a criminal act. Those responsible for such a hideous crime will eventually be ferreted out and punished.

Your rant about how safe and benign AZT is to the blastocyst is sheer drug company baloney, reminiscent of the government studies showing radiation to be safe for mice during the era of open air nuclear testing. The planet eventually came to their senses and banned open air nuclear testing.

Dr. John W. Gofman, a pioneer in radiation research said in 1979,"In the mid-'50s--when the toxicity of low-dose radiation was still uncertain--we were testing nuclear bombs in the atmosphere and launching the Atoms for Peace Program...It should have been clear to me, even then, that both atmospheric bomb-testing and nuclear power constituted experimentation on involuntary human subjects, indeed on all forms of life."

With extraordinarily blunt self-criticism Gofman--a physicist and medical doctor--went on: "I am on record in 1957 as not being worried yet about radiation from nuclear test fallout. There is no way I can justify my failure to help sound an alarm over these activities many years sooner than I did. I feel that at least several hundred scientists trained in the biomedical aspect of atomic energy--myself definitely included--are candidates for Nuremberg-type trials for crimes against humanity through our gross negligence and irresponsibility." And, Gofman added, "Now that we know the hazard of low-dose radiation, the crime is not experimentation--it's murder."

The same message can be applied to the hideous crime of administering cytotoxic drugs to drug addicted mothers. The nation of South Africa is to be applauded for opposing this crime of poisoning pregnant South Africans with toxic drugs.

Posted by: tag line | June 12, 2007 5:56 PM

It has already been established from LANCET that giving HAART to your malnourished ER homeless addict can not possibly improve his health or longevity, nor have any impact on his mortality rate...

I find it hard to believe that you have read and understood this study.

HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.

The study compares people beginning HAART in 1995-96, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002-03. All groups in the study were taking HAART. All showed benefits.

The study simply cannot say what you claim. The absolute maximum that you could possibly say is that HAART for the group beginning treatment in 2002-03 was less effective/worse than that for the group that started treatment in 1995-96.

You can repeat your false claims about this study as much as you want, however, it will not and cannot change the possible conclusions that can be drawn from the study. The only thing that you can prove is your willingness to lie.

Posted by: Chris Noble | June 12, 2007 7:56 PM

Dear Tara,

What you state is inaccurate:

"Sure. Many AIDS deniers, for eample, use the aforementioned Christine Maggiore's life story as a case in point. She's tested HIV+, but as her organization notes, remains "alive and well."

She hasn't only tested positive:According to her book, she tested inconclusive, positive, inconclusive, positive, negative, and positive. If experiments run like that in my lab, I wouldn't publish them, would you? Something I learned about 3 times in a row, makes a trend, and 10 times in a row is better, etc.

Maybe she has a sensitive immune system, as her daughter apparently did, that would account for never testing the same way twice? I wouldn't advocate the state taking her beloved son away, or imprisoning her, if her "hyper-reactive" immune system may be her crime. I especially wouldn't advocate, as many of your denialist camp has, to imprision her because her daughter died 36 hours after imbibing amoxicillin, was gaining weight the last six months of her life, and had 10,800 T-cells, a coroner assigned to the case who is facing other charges for cooking at least 5 reports in the past (I could get you any slides you want to see-I just need to walk down the hall and ask any one of 50 different pathologists-to give me a slide showing PCP-if you get my drift)!

And again your wrong-I never asked for the paper or papers showing a probablility that "HIV" is associated with AIDS-defining diseases-that was clear with Montagnier's first paper describing patient 1, who had had 2 cases of gonnorhea, had been treated for syphilis, had had herpes 1, and 2, CMV, and provided the first "isolate." All I have been asking for is a little bit of consistent logic-doesn't have to be even published yet. How could a child die of an AIDS-defining illness, who was not on any antiretrovirals, if she had 10,800 T-cells, unless of course, T-cell numbers have nothing to do with AIDS?

Dear Adele,

I thought you weren't gonna fuss with me anymore! Glad your back.

RE:

"No one ever claimed it! "Another guy" is science illiterate or pretending to be. Antivirals don't "cure" HIV infection they keep the virus from replicating. They do it damn well."

Well, I suppose it depends on what your definition of well, is....

HIV Med 2002 Jul;3(3):195-9

Causes of death among HIV-infected patients in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, Bordeaux, France, 1998-1999.

Bonnet F, Morlat P, Chene G, Mercie P, Neau D, Chossat I, Decoin M, Djossou F, Beylot J, Dabis F; Groupe d'Epidemiologie Clinique du SIDA en Aquitaine (GECSA).
Federation de Medecine Interne, Maladies Infectieuses et Pathologie Tropicale, Hopital Saint-Andre Bordeaux, France. fabrice.bonnet@chu-bordeaux.fr

OBJECTIVES: To describe the causes of death in HIV-infected patients in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). METHOD: A retrospective survey conducted in Bordeaux, France. Medical records of all deaths that had occurred in 1998 and 1999 amongst patients followed within the Aquitaine cohort were reviewed by the same physician. Immediate and underlying causes of death were described, taking into account the morbidity at the time of death. RESULTS: Sixty-six deaths occurred in 1998, and 41 in 1999. Sixty-seven per cent of deceased patients were male. Median age at time of death was 43 years (range 25-71), median CD4 was 162 cells/microL (0-957); 28% of patients had a CD4 count > 200 cells/microL and 7% plasma viral load

Hamilton JD et al. A controlled trial of early versus late treatment with zidovudine in symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection. NEJM. 1992;326(7):437-43.

"after starting antiretroviral treatment...the estimated probability of developing lymphoma ...by 36 months, [was] 46.4% (CI, 19.6% to 75.5%)...a direct role of therapy itself cannot be totally discounted...Zidovudine can act as a mutagen."

Buchbinder S et al. Long-term HIV-1 infection without immunologic progression. AIDS. 1994;8:1123.

"Leukopenia [white blood cell deficiency] occurred in 82% of the patients receiving early therapy and 77% of those receiving late therapy [AZT only when AIDS occurred]; 20% and 16%, respectively, had anemia. 14% and 10%, respectively, had severe leukopenia...and 5% and 2% had severe anemia requiring transfusion. Nausea (or vomiting) and diarrhea occurred more frequently in the early-therapy group than in the late-therapy group (40% vs. 23%, respectively; P

Chaisson RE, Keruly JC, Moore RD. Sex, race, drug use and progression of human immunodeficiency virus disease. NEJM. 1995;333(12):751-6.

"A total of 172 (96 Immediate treatment, 76 Deferred treatment) participants died [169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo]...The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptom-free HIV-infected adults. They also call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy...Representatives of the Wellcome Foundation [Glaxo Wellcome manufactures AZT] who were also members of the Coordinating Committee have declined to endorse this report."

Hogervorst E et al. Predictors for non- and slow progression in HIV type-1 infection: low viral RNA copy numbers in serum and maintenance of high HIV-1 p24-specific antibody levels. JID. 1995;171:811-21.

"The mortality rate was significantly higher among [a group of 1372] patients who had received antiretroviral therapy [principally AZT] before enrollment in the clinic."

Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. NEJM. 1997 Mar 27;336(13), www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0013/0958.asp.

"participants of open-label ZDV [AZT] still had four to five times the incidence of ARC/AIDS/death of participants on blinded therapy [of which approximately half were on AZT and half on placebo]...The unadjusted hazard of ARC/AIDS/death was 4.6 times higher for participants [in the deferred group] who had received ZDV...after adjustment for latest CD4 this became 1.6...There was a suggestion of a benefit in terms of [slower] progression to ARC, AIDS or death [with AZT], no effect on progression to AIDS or death, and a suggestion of an increase in mortality."

Reinvang I et al. Only temporary improvement in impaired neuropsychological function in AIDS patients treated with zidovudine. AIDS. 1991;5(2):228-9.

"thirteen subjects of 146 tested who were negative for HIV antigen before treatment later had detectable levels of antigen during the 128 weeks of treatment."

Sheppard HW, Ascher MS, Krowka JF. Viral burden and HIV disease. Nature. 1993 Jul 22;364(6435):291-2.

"The large Anglo-French Concorde randomized trial of zidovudine in asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals shows that there is no significant clinical benefit in terms of survival or disease progression to AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC) in those who started zidovudine immediately rather than those who waited for the onset of symptomatic disease. The1749 participants were followed up for an average of 3 years."

Phillips, AN, Sabin CA. Zidovudine in Asymptomatic HIV Infection. NEJM. 1993 Dec 16;329:25, http://www.nejm.org/content/1993/0329/0025/1895.asp.

"the high level of plasma virus observed by Piatak et al, was about 99.9 per cent non-culturable, suggesting that it was either neutralized or defective. Therefore, rather than supporting a cytopathic model, this observation actually may help explain the relatively slow dissemination of the infected cell burden and thus the relative ineffectiveness of therapy with nucleoside analogues which target this process."

Sperling RS et al. Maternal viral load, zidovudine treatment and the risk of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 from mother to infant. NEJM. 1996;335(22):1621-9.

"AZT can be severely toxic, and there is compelling evidence that the drug probably doesn't help infected people live longer unless they already have full-blown AIDS...AZT clearly isn't a very effective anti-AIDS drug."

Swanson CE, Cooper DA. Factors influencing outcome of treatment with zidovudine of patients with AIDS in Australia. AIDS. 1990;4(8):749-57.

"Of the 524 subjects enrolled [in this study of people in the early stages of AIDS and HIV antibodies], 4 never received zidovudine [AZT], 41 completed the study, and 479 were withdrawn from zidovudine treatment [i.e. virtually everyone]. The reasons for withdrawal from zidovudine were the development of an opportunistic infection or a neoplasm [cancer]...(54 subjects); death (43); toxic reactions (183); withdrawal by the subject (169) and other reasons (30)...[of the] 183 subjects withdrawn...because of toxic reactions, zidovudine was discontinued earlier in more subjects in the standard-treatment group than in the low-dose group [40% vs. 29%]. Among the symptoms only headache was noted more frequently in the low-dose group...22 subjects (8%) in the standard-treatment group and 27 (10%) in the low-dose group had elevated levels of hepatic [liver] enzyme...178 subjects (34%) had a hemoglobin concentration below 5 mmol per liter [anemia]...134 subjects (26%) received red-cell transfusions (65 in the standard-treatment group and 69 in the low-dose group)...230 subjects(44%) had a [low] neutrophil [infection fighting white blood cells] count...134 (51%) in the standard-treatment group and 96 (37%) in the low-dose group...22 subjects (4%) had a [low] platelet [blood clotting cells] count."

Fischl MA et al. A randomized controlled trial of a reduced daily dose of Zidovudine in patients with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. NEJM. 1990;323(15):1009-14.

"We report a patient who experienced acute cholestatic hepatitis on initial exposure to and rechallenge with zidovudine and, as a result, was unable to receive further therapy with the drug...Seven days [after starting AZT therapy] the patient presented with a 2-day history of intermittent fevers and abdominal discomfort...Seven days [after re-starting AZT therapy once the initial symptoms resolved] the patient again experienced fever, right upper quadrant pain, nausea, and headache...One month later [after discontinuing AZT] the liver function tests had almost completely returned to normal and remained without significant abnormalities."

Dubin G, Braffmann MN. Zidovudine-induced hepatotixicity. Ann Int Med. 1989;110(1):85-6.

"58% of all subjects with AIDS and AIDS-related complex receiving zidovudine experienced granulocytopenia of grade 3 or higher...Serious anemia occurred in 32% of all subjects receiving zidovudine...and could be typically managed by dose attenuation, temporary dose interruption of zidovudine therapy and/or red blood cell transfusions...12% of subjects...had an episode of thrombocytopenia [low platelet count] after the initiation of zidovudine therapy...Ten patients had liver enzyme levels elevated...and were managed with dose attenuations or interruptions of zidovudine therapy...One report of a grand mal seizure, two events associated with cardiac dysfunction, and five reports of myopathy were the only new serious potentially drug-related adverse events reported during extended periods of zidovudine administration."

Fischl MA et al. Prolonged zidovudine therapy in patients with AIDS and advanced AIDS-related complex. JAMA. 1989;262(17):2405-10.

"AZT was started at full dose in 260 patients, 64 with ARC and 196 with AIDS. In 58 of these patients, AZT had to be stopped at least once for a minimum of 7 days. In 142 other patients, dosage was reduced by half because of leucopenia (79), leucopenia and anaemia (32), anaemia (20), rash (3), vomiting (3), headaches and insomnia (2), myalgia (2), or hepatitis (1). 3 patients reduced the dose with no medical reason. Later on, progression of toxicity led to suspension of AZT (for at least 7 days) in 85 of the 142 patients whose treatment had been reduced to half dose. Thus AZT was stopped at least once in 143 (55%) patients who began the full-dose regimen. Because of their initial haematological status 105 (28.8%) patients were treated from the start with half-dose AZT - toxicity led to cessation of treatment in 71 (67.6%) cases"

Dournon E et al. Effects of zidovudine in 365 consecutive patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex. Lancet. 1988 Dec 3;2:1297-1302.

Harmful Effects on Blood and Bone Marrow

"We found that 78.2% of the patients with mild or severe anaemia at baseline had received zidovudine [AZT]"

Mocroft A et al. Anaemia is an independent predictive marker for clinical prognosis of HIV-infected patients from across Europe. AIDS. 1999;13:943-50.

"The hematocrit [red blood cell count] decreased in the same patients...with three of eight patients requiring red-cell transfusion by the fourth week of treatment."

Hymes KB et al. The Effect of Azidothymidine on HIV-related Thrombocytopenia. NEJM. 1998 Feb 25;318(8):516-7.

"While effective drug therapy is continued in zidovudine[AZT]-treated HIV-infected patients...PROCRIT Reduces Transfusion Requirements and Helps Lift the Burden of Anemia."

Advertisement for PROCRIT. 1997.

"178 subjects (34%) had a hemoglobin concentration below 5 mmol per liter [anemia]...A greater proportion of subjects in the standard-treatment [high dose AZT] group had a first episode of severe anemia earlier in the study, as compared with the proportion in the low-dose group. 134 subjects (26%) received red-cell transfusions (65 in the standard-treatment group and 69 in the low-dose group)...230 subjects(44%) had a [low] neutrophil [infection fighting white blood cells] count...134 (51%) in the standard-treatment group and 96 (37%) in the low-dose group...22 subjects (4%) had a [low] platelet [blood clotting cells] count."

Fischl MA et al. A randomized controlled trial of a reduced daily dose of Zidovudine in patients with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. NEJM. 1990;323(15):1009-14.

"Zidovudine is well known to produce haematological toxicity in vitro and in some patients...It is worrying that bone marrow changes in patients on zidovudine seem not to be readily reversed when the drug is withdrawn...These findings have serious implications for the use of zidovudine in HIV positive but symptom-free individuals."

Mir N, Costello C. Zidovudine and Bone Marrow. Lancet. 1988 Nov 19;1195-6.

"nearly one half of patients treated with AZT for [HIV]-associated disease develop transfusion-dependent anaemia due to bone marrow depression"

Dainiak N et al. 3'-Azido-3'-deoxythymidine (AZT) inhibits proliferation in vitro of human haematopoietic progenitor cells. British Journal of Haematology. 1988;69:299-304.

"Blood transfusion is often necessary in patients with AIDS, especially in those receiving AZT, a drug which produces severe anaemia in a proportion of recipients. Forty nine (36%) of 138 patients treated with AZT ... required blood transfusion at least once."

Costello C. Haematological abnormalities in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease. J Clin Pathol. 1988;41:711-5.

"In the current study, transfusion-dependent anemia occurred in 6 of 15 patients with AIDS and Kaposi sarcoma who were receiving zidovudine therapy. All 6 affected patients required their first blood transfusion between 3 and 9 weeks after starting zidovudine therapy, and each required 4 to 14 units of packed erythrocytes to maintain a hemoglobin level above 100 g/L over a 12-week study."

Walker RE et al. Anemia and erythropoiesis in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AiDS) and Kaposi sarcoma treated with zidovudine. Ann Int Med. 1988;108:372-6.

"more than half of all AIDS patients may not benefit from the drug because it is more toxic for them than their AIDS infection. The most serious side effect of AZT is to suppress the bone marrow, leaving patients highly vulnerable to bacterial infections"

Kolata G. Imminent marketing of AZT raises problems; marrow suppression hampers AZT use in AIDS victims. Science. 1987 Mar 20;235:1462-3.

"Anemia...developed in 24% of AZT recipients and 4% of placebo recipients (P

Richman DD et al. The Toxicity of Azidothymidine (AZT) in the Treatment of Patients with AIDS and AIDS-Related Complex. NEJM. 1987;317:192-197.

"Four patients with [AIDS], and a history of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia developed severe pancytopenia [marked decrease in all types of blood cells]...12 to 17 weeks after the initiation of azidothymidine (AZT) therapy...Partial bone marrow recovery was documented within 4 to 5 weeks in three patients, but no marrow recovery has yet occurred in one patient during the more than 6 months since AZT treatment was discontinued."

Gill PS et al. Azidothymidine Associated with Bone Marrow Failure in the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Ann Int Med. 1987;107:502-505.

Muscle Disorders (including Heart)

"Long term therapy with [AZT] can induce a toxic myopathy associated with mitochondrial changes"

Chariot P, Gherardi R. Partial cytochrome c oxidase deficiency and cytoplasmic bodies in patients with zidovudine myopathy. Neuro muscul Disorders. 1991;1:357-363.

"typical mitochondrial myopathy has been reported to be expressed among many patients with AIDS treated with long-term azidothymidine (AZT) therapy" and "for AIDS patients, it is urgently necessary to develop a remedy substituting this toxic substance, AZT"

Hayakawa M et al. Massive conversion of guanosine to 8-hydroxy-guanosine in mouse liver mitochondrial DNA by administration of azidothymidine. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1991;176:87-93.

"A clinically significant myopathy that precedes the development of zidovudine associated mitochondrial myopathy has been a rarity in our experience."

Coker R et al. Exacerbation of HIV-associated myopathy by zidovudine. AIDS. 1991;5(2):229-31.

"Before 1986, when zidovudine (formerly called azidothymidine [AZT]) was introduced...the number of patients with HIV-associated myopathy was small, and myopathy [muscle disorders] was considered a rare complication of HIV infection. During the past two years [1988-1989], an increasing number of patients receiving long-term zidovudine therapy have had myopathic symptoms such as myalgia (in up to 8 percent of patients), elevated serum creatine kinase levels (in up to 15 percent), and muscle weakness. These symptoms generally improve when zidovudine is discontinued...We conclude that long-term therapy with Zidovudine can cause a toxic mitochondrial myopathy, which... is indistinguishable from the myopathy associated with primary HIV infection."

Dalakas MC et al. Mitochondrial myopathy caused by long-term zidovudine therapy. NEJM. 1990;322(16):1098-1105.

"In our review of our clinic patients who have received zidovudine therapy for more than 6 months, 16% (14 of 86 patients) have had persistently elevated creatine kinase values. Six percent of these patients (5 of 86) developed symptomatic myalgia and objective proximal muscle weakness. These 5 symptomatic patients had received zidovudine for an average of 45 weeks and had had creatine kinase elevations for several weeks before onset of symptoms. Of these 5 patients, 4 had creatine kinase values return to normal and symptoms resolve after zidovudine was withdrawn...Three patients were rechallenged with zidovudine: each had recurrent creatine kinase elevations at a dose of 600 mg/d. The zidovudine dose was increased to 1200 mg/d in 2 patients: after a few days, both developed recurrent muscle symptoms that again responded to dose reduction. ...Results of quadriceps muscle biopsies done on our patients who responded to zidovudine withdrawal showed severe myopathic changes without evidence of inflammatory infiltrates. Electron microscopy revealed many ultrastructural changes, including destruction of the sarcomere profile with z-band change in the form of streaming and rod bodies. Muscle mitochondria showed wide variation in size, swelling, degeneration and laminar bodies. ...There have been 40 case reports [to 1990] of patients who have developed myopathy while taking zidovudine (including our 5 symptomatic patients). Zidovudine therapy was discontinued in 34 of these patients and 26 improved."

Till M, MacDonnell KB. Myopathy with Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection: HIV-1 or zidovudine?. Ann Int Med. 1990;113(7):492-4.

"A severe proximal myopathy, predominantly affecting the legs, seems to be a significant complication of long-term zidovudine therapy, even at reduced doses; it affected 18% of our patients who had received treatment for more than 200 days. Other drugs could not be implicated. The pathogenesis is obscure; the myopathy resolves on cessation of zidovudine, but not on dose-reduction, though there is then a risk of rebound encephalitis."

Buchbinder S et al. Long-term HIV-1 infection without immunologic progression. AIDS. 1994;8:1123 reported that:

"Only 38% of the HLP [Healthy long-term positives] had ever used zidovudine [AZT] or other nucleoside analogues, compared with 94% of the progressors."

Pluda et al. Development of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in a Cohort of Patients with Severe Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection on Long-Term Antiretroviral Therapy. Ann Int Med. 1990;113:276-282 claimed that AZT caused cancer:

"after starting antiretroviral treatment...the estimated probability of developing lymphoma ...by 36 months, [was] 46.4% (CI, 19.6% to 75.5%)...a direct role of therapy itself cannot be totally discounted...Zidovudine can act as a mutagen"

Costello (1988) reported the Journal of Clinical Pathology that, "Blood transfusion is often necessary in patients with AIDS, especially in those receiving AZT, a drug which produces severe anaemia in a proportion of recipients. Forty nine (36%) of 138 patients treated with AZT required blood transfusion at least once."

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine states: "[AZT], used for treating [HIV], often causes severe megaloblastic anemia caused by impaired DNA synthesis."

Writing in the journal Palliat Med. 1997 Mar;11(2):152-8, Kelleher P, Cox S, McKeogh M. published a report entitled, "HIV infection: the spectrum of symptoms and disease in male and female patients attending a London hospice," in which they concluded that:

"Lack of strong evidence exists for sustained immune reconstitution by current therapies [comprising AZT and other drugs, and AZT may] unmask silent opportunistic infections." Not only can AZT "unmask silent opportunistic infections, it can exacerbate clinically conspicuous ones."

AZT has some of the following caveats on the AZT package insert printed in bold and CAPITALIZED type:

"WARNING: RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE, AZT) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE." (underline is mine).

"PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES, INCLUDING RETROVIR AND ZALCITABINE, AND ARE POTENTIALLY FATAL."

Other benefits of AZT that have been listed on the AZT package insert also
include:

"Persistent headaches lasting longer than 1 month, anemia, dementia, diarrhea,
muscle wasting, candidiasis, non-specific oral lesions, severe fatigue,
enlarged liver and liver failure, heart failure, diabetes, unmasking of opportunistic
infections including CMV retinitis, spontaneous bleeding in hemophiliacs, lymphoma, severe skin rashes, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and other toxic reactions, back pain, body odor, chest pain, chills, edema of the lip, fever, flu syndrome, hyperalgesia, syncope, vasodilation, bleeding gums, constipation, dysphagia, edema of the tongue, eructation, flatulence, mouth ulcer, rectal hemorrhage, lymphadenopathy, arthralgia, muscle spasm, tremor, twitch, anxiety, confusion, depression, dizziness, emotional lability, loss of mental acuity, nervousness, paresthesia, somnolence, cough, dyspnea, epistaxis, hoarseness, pharyngitis, rhinitis, sinusitis, acne, changes in skin and nail pigmentation, pruritus, rash, sweat, urticaria, amblyopia, hearing loss,
photophobia, taste perversion, dysuria, polyuria, urinary frequency, urinary hesitancy."

"Zidovudine was administered orally at three dosage levels to separate groups of mice and rats (60 females and 60 males in each group). Initial single daily doses were 30, 60, and 120 mg/kg/day in mice and 80, 220, and 600 mg/kg/day in rats. The doses in mice were reduced to 20, 30, and 40 mg/kg/day after day 90 because of treatment- related anemia, whereas in rats only the high dose was reduced to 450 mg/kg/day on day 91 and then to 300 mg/kg/day on day 279."

"In mice, seven late-appearing (after 19 months) vaginal neoplasms (5 nonmetastasizing squamous cell carcinomas, one squamous cell papilloma, and one squamous polyp) occurred in animals given the highest dose. One late-appearing squamous cell papilloma occurred in the vagina of a middle dose animal. No vaginal tumors were found at the lowest dose."

"In rats, two late-appearing (after 20 months), non-metastasizing vaginal squamous cell carcinomas occurred in animals given the highest dose. No vaginal tumors occurred at the low or middle dose in rats. No other drug-related tumors were observed in either sex of either species."

"It is not known how predictive the results of rodent carcinogenicity studies may be for humans. At doses that produced tumors in mice and rats, the estimated drug exposure (as measured by AUC) was approximately 3 times (mouse) and 24 times (rat) the estimated human exposure at the recommended therapeutic dose of 100 mg every 4 hours." " In the presence of metabolic activation, the drug was weakly mutagenic at concentrations of 1000 A?g/ml and higher. In an in vitro mammalian cell transformation assay, zidovudine (AZT) was positive at concentrations of 0.5 ug/ml and higher. In an in vitro cytogenetic study performed in cultured human lymphocytes, zidovudine induced dose-related structural chromosomal abnormalities at concentrations of 3 ug/ ml and higher."

"In two in vivo micronucleus studies (designed to measure chromosome breakage or mitotic spindle apparatus damage) in male mice, oral doses of zidovudine 100 to 1000 mg/kg/day administered once daily for approximately 4 weeks induced dose-related increases in micronucleated erythrocytes. Similar results were also seen after 4 or 7 days of dosing at 500 mg/kg/day in rats and mice." Nothing wrong with a few micronucleated cells or mitotic spindle damage.

"In a study involving 11 AIDS patients, it was reported that the seven patients who were receiving Retrovir (1200 mg/day) as their only medication for 4 weeks to 7 months showed a chromosome breakage frequency of 8.29ug/ml2.65 breaks per 100 peripheral lymphocytes. This was significantly (P

One also hears arguments stating that, "Not only is AZT safe and effective, but combined with protease inhibitors, the cocktail is virtually preventing everyone from advancing to "AIDS" who is compliant and takes all their meds on schedule." How in holy hell could this possibly be when when drug, AZT is toxic, carcinogenic, bone-marrow suppressive, etc., but added to highly toxic protease inhibitors, there is a beneficial effect?

For instance, Brinkman K et al., reported that "Mitochondrial toxicity induced by nucleoside-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors is a key in the pathogenesis of antiretroviral-related lipodystrophy." (Lancet. 1999 Sep 25;354:1112-15.1999):

"Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) can induce a characteristic lipodystrophy syndrome of peripheral fat wasting and central adiposity. HIV-1 protease inhibitors are generally believed to be the causal agents, although the syndrome has also been observed with protease-inhibitor-sparing regimens. Here, we postulate that the mitochondrial toxicity of the nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors plays an essential part in the development of this lipodystrophy, similar to the role of mitochondrial defects in the development of multiple symmetrical lipomatosis."

Estaquier, et al., reported in an article entitled, "Effects of Antiretroviral Drugs on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Induced CD4+ T-Cell Death" (Journal of Virology, Vol. 76, No. 12, p. 5966-5973, June 2002) that:

"We treated PBMC from HIV-seronegative healthy donors with increasing concentrations of IDV, SQV, or ddI for 3 days and monitored T-cell proliferation and cell death. Both IDV and SQV decreased T-cell proliferation mediated by CD3 MAb in three independent experiments performed with healthy donor cells with a mean decrease for SQV of 53% ± 15% and a mean decrease for IDV of 48% ± 12% (Fig. 4A). Moreover, in the absence of T-cell activation, we observed that 10 µM IDV and SQV induced a loss in membrane mitochondrial potential (m) as assessed by flow cytometry using DiOC6."

Martinez E et al., reported, "Risk of lipodystrophy in HIV-1 infected patients treated with protease inhibitors: a prospective cohort study" (Lancet. 2001;357(9256):592-8, 2001), and suggested that:

"Clinical research on lipodystrophy has usually rested on the idea that it was merely a complex adverse event related to individual antiretroviral agents or families of drugs...Our study suggests that the risk of lipodystrophy is mainly related to the total exposure to HAART and only to a lesser degree to specific antiretroviral drugs."

Tsiodras S et al., also described the "Effects of Protease Inhibitors on Hyperglycemia, Hyperlipidemia, and Lipodystrophy" (Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 10;160(13):2050-6, 2000), where they suggested that:

"Our study reports an independent association between PI [protease inhibitors] use and ... lipodystrophy, on the basis of a 5-year cohort study that encompassed the pre-PI and post-PI therapeutic eras. Although these metabolic changes were occasionally observed in patients not exposed to PIs, they were much more frequent after initiation of PI therapy."

Mauss concluded in an article he wrote entitled, "HIV-associated lipodystrophy syndrome. AIDS. 2000;14(suppl 3):S197-207, 2000, that:

"At present, HIV-associated liposystrophy is regarded by many investigators as a complication of antiretroviral therapy, in general, in combination with a variety of additional risk factors, and is not to be associated with any particular class of drugs...[even though]...treatment with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors appears to be associated with a lower prevalence of HIV-associated lipodystrophy as compared with triple-drug regimens including an HIV-protease inhibitor [which is perhaps why the syndrome was first called 'Crix belly', named after Crixivan, a protease inhibitor]"

Carr A, Miller J, Law M and Cooper D A., also reported, "A syndrome of lipoatrophy, lactic acidaemia and liver failure dysfunction with HIV nucleoside analogue therapy: contribution to protease inhibitor-associated lipodystrophy syndrome. (Aids 2000, 14 F25-F32, 2000) where they suggested that:

Miller et al., in an article entitled, "HIV lipodystrophy: prevalence, severity and correlates of risk in Australia" (HIV Med. 2003 Jul;4(3):293-301), that:
{In a cohort of} "One thousand, three hundred and forty-eight patients, lipodystrophy prevalence was 53%, and of these, 55% reported both peripheral lipoatrophy and central lipohypertrophy, 31% experienced peripheral lipoatrophy only and 14% had central lipohypertrophy only. The prevalence of any body habitus change was 62% in PI-experienced patients, 33% in PI-naive patients and 21% in antiretroviral-naive patients. Lipodystrophy severity was less in antiretroviral-naive patients and most severe in PI-experienced patients. Increasing severity of lipodystrophy was both positively and significantly correlated with elevated liver enzymes, decreased testosterone levels, decreased skin-fold thickness, lower levels of total and peripheral fat (DEXA) and higher levels of visceral fat (CT)."

Mora S, Sala N, Bricalli D et al., in an article entitled, "Bone mineral loss through increased bone turnover in HIV-infected children treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy" (AIDS. 2001 Sep 28;15(14):1823-9, 2001) claimed that:

"Bone mineral density (BMD) of total body and lumbar spine (L2-L4) was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in 40 children vertically infected with HIV: 35 taking HAART and 5 naive to any antiretroviral treatment (untreated). 6 HAART-treated children showed clinical evidence of lipodystrophy [abnormal fat redistribution]..."

Bica et al (2001) stated:

"In 1998-1999, 11 (50%) of 22 deaths were due to end-stage liver disease [a common side effect of AIDS drugs]... End-stage liver disease is now the leading cause of death in our hospitalized HIV-seropositive population."

Lederman MM, Valdez H. (2000), who are AIDS Researchers, recently published a study that claimed:

"Of recent HIV-related deaths occurring in the University Hospitals of Cleveland although OIs [Opportunistic Infections] constituted less than 25% of deaths in 1999, end-organ failures [which could well be caused by medication] constituted nearly half. Importantly, the median CD4 cell count among the patients who died in our clinic has risen, and about 20% of recent deaths have occurred among patients with plasma HIV RNA levels below the limit of detection."

The rising numbers of T-cells and undetectable viral load in the dying patients in this study show "just how effective AZT and HAART really is!!"

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 12, 2007 8:11 PM

Dear Raven,

Since you brought up the NIH, perhaps you should ask Jonathan M. Fishbein, M.D his opinion of the NIH and nevirapine specifically. He is the whistleblower who uncovered the nevirapine corruption and mismanagement at the NIH, the same people who gave us your "computer model" for how many lives are saved by toxic drugs. Next they will give us a computer model which explains why there is no water in the ocean. This is actually quite easy, go down to the beach, walk to the edge of the water, pick up a few rocks, take them back to the lab and analyze them. No water ? Ergo, there is no water in the ocean says the NIH computer model.

Sure you can believe the NIH: HAART has saved 3,000,000 years worth of life, or you can believe the LANCET a peer reviewed medical journal which says NO MORTALITY BENEFIT on 22,217 patients using the "miracle drug" cocktail called HAART.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16890831

I will believe a study published in LANCET any day over a NIH computer model.

"INTERPRETATION: Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality."

You wish to believe the NIH, be my guest. I dont.

Read this book, Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? by Rebecca Culshaw

Posted by: 12 frogs and two flies | June 12, 2007 9:32 PM

For those who wish to read the LANCET article for themselves, rather than try to make any sense of the twisted logic of the previous AIDS apologist, here is a pdf:

http://www.antiagingforme.com/html/pdf/AIDS_Lancet2006.pdf

For those who believe the drug company HAART propaganda, ask why this LANCET study of 22,000 over 10 years shows that while HAART works quite well to reduce viral load and increase CD4 count, doing so fails to translate into a MORTALITY BENEFIT. i.e the theory is seriously flawed.

But of course, when the drug company profits pile up at the rate of $5,000 per month of HAART treatment, suddenly the drugs dont look so toxic, and the adverse side effects don't seem too hideous, in fact the drugs might even seem to appear "miraculous". Miraculous at making money that is.

Posted by: Tiger Wooding | June 12, 2007 11:38 PM

Chris Noble:

Why do [they] keep on claiming that this paper says something it clearly cannot.

People believe all sorts of weird things. It sometimes kills them. It is not unusual for anorexia patients to starve to death eventually in the mistaken belief that they are "too fat". Saw one myself.

From the way new IDs keep popping up with the same style and lack of logic, there is probably just one multi-ID person who chooses to deny reality. Feed the troll if you want for very minor amusement. The flat earthers are much more entertaining.

Posted by: raven | June 13, 2007 3:52 AM

Back to the "liver toxicity" again, I see. How many times has that one been explained to Andrew I wonder? It goes like this.

Dog's Best Flies Maniotisfrog: Rebecca Someone said most AIDS patients die of HAART liver toxicity and she's right because sixteen Nobel prize winners agree with her.

Scientist: Well actually no Nobel prize winner agrees with that, because most AIDS patients on HAART today die of something besides AIDS because HAART is keeping them alive long enough to die of something else. A minority of AIDS deaths have liver toxicity and they're the people with Hepatitis B or C and usually injection drug users who have really messed up theyr livers.

DBF Maniotisfrog: Hah!! Hepatitis B and C don't exist. They're surrogate markers of drug use just like "HIV". And injection drugs can give you AIDS, but they can't hurt your liver.

S: No, injection drugs don't give anyone AIDS, but they can hurt the liver and especially if tainted needles pass Hep.

Dog's Best F. Maniotisfrog: Hah Hah! Here are sixty abstracts I pasted from somewhere and some stuff I copied from the internet and pretended it was mine. They prove I'm right. I think.

S: No, most of those studies aren't relevant. You can't just look at part of the abstract you have to read the whole study. Please stop taking stuff outta context.

DBFM: Well youre a Nuremberg criminal and when the spaceships come down, surely very soon, any day now when they prove EJ wasn't positive, we'll take you to the mothership and inject you with mercury from dead salmon that you killed with AZT.

Just wacko.

I'm with Raven. Since Andrew has now admitted to being these various denialists on here, I think he did anyway he's kind of vague so I'm not sure, and even if he didn't the other person is just as logically challenged, I'm done with this discussion. Someone else'll have to feed flies to the frog's best Andrewdog.

Posted by: Adele | June 13, 2007 11:22 AM

Dear Adele,

Thanks for the rather bizarre fictional satire which belongs over at science fiction blogs.

For the lurkers fed up with Orwellian DoubleSpeak, try this web site for better quality info:

reviewingaids dot org

Posted by: Forty Mules and a Plow | June 13, 2007 11:56 AM

Dear Adele,

Please don't be mad at me. I learn quite a bit from all your posts. You don't have to call me andydog and stuff though. Andy will do fine.

BTW... These "viruses" aren't just surrogate markers of drug use-I suppose in many cases they are and this has been shown again and again, but there are at least 70 other reasons for testing positive including such "diseases" as multiple pregnancies, lupus, a recent flu injection (about 2% according to Klausner will test positive after a flu shot), lupus, malaria, etc, parisitic infections, etc.

Get some rest Adele!

Dear Raven,
What are hypothetical people with AIDS in the NIH study that is posted in response to the studies I posted?

E.G.

"For each year of the six eras, the investigators ran simulations of HIV disease progression in two equal-sized groups of hypothetical people with AIDS. One group received no therapy, while the other group received all available therapies of that era."

RE:

"The total cumulative survival benefit across all eras from all forms of HIV therapy was 2.8 million years."

2.8 million years is a long time. I guess this means if you started treating Lucy (the Australopithicine), she would still be alive today!

I must admit, compared to the studies I posted, this one done by the NIH is really a hum dinger to end all arguments or questions about immune suppression, and how to treat it.

Perhaps this should not come as so much of a surprise because Dr. Fauci, before the AIDS era, claimed that immune suppression is caused by doctors! Doctors cause immune suppression, Fauci claimed, if they subject their patients to multiple transfusions, transplant surgery, or corticosteroid administration, as these drugs and treatments can non-specifically induce AIDS-specific drops in T-cells with high frequency (1, 2). Fibrosis of the lung due to to heavy crack cocaine use also was considered a potent inducer of the AIDS-defining illness, PCP, by Fauci and others before the AIDS era. These qualifications serve to undermine the "HIV=AIDS" hypothesis, because A ("HIV"), does not generate B (immune suppression), because iatrogenically applied glucocorticoids, transfusions, blood factor concentrates in hemophiliacs, and other factors may induce a precipitous drop in B, and consequently lead to C. Thus, this is AIDS denialism, as it denies the existence of "HIV," or the need to detect "HIV," altogether, in a patient with low (B), while suggesting that doctors, and illicit drug use, cause "AIDS-like" immune suppression.

Some AIDS researchers such as Gisselquist et al. who have studied Africa and African AIDS extensively also claim that "HIV/AIDS" is caused mostly by doctors! The reasons in support of the Gisselquist et al. claims published in the journal AIDS and elsewhere include:

"An expanding body of evidence challenges the conventional hypothesis that sexual transmission is responsible for more than 90% of adult HIV infections in Africa. Differences in epidemic trajectories across Africa do not correspond to differences in sexual behavior. Studies among African couples find low rates of heterosexual transmission, as in developed countries. Many studies report HIV infections in African adults with no sexual exposure to HIV and in children with HIV-negative mothers. Unexplained high rates of HIV incidence have been observed in African women during antenatal and postpartum periods. Many studies show 20%-40% of HIV infections in African adults associated with injections (though direction of causation is unknown). These and other findings that challenge the conventional hypothesis point to the possibility that HIV transmission through unsafe medical care may be an important factor in Africa's HIV epidemic. More research is warranted to clarify risks for HIV" [3].

"The assumption that historic and continuing high rates of epidemic increases among African adults are almost exclusively due to sexual transmission requires much higher rates of heterosexual transmission in Africa than in the developed world. However, a recent study of HIV incidence in serodiscordant couples in Africa (only 1.2% reported consistent condom use) estimated a rate of transmission per coital act of only 0.0011, comparable to rates of 0.0003-0.0015 from similar studies in the US and Europe [3].

"A study in Kinshasa in 1985 found 39% (17 of 44) of HIV-positive inpatient and outpatient children 1-24 months old to have HIV-negative mothers; only five of 16 (with information) had been transfused... In a later report from Rwanda, 7.3% (54 of 704) of mothers of children with AIDS were HIV-negative; transfusions were identified as the risk factor for 22 of the 54 children... rates of unexplained incidence among African women are comparable to rates of maternal mortality from puerperal fever of 6% to 16% observed by Semmelweis during 1841-46 in the First Clinic at the University of Vienna's obstetric department. "[3].

"Starting in the 1950s Africans experienced a massive increase in medical injections associated with mass injection campaigns targeted at yaws, with introduction and spread of parenteral therapies to treat other diseases, and with plummeting prices for antibiotics and injection equipment. For example, UNICEF administered 12 million injections for yaws in Central Africa alone during 1952-57. From the 1950s into the 1980s, unsafe injections may have contributed to the silent spread of HIV in Africa in much the same way that unsafe injections for schistosomiasis and other treatments in Egypt established hepatitis C as a major blood-borne pathogen, infecting about 15% to 20% of the general population at the end of the 1990s"[3].

"Our observations raise the serious possibility that an important portion of HIV transmission in Africa may occur through unsafe injections and other unsterile medical procedures"[3].

"More recently, nearly 400 children attending a single hospital in Libya apparently contracted HIV" [3].

Currently, there are 5 nurses and 1 doctor thought responsible for this transmission of "HIV" to these 400+ children (the Tripoli Six), and they are scheduled to be executed by firing squad in Libya.

1. Fauci, A.S. Mechanisms of Corticosteroid Action on lymphocyte Subpopulations I. Redistribution of circulating T and B lymphocytes to the bone marrow. Immunology 28: 669-679. 1975.

2. Fauci, A.S., Dale, D.C., and Balow, J.E. Glucocorticosteroid therapy: Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Considerations. Annals of Internal Medicine 84: 304-15, 1976.

Thanks so much!

Cheers,

Andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 13, 2007 12:27 PM

Andrew, use of contaminated needles as a route of HIV transmission supports the HIV/AIDS theory, not removes support. Also, can you at least try to come up with something far less silly than HIV is a biomarker for drug abuse? It is complete malarky, as evidenced from non-abusing patients, blood transfusion as a route of transmission and health care workers becoming infected after an accidental needlestick (never mind all the thousands of papers contradicting you).

In fact, some of the best proof comes from studies regarding the CCR5Delta32 mutant receptor. This mutant can decrease the capacity for HIV to infect the cells of the CCR5Delta32 carrier. Even when repeatedly exposed to HIV, CCR5Delta32 carriers tend to resist infection, while those who have two copies of the mutant are almost impossible to infect with HIV and consequently, don't develop AIDS.

Duesberg's abuse hypothesis is based on a spurious correlation, and if you were honest, you would admit it.

-------------------

Does anybody remember the name of the AIDS patient who bought into the denialist lies, and later died from an OI? The denialists said that he had started abusing illegal drugs causing his death, instead of the OI. I think it would be a worthwhile read for observers.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 13, 2007 1:32 PM

Besides which, many HIV+ have no history of injecting or abusing drugs. -- raven

Oh really?

What about all of the harmful prescription medications that Americans are ingesting at a record pace, and I'm not just talking about HIV meds being harmful. Duesberg was on the right track but he failed to realize, and therefore, failed to stress strongly enough, just how damaging certain prescription medications can be to one's immune system, even though they considered "safe" and FDA-approved. Of course, that situation is only now becoming apparent, so perhaps we can forgive Dr. Duesberg that small fault.

For those readers who prefer to deal with the dangerous realities of our dysfunctional and failing healthcare system, I highly recommend the following two books:
Selling Sickness
and
Overdosed America

For those readers uninterested in reality, how's the housing market looking in your area?

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | June 13, 2007 4:22 PM

Now THERE'S a man who is unmistakeably NOT Andrew so I can't help but say hi to our old friend Kevin. Hi Kevin! My houses value went up three percent last year how bout yours? Not as good as twelve but heck, my oldest will be working for pharma in five or ten years so I'm still alive?

Since we've seen illegal drug use doesn't cause AIDS, something must cause it right so why not prescription drugs says Kevin. I bet almost everyone with HIV and AIDS has taken a prescription drug or a drug of abuse or been exposed to a toxic chemical sometime. Obviously chemicals cause AIDS in Kevin's toxic world. I would just worry maybe there's someone in the world with HIV and AIDS who never had drug even aspirin. That would kinda falsify things. So Kevin here's my suggestions. Theory one says everyone with HIV has a mother who's a woman. Having a woman for a mother will give you HIV! More consistent than the drug thing, right. Theory two says the real estate market causes AIDS. Follow me here. Everybody with HIV and AIDS lives where? On the LAND! Land is what? REAL ESTATE! So real estate causes HIV and AIDS. Everyone dive in the ocean!

Sorry. More seriously. CDC said in 2004 almost half of Americans were taking a prescription drug currently. As prescription drug use has gone up, life expectancy has gone up. Individual studies on specific drug says there's some causation there. For AIDS, as prescription drug use goes up, AIDS deaths go down. When they switched single to multiple therapy, massive decrease in death. Some people ARE overmed just like some people use to much bengay, thanks Tara, that was interesting. Balanced out though drugs have done alot of good things.

Gotta go. Time for my Real Estate investment seminar.

Posted by: Adele | June 13, 2007 5:03 PM

151 Children in South Africa were given HAART. 10 percent died shortly after starting HAART. In other words, the children were killed by HAART. How do we know that these unfortunate died from HAART drugs? After all, HAART is supposed to save AIDS patients with the Lazarus effect right? The sick are supposed to miraculously get up out of bed and walk to the door to greet the doctor. Unfortunately, the response found in these unfortunate sick kids to this miracle drug HAART cocktail was death. The sickest kids died from HAART toxicity within the first 5 months of the study. The surviving children were the healthy ones able to withstand the toxic efects of the drug cocktails.

For the lurkers: ask the question in terms of Darwin's natural selection. The sickest children (end-stage tuberculosis and gasteroenteritis) were naturally selected out by the HAART drugs, only the fittest survived.

AZT and HAART have been soundly rejected by the government of South Africa. They are correct.

Posted by: Forty Mules and a Plow | June 13, 2007 5:33 PM

Yo Andy? You wrote How can the flu vaccine cause the human body to generate proteins that are specific to "The AIDS Virus" (A) if the proteins or nucleic acid sequences of "HIV" are unique, and as Gallo recently proclaimed, "one molecule of "HIV" couldn't be found in a stadium filled with people who were negative for the virus!"

Check out an introductory Immunology text book and look up "cross reacting antibodies". Because the proteins and the nucleic acid sequences of HIV are unique but under some circumstances some individuals can temporarily have cross reacting antibodies.

Posted by: Dale | June 13, 2007 6:16 PM

Forty mules, you are parroting the idiocy of dog's breakfast, which I have already responded to. It is just barely possible you are not one and the same person so I will repeat:

You said:

151 Children in South Africa were given HAART. 10 percent died shortly after starting HAART. In other words, the children were killed by HAART. How do we know that these unfortunate died from HAART drugs? After all, HAART is supposed to save AIDS patients with the Lazarus effect right? The sick are supposed to miraculously get up out of bed and walk to the door to greet the doctor. Unfortunately, the response found in these unfortunate sick kids to this miracle drug HAART cocktail was death. The sickest kids died from HAART toxicity within the first 5 months of the study. The surviving children were the healthy ones able to withstand the toxic efects of the drug cocktails.

I said:
"The Kaplan Meier (presented in Figure 3) mortality survival estimate at 12 months was 90.9% (95%CI 84.8- 94.6). Paediatric mortalities are summarized in Table 4. All 13 deaths occurred within the first 5 months of HAART initiation. No deaths were attributed to metabolic disorders or other drug-related adverse effects. Autopsy data were not available, but the most commonly reported causes of death were chronic gastroenteritis (n = 6) and TB (n = 4). Other causes of death included: sepsis syndrome (n = 1), suspected PCP (n = 1), and a respiratory tract infection (n = 1)".

So these kids died of opportunistic infections, not HAART drugs. You'd think that with the entire internet at their disposal that the HIV denialists could come up with a study that actually shows what they claim..... but no. They are incapable of finding even one."

HAART takes a few months to work. The kids who died all died within 5 months of starting HAART, because they started treatment at a very advanced stage of illness. After 5 months none died (despite what you would consider to be increasing cumulative doses of "highly toxic drugs"). Overall mortality was only 9% after a year - quite an astounding response rate for pediatric AIDS cases.

You said:

AZT and HAART have been soundly rejected by the government of South Africa. They are correct.

You are a little out of date. South Africa has now accepted the irrefutable proof that HAART works and has set up major upscaling projects to ensure its population can now get the drugs.
http://www.aegis.org/news/re/2007/RE070533.html

You see, even a dyed-in-the-wool denialist like Msimang can change her spots when faced with the evidence. Question is why can't you?

Posted by: DT | June 13, 2007 6:43 PM

Andrew, You sink to Perth level denialism? Pitiful.

You cite the Fauci text, replying to Raven regarding my comment...

As of January 1, 1997, the number of infants and children in USA diagnosed with AIDS was 6,891 and ninety percent of these cases had mothers who were drug users.

So lets use this to test your pet hypotheses.

The Duesberg hypothesis suggests that non drug users, men who don't have sex with other men, and individuals being treated for hemophilia shouldn't get HIV.

10% of the mothers were not drug users, they weren't men, and it is unlikely that they were all hemophiliacs (in fact, this would have been noted in the study). Therefore, the Duesberg hypothesis does not properly account for this group (although denialists will always use hand waving and claims that these mothers lied about their drug abuse).

The HIV/AIDS theory, on the other hand, does account for mothers transmitting the HIV virus vertically (mother to child) and for other routes of exposure, including drug abuse, sex with an infected partner, contaminated blood products, transplants from infected individuals, contaminated medical devices...

Furthermore, as an infectious agent, every exposure does not lead to infection, and person to person transmission can be tracked via epidemiological studies. If AIDS was due to drug abuse, there would be no such pattern to transmission. HIV testing predicts which individuals will develop AIDS, while drug abuse is only a risk factor, and not a strong predictor (despite what the denialists claim).

Of course, the denialists like sockpuppet will move the goalposts to include all drugs, which only serves to further weaken their already weak correlation. The alternative medicine types can't offer treatment backed up by evidence, but they are full of dishonest fear mongering and attacks on modern medicine.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 13, 2007 11:39 PM

Forty mules, you say:
"Nothing has changed in South Africa. Manto was out sick with a liver transplant and is now back at work as health minister with the president's full support. She was snubbed by the AID conference and pulled out.
South Africa suffered under white rule long enough before their liberation from Aparteid. They are now free to reject or accept what they see fit. They have reexamined HIV and toxic drug treatments and rejected it. This hasn't changed since the presidental panel convened by Thabo Mbeki."

Your reading comprehension must be severely limited. You say that South Africa has rejected "toxic" drugs. Well that maybe so, but it seems that they have finally accepted HAART as being necessary for their own population and being a core element of their HIV/AIDS strategy.

From Nature, May 3rd 2007

"After years of prevarication, the government of South Africa has finally adopted a sound and comprehensive strategy for managing the country's AIDS epidemic. The 160-page plan, which was endorsed by the South African National AIDS Council on 30 April, lays out proposals to cut infection rates, improve diagnosis of the disease, and treat the estimated 5.5 million South Africans already infected with HIV."

The plan is to treat 80% of those requiring HAART by 2011.

Also see:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleid=310504

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/03/14/south_african_aids_strategy_a_root_out_of_misery.html

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A410536

Can you explain how this is "rejecting AIDS drugs?"
Even the most schizoid denialist would have a problem explaining away this obvious contradiction.

Posted by: DT | June 14, 2007 10:33 AM

Yes the problems with "American medicine" are apparent to anyone who reads rave reviews on Amazon. Any of you with children probably know the "Eragon" story that's now at two books and sigh is going to hit us with another one someday. Its the worst tripe of a story I ever read sorry to anyone who likes it but a complete knock-off and boring too. I wish I could keep it from my kids because they probably lost a million brain cells just reading it. But it gets rave reviews on Amazon!

Rave reviews don't mean anything but there are real problems with helath care and Robster could tell us about a lot of them. We all have problems with health care. But don't forget as health care costs and prescription drug use has climbed so has life expectancy and quality of life.

Some people prefer to get down on all fours and graze on various therapeutic grasses. Good for them. I'll stick with my well-educated doctors thank you.

Posted by: Adele | June 14, 2007 4:20 PM

So, Kevin... How exactly should we study alternative medicine? Do we just throw out the rules of science that the supernatural is not a valid explanation? Is skepticism preventing the altie-meds from working?

The only fundamental that I hold fast to is this. The world can be understood without relying on supernatural cop-outs, but through careful experimentation and rational observational study. Alternative medicine rarely relies on evidence, and when it does, it either leaps to a "common sense" but invalid conclusion or demonstrates efficacy, wherein it ceases to be alternative and becomes evidence based.

I am not familiar with the book you are pushing, so I looked at it. If it comes down to a focus on prevention and public health programs, I don't have a problem with it. I'd like to see much more of a focus on prevention, as treatment is more expensive and is less effective than just not getting sick in the first place. Will it be on my reading lists? Perhaps, if I see a copy in the library or in the used book store. Right now, I have a couple evolution texts and Carl Zimmer's Parasite Rex in front of any suggestion coming from an altie.

Your reasons that we should read it, however, are specious. First, creationist and inteligunt desine books often have high ratings and rave reviews, but that doesn't mean that what they have to say is valuable regarding the progress of science. Second, citing the author's position at Harvard is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy that suggests that the author's views should automatically be accepted without review.

All those prescriptions sure are making everyone happy, healthy and wealthy, aren't they? Or, are they just making a precious few happy...healthy...and wealthy....

False dichotomy, strawman, appeal to envy. It does, however hit on the altie bias that they should be the one making the most money. The alties are just as greedy as anybody else, and when evidence based medicine gets money and respect, it really cheeses the alties off. Some alties do manage to hit it big, with scams just as slick as any Nashville televangelist, or with a slick book and no responsibility to the "patient" beyond the cash register.

Read the book and then perhaps you'll be educated enough to participate in an intelligent discussion on the matter.

Why don't you crack open a textbook and learn something about the scientific process?

Posted by: Robster, FCD | June 14, 2007 7:34 PM

All those prescriptions sure are making everyone happy, healthy and wealthy, aren't they? Or, are they just making a precious few happy...healthy...and wealthy....

Well we haven't hit bottom in idiocy but we are way past sanity here. The life span of the average American in 1900, when modern medicine was young, was 47. About the same as trash heaps like Somalia and Afghanistan.

Fast forward to 2007. The average life span of an American is now 77. An improvement of 3 decades. The evidence speaks for itself.

There is always room for improvement in anything, including medicine. One of the problems right now is demand is starting to outpace ability to pay for care. There are lots of bureaucrats and administrators who would be ecstatic if lots of people went alternative and left them alone.

Alternative has to be used with common sense. We saw a patient, picked up a primary breast tumor on a screening early from a high risk group. Prognosis at that time was 90% cure. Went alternative, 1.5 years later dead of metastatic disease at age 34. Who is to say whether she was happy with her choice, but most would have chosen differently.

Posted by: raven | June 14, 2007 9:48 PM

After carefully reviewing some of the statements made by different people above, it seems apparent that a principal source of conflict arises from a clash between those who want to view a picture of reality through reviewing all the available data, versus those who have strong religious beliefs in the catechisms promulgated by The Church of Modern Medicine.

Let me give two examples:

Example I-Raven

RE:
"Alternative has to be used with common sense. We saw a patient, picked up a primary breast tumor on a screening early from a high risk group. Prognosis at that time was 90% cure. Went alternative, 1.5 years later dead of metastatic disease at age 34. Who is to say whether she was happy with her choice, but most would have chosen differently."

When Raven for example, (I take it that Raven is some kind of health professional with experience with cancer patients) says that a woman of 34 died of breast cancer died because she trusted alternative approaches, raven fails to include the track record or even mention of patients who receive standard chemo/radiation/ or other "standard mainstream therapies," and also die. This omission, or distortion, is probably a result of the tragedy of being aware of any 34 year old dying of cancer, but it is a gross distortion of the information that must be taken into account and not, ignored. As a medical professional, I'm sure raven is well aware of this track record, but yet, choses to support the Church's side regardless of what she/he? has probably seen with his/her own eyes.

It is generally acknowledged in the cancer community that directed and often-aggressive chemotherapies, radiation therapies, or immune therapies constitute irrational assaults on the cancer patient. Not only do these "rational," target-directed approaches not increase life expectancy in most cancer patients, they cause significant harm in the form of myelosuppression, immune dysfunction, epithelial cell destruction, nervous system stress or destruction, loss of salivation and taste in head and neck radiotherapy, burns of the skin, massive infections, and gastrointestinal collapse, castration, cachexia, and consequent mal-absorption of food, and other side-effects leading to morbidity and death. According to a recent New England Journal Of Medicine meta-analysis of Phase 1 Oncology Trials (where toxicity is typically assessed) between 1991 and 2002:

"In a survey of 460 Phase I trials of standard toxic cancer chemotherapy agents given to slightly less than 12,000 patients, the partial and complete response rates were reported to have changed from 4-5% to 10% during 1991-2002, with 3% showing a complete response, and 7% showing a partial response."

3% complete response does not mean a 3% "cure" rate, but simply, the rate of complete tumor regression, as measured by the best current methods of tumor detection during the period studied. Although the meta-analysis claimed that as many as 44.7% of patients showed some "benefit" from their therapy, and that there was a 0.5% death rate attributable to Phase I dose escalation itself, suggesting minimal overall toxicity, the "benefits" they measured were not defined and included surrogate endpoints. The data they present also must be qualified because a host of different cancer types were assessed, in which blood-borne cancers that are now more responsive than ever before to targeted therapies, heavily weighted their analysis toward the positive value of the 3% complete response rate they reported. The overall success rate of complete response is not encouraging, not to mention the fact that a cure rate is not even considered, or discussed. When discussion does occur, it is typically about the successes, as shown recently by a new target, the abl receptor, targeted by Gleevec (imatnib mesylate), although re-analyses of Gleevec's success have not looked as miraculous as before. However is should be borne in mind that this drug combats a "free-swimming" blood-borne population of tumor cells, instead of solid tumors.

A survey of oncology reviews about the toxicity and lack of efficacy of current Phase I,II, and III trials for specific cancers treated with traditional chemotherapeutic agents, radiation, and targeted immunotherapy can be obtained on a daily basis at the website of the peer-review institute at: ntkwatch@peerview-institute.org.

These clinical trial assessments show much lower response rates with solid tumors from trails aimed at specific types of cancer. For example, The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group Protocol 18832, The World Health Organization Melanoma Program Trial 15, and the North American Perfusion Group Southwest Oncology Group-8593, in a trial of 832 melanoma patients, reported that:

"The results of this study show that regional infusion of chemotherapy to the limb in proximity to a melanoma lesion in the attempt to reduce the risk of future tumor recurrences is associated with significant adverse events, and no benefits. Eight hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled in the study; 412 underwent surgery consisting of resection of the melanoma lesion, and 420 underwent surgery followed by isolated limb perfusion with the anticancer drug melphalan plus mild hyperthermia. Progression of disease and overall survival did not differ between the two groups. Toxicity (including two limb amputations) occurred significantly more often in patients who underwent chemotherapy compared to those who did not. These data do not support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in the management of patients with early cancer" [Prophylactic isolated limb perfusion for localized, high-risk limb melanoma Results of a multicenter randomized phase III trial. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group Protocol 18832 The World Health Organization Melanoma Program Trial 15, and the North American Perfusion Group Southwest Oncology Group-8593. Koops HS; et al. J Clin Oncol, 16(9):2906-12 1998 Sep].

In a different kind of prospective randomized trial of the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma using chemotherapy with cisplatin, dacarbazine, and tamoxifen alone or in combination with interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2b, it was reported recently that:

"This was a randomized study to determine whether the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy results in better tumor control in patients with advanced melanoma. One hundred-two patients were enrolled; 52 patients received chemotherapy only, and 50 patients received chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (interferon alpha and interleukin-2). Although tumor responses were observed more frequently in the chemo-immunotherapy group (44% vs. 27%), this group also experienced higher treatment-related toxicity and showed a trend of decreased survival. Both regimens produced tumor responses that were only partial and short lasting" [Prospective randomized trial of the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma using chemotherapy with cisplatin, dacarbazine, and tamoxifen alone or in combination with interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2b. Rosenberg SA, et al. J Clin Oncol, 17(3):968-75 1999 Mar].

These outcomes, although bleak for the cancer patient, are as problematic for the cancer survivor. An Institute of Medicine report was recently released calling for a paradigm shift regarding how cancer patients are managed over the long term, and asking for ways to reduce the toxicity and often morbid long-term side effects of conventional chemotherapies and radiation. (Institute of Medicine Report: Cancer Survivorship: Improving Care and Quality of Life, November 7, 2005; http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=30869).

"Some 10 million Americans are now cancer survivors. Large numbers are living longer than ever because of remarkable advances in early detection and treatment. But many survivors receive less than optimal follow-up, and improvements in care are necessary, the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Science, advised in a major report released Monday, November 7, 2005".

As presented in the Chicago Tribune:
"The negative consequences of cancer and its treatments are substantial and under-appreciated," said Dr. Sheldon Greenfield, panel chairman and director of the center for health policy research at the University of California, Irvine. "Many [patients] suffer permanent and disabling symptoms that impair normal functioning ... [but] there is much that can be done to avoid, ameliorate or arrest these late effects."

"The Institute of Medicine study, which focuses on adult cancer survivors, highlights a profound shift in thinking about this once-deadly disease. Until recently, researchers and clinicians had one goal: saving more lives. With improved survival rates, however, cancer increasingly is being viewed as a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension, presenting a new set of challenges."

"Some are medical. The very toxic therapies that assault tumors and help save lives put patients at risk of new problems down the road, including second cancers, heart disease, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, infertility, and chronic inflammation, research shows. For any given patient, experts note, the risk of long-term complications depends on the type and location of the cancer, the nature and duration of treatment and other factors."

"For instance, women with breast cancer who receive chest radiation therapy are at risk of developing lung cancer later, according to research cited in the report. Chemotherapy using agents known as anthracyclines increases the odds of contracting leukemia. And tamoxifen, a commonly used therapy for women with estrogen receptor-positive tumors, increases the risk of stroke, blood clots, and endometrial cancer."

Nevertheless, a survey of the FDA's list of approved drugs entering mainstream cancer chemotherapy clearly reveals a tendency to repeat the failures of the past. The FDA granted marketing applications to 71 oncology applications between January 1, 1990, and November 1, 2002 [Johnson R. Williams G, Pazdur R. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of Oncology Drugs. Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 21, No 7, 2003: pp 1404-1411]. New additions to the FDA lists include cytotoxic drugs, monoclonal antibodies that have no efficacy and significant toxicity, immune-modulating drugs that oxidize cells and cause severe morbidity, and, a plethora of accessory drugs to boost erythrocyte production or T-cell production, anti-diarrhea medications, or medications to correct the myriad of complications due to the current toxic regimens the patient experiences due to toxicity.

It is truly surprising that despite these kinds of results from studies that directly target tumors (and these examples are representative of hundreds of similar trials not discussed here), new ideas or strategies that could potentially combat cancer more effectively and less toxically, are seldom given a chance, or are suppressed. When new approaches or treatments are permitted a phase I trial, it is only after a targeted drugging, radiation, or targeted immunotherapy campaign has failed numerous times, and after the patient is considered "terminal." In this context, how can new rational approaches be scientifically tested? How can new rational therapies begin to accrue toxicity and efficacy (or non-efficacy data) after a patient's immune system has been assaulted numerous times, and when the disease has advanced to the point where death is imminent?

At least the oncology community gives their cancer patients breaks from DNA chain terminating drugs like AZT (which was designed to treat cancers but didn't work because of its toxicity and inefficacy, instead of brow beating them like the AIDS establishment does "HIV/AIDS" patients, by telling them they are irresponsible, or doomed if they so much as even consider taking a drug holiday to allow their bone marrow, digestive system, and immune system to recover.

Example II. Robster

RE:
"Reading comprehension. Try it. Also, no "normal rules of infectious disease" are "suspended." This is yet another lie from the denialists, and is an argument from incredulity/ ignorance.

When Robster, for example says that "the denialists" cry that "the normal rules of infectious diseases are suspended (in the case of "HIV/AIDS") using incredulous arguments and ignorance (I gather he teaches students at the college level somewhere), it becomes crystal clear through his language that Robster feels that an end is justified by the means even if it means he must distort or manufacture information in order to demonstrate his piety before The Church's alter.

E.G.:
"From the initial description of Poliomyelitus in 1840 (Andrew: Polio existed before this year), to the isolation of the poliovirus in 1908, the development of the first workable Polio vaccine wasn't produced for mass use until 1955."

This statement, for instance, is meant to excuse the failure of the 30-80 "HIV" vaccines that have failed, and I stress, failed (not to prevent a single AIDS case) to demonstrate evidence of humoral, cellular, or mucosal immunity, or even to stimulate T-cells, casting doubt on any claim that what has been "isolated" and called "HIV" components in those 30-80 failed vaccines derive from an exogenous virus, that has on the other hand, supposedly induced humoral, cellular, mucosal immunity, and T-cell responses in those 50 million hypothetical persons claimed to test "HIV" positive on ELISA's WB's, or PCR.
'
Instead the polio example is given as glib assurance that although it is hard to make vaccines (may take over 50 years), but finally it was "the great success story of all time, other facts are omitted, presumably not maliciously (after all, Robster, or whatever his name really is, is a teacher who is trying to educate students), but intentionally to pay homage to The Church and its teachings. For instance, although Simon Flexner at Rockafeller is credited to having "isolated" polio in the first decade of the 1900's, what he "isolated' he thought was spread through breathing, instead of feces. Then there was the great polio epidemic in 1916 where all public policy programs regarding "the healthy carrier state" became implemented in quarantines, and prevention of all children under 15 to attend movie theatres or carnivals that summer, etc. The author Paul De Kruif himself (Microbe Hunters) was trying to convince FDR before WWII to invest in public health programs emphasizing nutrition, instead of spending all the money on bombs, planes, and war, to no avail. Polio, and the way it is spread, still isn't understood. There is some clear cut issues that Robster, if not hypnotized by The Church's power, may relate as a basis for his beliefs that the "HIV" vaccine will eventually work.

1950 (September) Ralph R. Scobey, M.D., president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute. Inc. Syracuse, New York (Archives of Pediatrics, Sept. 1950) lists 170 diseases of polio-like symptoms and effects but with different names such as: epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, and others. There are also such common nutritional deficiency diseases as beriberi, scurvy, Asiatic plague, pellagra, prison edema, acidosis, and others. "No drugs, medicines or medical treatments have ever been able to cure any of these diseases and no germs have been isolated as the cause. But they all respond to fasting, cleansing, proper diet and improved circulation. The similarity of these diseases to polio is too obvious to go unnoticed. They are, in reality, all one disease with varying stages of intensity and different names. It is ridiculous to assume that polio is caused by a virus and the rest of them are caused by nutritional deficiency. Inasmuch as nerve cells react in much the same way to various poisons, further research will probably show that in these cases polio micro-organisms are not always present, but intoxication (poisoning) may be produced through faulty metabolism or by the absorption of poisons from without" (Ralph Scobey, 1950).

1951 The man who became most responsible for the view that poliomyelitis was contagious was Dr. Simon Flexner, author of the famous (or infamous) Flexner Report, which led the way to the closing of the naturopathic and homeopathic colleges in the United States. Said Flexner: "It was not easy to establish in an individual case precisely how the disease was acquired; it was difficult to bring evidence that was not at all convincing that this disease was contagious." In discussing Flexner's report, L. Emmett Holt stated: "Even five years ago, if anyone had suggested that the disease under discussion was an infectious or contagious one, it would have been looked upon as a
joke" (Scobey, Archives of Pediatrics, May 1951).

1953 Dr. Kumm was appointed Director of Research of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was funded by its "March of Dimes" program, and it sponsored the hasty development of the Salk vaccine in the early 1950s, at the height of the DDT/polio controversy. Dr. Kumm also "served as a civilian consultant to the Surgeon General . . . directing field studies of the use of DDT. . ." (American Journal of
Digestive Diseases, 20:330, 1953).

1955 IPV (inactivated polio vaccine) licensed (was later modified in 1987).

1955 On April 24, 1955, an infant with paralytic poliomyelitis was admitted to Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. The patient had been inoculated in the buttock with Cutter vaccine on April 16, and developed flaccid paralysis of both legs on April 24.

1955 (May)"With the announcement that Cutter was withdrawing its vaccine, there ensued a nationwide panic. The AMA put out the warning to all its members to stop using Cutter vaccine, although regrettably some doctors never received word. Many states and cities announced immediate cessation of mass immunizations, even though their vaccine had come from manufacturers other than Cutter. Local health departments began to track down every single dose of Cutter vaccine, which, it was soon discovered, had traversed the entire country. Throughout May and June, cases of polio caused by Cutter's vaccine spread beyond the Far West and began to appear in every region of the country. The epicenter of the devastation was in California and the rural state of Idaho. Ninety-nine cases of polio would eventually be attributed to Cutter vaccine in California, with the incidence of polio among Cutter vaccinees exceeding the textbook definition of a wild polio epidemic by nearly threefold. In Idaho, with eighty-eight polio cases attributed to Cutter vaccine, the rate was fifteen times greater. Before it was over, the 'Cutter incident,' as it was euphemistically called in scientific circles, resulted in 260 people contracting polio and almost 200 cases of paralysis. Eleven people died. A devastating epidemic had been caused by two particularly bad batches of vaccine" (The Virus and The Vaccine-The True Story Of A Cancer -Causing Monkey Virus-Contaminated Polio Vaccine, And the Millions Of Americans Exposed, by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher, St. Martin's Press, 2004).

1956 Dr. Albert Sabin tests experimental polio vaccine on 133 prisoners in Ohio.

1957 "Canada suspended its distribution of Salk's vaccine. By November all European countries had suspended distribution plans, apart from Denmark. By January 1957,
17 US states had stopped distributing the vaccine. The same year The New York Times reported that nearly 50 per cent of cases of infantile paralysis in children between the ages of five and 14 had occurred after vaccination" (Bookchin and Schumacker, 2004).

1961 OPV (oral, live-virus Salk polio vaccine) licensed.

1961 "Merck stopped shipping Purivax (its 'purified' version of the Salk vaccine) as soon as its own tests in May 1961 confirmed that the vaccine was contaminated with SV 40... Its unilateral withdrawal of vaccine from the market had not been well received by the DBS (Division of Biological Standards). If Merck recalled vaccine, then everyone else would have to. That would have resulted in public panic and would have run counter to the Technical Committee's May 18 directive that polio vaccination 'continue to be pursued with vigor with the materials presently available.' In June, after the Girardi cancer results had come in, Hilleman (Merck's science director) had tried one more time to get all vaccine production halted. That suggestion was rebuffed. Merck had already suspended production and was trying to figure out how to screen SV40 out of the vaccine when DBS tests on vaccine samples indicated that Parke-Davis supplies were also badly
contaminated. Parke-Davis now also stopped vaccine manufacture. The truth
was that by the time the Associated Press reported the 'news' in late July, both companies had not produced vaccine for several weeks. Parke Davis eventually resumed production, but Merck would soon decide that producing a polio vaccine that at times might be contaminated was not worth the risk." (Bookchin and Schumacker, 2004).

1962 "The Wistar human tissue study appeared in midsummer 1962, shortly before the human tissue study that Enders had completed at Hilleman's urging. Enders and his collaborator, another Harvard researcher, Harvey Shein, reached essentially the same conclusions as the Wistar group, with a different kind of tissue, human kidney cells. Koprowski had rushed the Wistar study into press hoping to scoop Enders and gain some publicity for Wistar. But in the end, despite being second, the Enders study attracted a good deal more attention because it was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A lengthy New York Times story on August 10, 1962, reported the Enders study:

'A cancer-causing virus has for the first time produced cancer like changes in human cells... Changes that the virus produced in cultures of human kidney cells included greatly accelerated growth patterns and chromosomal aberrations...'

"By the fall of 1962, as news of the most recent SV40 research spread, the anxiety that had been growing in scientific circles about the simian virus rearched its zenith. 'It was the worst thing in the world,' Hayflick recalls of the news. 'Please tell me: What else could we find worse in monkey kidney cells?' In Britain, Wellcome Laboratories decided to stop inactivated vaccine production and switch entirely to live polio vaccine production."

"As in the United States, however, both the British and Canadian governments decided not to recall old stocks of Salk vaccine. Britain had a surplus of 6 million injections in 1961. In Sweden, the concern was about Sabin-type vaccine. There were plans to give monkey gamma globulin to four thousand children who had received oral vaccine in the belief that it would contain antibodies against any simian viruses, including SV40, which might have contaminated the oral doses. In the Soviet Union, site of the most extensive use of Sabin's vaccine, tests were conducted to determine the spread of SV40. Many of the technicians and scientists involved in Chumakov's massive vaccination trial proved to have been infected by the virus, and the Soviets were now fearful of SV40's possible
long-term effects. Among American research and health officials, a joke with gallows-type humor began to make the rounds: The Soviets would lose the 1964 Olympics because their athletes would all have tumors thanks to SV40" (Bookchin and Schumacker, 2004).

1972 Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine.

1992 America's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta admits in that the polio live-virus vaccine had become the main cause of polio in the United States. Specifically, the CDC asserted that, from 1973 to 1983, 87% of all (non-imported) cases of polio resulted directly from vaccine administration. Even more amazingly, it was asserted that every non-imported case of polio in the United States from 1980 to 1989 was vaccine-induced (Strebel, P. M., et al., Epidemiology of Poliomyelitis in the U.S. One Decade after the Last Reported Case of Indigenous Wild Virus Associated Disease, Clinical Infectious Diseases, CDC, February 1992, pp. 568-579).

1997 Polio is not eradicated by vaccination, but likely lurks behind a disease redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis.......According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That's where it is thought that 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination.

"Today, various other forms of the word "polio" are still used to describe the effects of poisoning, though usually with regard to paralysis in animals. A search of Medline ("polio" and "poison") finds about 45 contemporary articles where poisoning causality is attributed to polio. The terminology found was: "polioencephalomalacia", "poliomyelomalacia", "polyradiculoneuritis", "neurological picture similar to that of poliomyelitis", "polioencephalomyelomalacia", "lumbal poliomyelomalacia", "cerebrocortical necrosis (polioencephalomalacia)", "Lead poisoning in grey-headed fruit bats (Pteropus poliocephalus)", "multifocal-poliomyelomalacia", "spinal poliomalacia", "Polio and high-sulfate diets", "atypical porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis: possible interraction between enteroviruses and arsenicals", "polioencephalomalacia and photosensitization associated with kochia scoparia consumption in range cattle", "bovine polioencephalomalacia." Viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS), Chinese paralytic syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis (Jim West, Health and Research Publications, http://www.geocities.com/harpub/).

2002 Figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed there were 1,920 confirmed cases of polio reported by laboratories in 2002, up from 483 the previous year.

2004 (February) West Africa polio campaign is boycotted by Nigerian states.
A mass poliomyelitis vaccination campaign got under way to immunise 63 million children across west Africa but was boycotted by four predominantly Muslim states in Nigeria, where leaders claim the oral vaccine causes sterility and spreads AIDS BMJ (328:485 2004). The west African campaign was intended as a final push to stamp out the disease in the region and is part of the World Health Organization's 15 year drive to halt transmission of the poliomyelitis virus across the world by 2005. According to Dr Haruna Kaita, the head of the medical team that conducted the test in India, the vaccines contain "undeclared contaminants that can cause malfunctioning of the testes and cause infertility in women." The team also found "some toxic substances."

"Polio controversy started long ago," said Dr Kaita. "If you find one batch defective, you should condemn all batches. What these people [proponents of the vaccine] are saying is unethical, illegal, and criminal, and they know that these things are contaminated and they have the potential to cause human hazards. They should be banned rather than cause diseases in innocent children."

2006 (April) Associated press releases article claiming that Bangladesh will vaccinate about 18 million children aged 5 and under to combat polio, which recently re-emerged after authorities believed it had been eradicated five years ago, the country's health minister said Saturday. Bangladesh carried out extensive vaccination programs in 1995-2004, with the last polio case reported in August 2000, according to the government and WHO.

2006 (Sept 1) Polio reported on the rise in Nigeria Lagos, Nigeria despite near-universal vaccination. Nigerian authorities on Friday reported a sharp rise in the number of polio cases in Africa's most populous country over recent months, despite a government immunization drive.

"A total of 784 cases of the disease were registered in 17 states at the end of July, the National Programme on Immunisation said. In June the figures were 501 cases in 15 states, compared to 244 cases in 18 states for the same period in 2005, it said in a statement."

"From June 29 to July 3, Nigerian health officials in collaboration with United Nations health agencies launched an ambitious five-day Polio Plus immunization campaign of 10-million children in northern Nigeria aimed at eradicating the deadly disease from the country by the end of 2006."

2006 (December) Despite the 2004-5 west African polio eradication campaign intended as a final push to stamp out the disease in the region and is part of the World Health Organization's 15 year drive to halt transmission of the poliomyelitis virus across the world by 2005, the CDC, and WHO report that Nigeria now leads the world in new polio cases http://www.who.int/vaccines/immunization_monitoring/en/diseases/poliomyelitis/afpextract.cfm.

-Country: Nigeria
-Year: 2006
-AFP cases (acute flaccid paralysis) reported: 4937
-Non-polio AFP rate:6.7%
-AFP rate with adequate specimens: 88
-Total confirmed polio cases: 1044
-Wild-virus confirmed polio cases: 1043
-Polio cases attributed to vaccine: 9

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 15, 2007 2:49 AM

So Dr Maniotis, it is apparent you do not believe polio virus exists. You do not believe HIV exists.

Perhaps you could save a bit of time and just list in alphabetical order all the other viruses you think do not exist, so we can all see exactly where you stand. (Or you could just cut and paste to someone like Lanka if you prefer). You seem to be quite the cut and paste expert; its a pity your comprehension of the material is so poor.

Posted by: DT | June 15, 2007 9:02 AM

So hard to follow the discussion with Mr. Troll and his sheets of quotes and his gallon jug of paste. But I want to answer Kevin, I want to thank you for being so gracious with me and not giving me the vitriol I deserve like you said.

I read Overdosed America by John Abramson last night. We can agree on something else, Kevin, its a very good book. Thing I like about it, is how Abramson is so common sense. I wrote yesterday of course there are problems with medicine and no one denies it. Abramson talks about some of them. I think he goes too far sometimes like that whole idea of America being so low on all the scales despite high health care spending. That's fallacy. You can't compare Japan or Sweden to USA. Japan, Sweden have very low immigrant populations homogeneous societies very little race problems poverty etc. etc. The USA is alot more diverse and that's very good but there are alot of injustices here and including in health statistics.

Mainly Abramson has some good ideas though. I'm trying to understand why you agree with him, Kevin. You sad that
I'm not saying that ALL doctors are ignorant shills...just the majority ;-)
I know your joking but Abramson doesn't say that even he even dedicates his book to all the health care professionals who are out there helping people. He doesn't call anyone a shill or anything he's against a system and incentives that can corrupt.

Abramson has alot of good things to say and he's fair.
From the book "Commercial funding does not necessarily impugn the conclusions of the study group."

Finally Kevin I wonder what you thought about this quote.
"The mortality rate from AIDS in the developed countries has gone way down as new drugs have been developed that control HIV infection."
Thats on page 43 from Dr. Abramson Harvard physician himself.

Posted by: Adele | June 15, 2007 10:55 AM

Yeah I wonder what he'll post next. Maybe something on window-tinting? Hermaphrodite frogs? A list of articles on joint pain? But maybe he covered all that already I really can't read Abramson AND Maniotis in one night.

Posted by: Adele | June 15, 2007 11:54 AM

Previously, I wrote...If you weren't such a toady, Robster, perhaps you could connect the dots..., which you obviously found mildly offensive; however, allow me to demonstrate the veracity of my accusation using your latest response.

Since you claim to be such a masterful logician, Robster FCD, let's examine the logical connections inherent to your position, as provided by your own stated claims:

Statement #1...
"Of course, proper prevention would cut into the need for quite as many drugs, just one of the benefits of prevention.

Statement #2...
"The root is that people choose to live unhealthful lifestyles, and the system doesn't work to change that."
_________________________________

Your conclusion (statement #3)...
"It isn't the drugs or the pharma profits that are the root problem."

Your conclusion does not logically follow from the supporting claims you have made. In fact, your reply was an exemplary lesson in arguing around contradictions to save an unjustified false belief. Thank you for providing such a great example. As such, my accusation is valid. You harp on and on about prevention, which, incidentally, I agree is the key to improving health care, but you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that pharmaceutical companies play a major role in keeping modern medicine from achieving such improvements in preventative medicine, primarily because it would be financially disastrous for them. And that is the "broken promise of modern medicine" and no amount of denial will change that logical fact.

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | June 15, 2007 1:00 PM

Kevin, do you care to comment on Dr. Abramson's antivirals view or is he just another pharma shill to you?

Posted by: Adele | June 15, 2007 2:00 PM

To DT. I don't necessarily believe in homeopathy. It was Chris Noble that knighted me a homeopath-ologist-for which I thanked him, and posted my new title on my office door to intrigue my co-workers. I think it could be a new field.

If you read about the theoretical basis of homeopathy, and vaccines, you will find that they are one and the same. I'm not a fan of either homeopathy or allopathy-as neither one have made much of a dent in cancer, acquired immune difficiency diseases, or any other major human health issue. I was simply asking Tara why she thumbed her nose at homeopathic theory when she appears to be a vaccine advocate and Jennerian groupie when in fact the basis of both innoculation and vaccination is "the law of similars" as I described above, which is rooted in homoeopathic thinking.

You ask what viruses I believe in and don't believe in so that you can dismiss every piece of information I have presented to you learned people who know how EJ died.

However, I would like to emphasize that it isn't about what I believe in...its about what evidence there is to link a virus to a disease in some consistent manner that makes sense. Even an infant who shakes a rattle, and then sound is made, can believe that the shaking of the rattle causes the sound. Put the virus in pure form into an animal (or human by accident) and show that they will become ill, and that it has a pathogenic mechanism.

For instance, when Tommy got chicken pox, my mommy took me, and all the other mommies took their children down to Tommy's house to get infected. We all got infected. I got little pox on my nose. I would bet it was filled with the virus that has been shown to be associated with that type of lesion, in just about everyone who has acquired the syndrome. I believe the scientific case of chickenpox has been established.

If you read the history of vaccination literature, you will find that smallpox was much the same in terms of chicken pox in areas of the middle east. People have documented how people "purchased the pox" and actually paid out money depending if one acquired the innoculum from 4 pox on somebody's face, or 20 pox. They would then make the lancet scars on the arm, and rub the dried pox powder onto the wound and get a mild form of the syndrome. There is evidence, therefore, that "small pox" of that era was different than some of the more devistating epidemics that wiped out 50% of some cultures. Do I believe that both of these were the small pox virus? I don't know exactly what to believe. Do you?

Do I believe that West Nile virus was isolated from a Black woman in the Nile delta in 1938 before electron microscopes even were working, because of course, as a virus, it ultimately has to come from black people doing something "animal-like." Instead, I tend to defer to Tracy MacNamara's work on "WNV" cross reacting on ELIZA's with SLE (St. Louis Encephalis), which I grew up with and which was always associated with a predictable number of summer cases of encephalitis. Therefore, I'm not a big fan of the toxic pesticide industry coming by my house this summer and spraying their deadly toxic neurotoxins into all our trees so that it makes our pasta taste bad, as they did a few years ago. I don't think its good for the children to push these toxins into the environment. We even threatened them a few years ago to no avail. They doubled their speed when all us parents got out on the street to block their trucks, they came by right at dinnertime, and sprayed their shit into our open windows (that were open because it was a hot July evening).

Do I believe in hepatitis C virus? Don't know. I've never seen one (and neither has anyone else), and even if I did, I've never seen a virus cause a disease like cancer 40 years after it is supposedly acquired-same with HBV or HPV, or HTLV-I abd HTLV-II (first thought to cause increased cancer rates in those cohorts studied living 170 miles from Hiroshima). Viruses cause cancer? So do atom bombs dropped on civilian populations. Sorry to be so impious.

To Tara,
RE:

"However, even medical science doesn't say that all people who are HIV+ will develop AIDS. We know of groups of people who have been HIV+ for years, yet are apparently just fine (even without antiretroviral drugs). These are known as "long-term nonprogressors," and are a group that's actively being studied to see just how they're holding the virus in check--what is it about them that keeps them OK, whereas other people succumb in just a few years if they're not treated? Again, where AIDS deniers sees a group like this and goes, "aha!! These people aren't dying of AIDS, therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS!", infectious disease epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists see this as an expected outcome that we see with every other pathogen, and an opportunity to better understand the host/virus interaction."

"Similarly, there are people who are repeatedly exposed to the virus, but never seroconvert."

Really?

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | June 15, 2007 4:25 PM

Andy said:

Do I believe that West Nile virus was isolated from a Black woman in the Nile delta in 1938 before electron microscopes even were working, because of course, as a virus, it ultimately has to come from black people doing something "animal-like."

Adele said:

I hope everyone had a chance to read the vile racism of the denialist and see who these people really are. As a virus, it ultimately has to come from black people doing something "animal-like."

Since no one in the medical community I have EVER heard of EVER said ANYTHING like that, not even anything close to it, why would anyone write such a beyond offensive ugly thing? Well there's the old strawman but I think its more than that. It's like denialists are so full of hatred and bitterness and have these nasty thoughts and ideas and can't express them so they pretend someone else, an enemy of theres, is saying them. That way they get to say what they really think and at the same time blame it on someone else they don't like. It's sick. Really, really sick when a guy lets something like that sentence stand beside his name. A shame to himself and his family and his institution.

Dear Adele,

before you quickly jump to conclusions and shout to the world that Andy is a dirty racist, perhaps you might consider that you have misinterpreted his intended meaning, which was sarcasm. It is surprising that you would make such a great error in interpretation.

Of course, Andy is surely no racist. However, Andy surely is attributing the rascism to you, Adele, and others like you who believe that West Nile, like HIV, MUST have orginated in black people. The racist part comes in where your theories of West Nile or HIV for example attribute various specific characteristics to black people which then results in further spread of the microbe (such as an overactive sex life or sexual contact with animals).

Perhaps Adele should read a few articles from the recent science literature concerning the origin of HIV. They are all perfect examples of racism in action.

Better yet, take a look in your own back yard, here on this BLOG

A Quote from Aetiology; a discussion of how HIV originated in african monkeys and "jumped species" to africans via the sexual route.

I wonder if there is reason to suppose that "butchering or consumption of bush meat" led to interspecies transmission (of HIV ) rather than the obvious route of sexual contact. "Obvious?" Sexual contact with animals is something you consider more ordinary than hunting and eating them? Man... I suppose we don't want to know details about your lifestyle, do we?

I rest my case.

Posted by: Forty Mules and a Plow | June 15, 2007 7:36 PM

Racist you say!

I believe the term used was "NATIVE," and although the ref I remember was 1938 it was actually 1940. So sorry to get the date wrong. But by 1940, I'm sure you infection people agree that there had been plenty of time to do sucrose density gradients for viral isolation along with EM and pathogenicity studies (making healthy animals develop the disease from the sucrose density isolate that was photographed as being a relatively pure viral isolate), just like with "HIV."

Smithburn KC, Hughes TP, Burke AW, Paul JH. A neurotropic virus isolated from the blood of a NATIVE of Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1940: 20:471-92.

Indeed, my comment wasn't sarcasm-my comments tried to convey the disgust regarding YOUR continuing vile racist policies of "HIV," in context and with respect to your "risk groups," with respect to the proposed circumcision of every African male living on the entire African continent (who are "waiting in line just eager to get circumcised as the New York Times and other propagandistic outlets released before Bailey even published his data), with respect to smearing microbicides on the genitals of the entire African continent (as Moore and others have proposed by virtue of their "HAIL Mary experiments" that have only unfortunately led to the discontinuation of at least two CDC-publicized microbicide trials, because their microbicides increased the rate of "HIV" infection in the genitally-smeared Africans, with respect to "Hep B" and Australian aboriginals, and, as I posted to earn the term "racist," "West Nile Virus" being isolated from a Native Ugandan.

E.G.

"The "cryptic argument," that every person on the planet must be vaccinated because the hepatitis B "virus" can hide in cells in "chronic carriers" for decades without causing clinically detectable disease, and then mysteriously, decades later, "cause" hepatocellular carcinoma, ignores the fact that seropositivity for the hepatitis B antigens may not have any-thing to do with serum hepatitis. In the vast majority of seropositive individuals without liver disease, the presence of the HBV markers may represent non-specific markers of immunological stress, or merely represent a normal genetic polymorphism, as was originally thought by Baruch Blumberg (who discovered the Au antigen, HbsAg, in the blood of a black Australian aboriginal, and of course was awarded the Nobel Prize for finding that virus in a Black person, that he shared with NIH's former Neurobiology Program director, D. Carlton Gajdusek--the discoverer of the so-called "slow virus" prion diseases-who as the head of the NIH's Neurobiology Program, and who rescued the failing virus-cancer hypothesis (not as skillfully as Gallo did however with HTLV-III), before he plead guilty of course to multiple counts of pedophilia and child sexual abuse for his habit of shipping over some of the subjects he studied in New Guinea to his home in Maryland.

Washington Free Press, #66, 2003]
http://www.wafreepress.org/66/crimeOfBeingPoor.htm

"Sex Crimes"

"The past decade has seen the demonization of sex criminals. Sex offenders must register with police and face a host of other restrictions. But unlike crimes committed mostly by the poor, sex crimes still allow for extremely lenient sentences of probation and suspended sentences, with judges and prosecutors deciding who gets these light sentences. It never hurts to be wealthy when convicted of a sex crime. With the exception of drunk driving, no other crime cuts across class lines more frequently than pedophilia. Yet what spurs judicial and prosecutorial outrage when committed by the poor, provokes little more than yawns when committed by the wealthy and well heeled. Daniel Gajdusek won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1976 for his research in slow viruses that attack the body, such as mad cow disease and AIDS. In 1997 Gajdusek, then 73, pleaded guilty in Maryland to two counts of child sex abuse for molesting a 16-year-old boy he had brought to the US from the Pacific Islands, where he had conducted most of his research for decades. Gajdusek was sentenced to 30 years in jail but then had all but 18 months of the sentence suspended by circuit court judge Jim Dwyer."

All told, starting in the 1960s, Gajdusek brought 56 children, mostly boys, from the Pacific Islands to his Maryland home, ostensibly to educate them. At least five boys claimed that Gajdusek molested them. Gajdusek served little less than a year in jail. But his lenient treatment didn't stop there. Within hours of being released from jail in 1998 Gajdusek left for France, where prosecutors agreed to let him serve his five-year probation unsupervised. Gajdusek's lawyer said he would continue his "scientific work" there. Presumably poor pedophiles that don't have Nobel prizes would have had to serve their probation sentences in the US, and register as sex offenders with the attendant hassles that that entails. That Gajdusek used his "work" as a ruse to perpetrate his sexual abuse of children for almost four decades was not mentioned by the court or prosecutors who frequently raise the topic in other contexts."

Its not that I don't believe that that child sexual abusers aren't worthy of deep respect and Nobel prizes for their science that postulate