Via Razib, Obama on vaccines:
"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."--Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
and Clinton:
I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. I have long been a supporter of increased research to determine the links between environmental factors and diseases, and I believe we should increase the NIH's ability to engage in this type of research. My administration will be committed to improving research to support fact-based solutions, and I will ensure that the NIH has the staff and funding to fully explore all possible causes of autism....We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out.
Ugh. At least they don't say there's "strong evidence" to support it like McCain. I can certainly get behind more research on environmental factors in autism development (and of course, additional funding for biomedical research, period), but we've been there/done that for vaccines. I wonder if either of them are even aware of The National Children's Health Study?
The National Children's Study will examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age 21. The goal of the study is to improve the health and well-being of children.
Variables examined will include vaccinations received, and development of autism will be one of the outcomes examined. What more can you ask for? Obama and Clinton's claims of ignorance on the part of the scientific community when it comes to vaccines and autism show that we don't have any real science defenders in the running.
Comments
This is why the idea of ScienceDebate2008 will never come to fruition. Obama, Clinton, and McCain may or may not actually believe this kind of tripe, but they will always cow tow to the least educated wedge of society. How would an autism/vaccine question be answered in a science debate? Probably the question would never be asked, but I can pretty much predict the candidates would be unresponsive at best.
Of course the candidates are screwed either way, if the look at the data and give an educated response, they would be branded as elitist and out-of-touch with the common folk....great now Im angry again.
Posted by: Lorax | April 22, 2008 4:04 PM
Hillary may not be fully up to speed about vaccines and autism, but at least the main point of Hillary's statement was about supporting all research.
If Hillary is elected, hopefully she will be able to follow through.
Posted by: Joel | April 22, 2008 5:31 PM
Oh no! And I voted for him! But it doesn't seem like we had any other good choices.
"cow tow to the least educated wedge of society" - its sad that they do that, but gives me hope that Obama doesn't really believe that nonsense.
Posted by: Trisha | April 22, 2008 7:27 PM
I'm new to aetiology, nice blog!
Welcome to politics. As Lorax said, they only say what people want to hear. That is the sad part. But why do people want to hear that or think that vaccines-autism are linked? CNN and other news outlets that run stories like the Jenny McCarthy's son curing autism with diet.
I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician.
Posted by: JustinB | April 22, 2008 9:08 PM
"I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician."
How about JP Moore? Would you feel safe with him at the helm?
Posted by: pat | April 23, 2008 6:41 AM
I'm sorry to stray off topic, but Pat has helped pave the way, and I really couldn't let the moment pass without a bit of amateur satire (of a "real" press release) and wishing everyone a very merry
First Rethinking AIDS Day!
Press Release
April 23, 2008
April 23 Is 'Rethinking AIDS Day';
"International" Group Comprised of David Crowe Calls for NewThinking On Anniversary of HIV Discovery, Will Need Others to Do the NewThinking for Him
Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, has established April 23, 2008, as the first Rethinking AIDS Day. For those of you who have never heard of Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, he maintains a list of more than 2,500 students, would-be writers, snake oil peddlers, dead or otherwise unemployed people, and a few scientists and doctors, several of whom actually signed a petition stating that HIV does not cause AIDS, and the rest of whom were placed on the list to make it longer.
On April 23, 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo of the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced that he had discovered "the probable cause of AIDS," a virus later named HIV. Extensive evidence from his lab was already in press, having passed stringent scientific peer review; collaborators at the Pasteur Institute in France had also been studying the virus for quite some time. During the following months and years, with the accumulation of data independently generated by research groups around the planet, scientists, the world media and health authorities recognized HIV as the cause of AIDS.
24 years later, Rethinking AIDS president, PR guy, webmaster, cook, cameraman and janitor David Crowe remains unable to read the scientific literature. This may have caused unimaginable devastation for real people who think the lies he spreads are good reasons to discontinue treatment for HIV infection and AIDS.....and for the real people who care about them.....assuming at a stretch that anyone who isn't already quite mental takes David Crowe seriously.
Fortunately for HIV-infected people everywhere, RA makes "marginal" look mainstream. What have years of scrupulously maintained scientific ignorance and conspiracy theory-based activism added to RA's, aka David Crowe's, influence? Not too much. Through its/his "events site" linked at www dot davidtriestothink-blowsgasket dot com, Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, advertises "activities": a list of people David Crowe wishes would question HIV/AIDS, "mock awards" meant to denigrate real people who actually help real AIDS patients, and "demonstrations" that are sometimes attended by more than two people, at least if you count Michael Geiger's dog. There are also links for attending "Rethinkers'" parties around the world. Par-ty time.
On "Rethinking AIDS Day", people around the world should consider:
Which is more likely? The New York Times running the RA aka David Crowe "press release" or the discovery of Bigfoot at 3:00 PM Alberta time today?
My money's on the hefty, hairy humanoid.
Posted by: ElkMountainMan | April 23, 2008 9:15 AM
Dear Elkmountain, and you too, Tara, and company. I hope your Rethinking AIDS day was pleasant. In case you did not find the time to do much rethinking yesterday, here are 10 little things to think about today!
HERE ARE 10 QUESTIONS THAT Elkmountain, Tara, many HIV doctors, pharmaceutical companies, THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, and AND HIV/AIDS specialists DO NOT WANT YOU TO ASK!
1) IS HIV PROVED TO CAUSE AIDS? More than 20 years ago, before AIDS came into being, Dr. Robert Gallo, a researcher employed at the National Cancer Institute, tried to prove that retroviruses like HIV caused cancer. With his credibility in question for failed attempts to blame cancer on viruses, he then looked at AIDS and announced that HIV retrovirus caused AIDS. Without explanation or proof, he made his claim at a press conference, thereby circumventing essential rules of scientific process. Weeks later, his published papers showed that less than half of the AIDS patients in his study had evidence of what he called HIV infection. Did you know that no research study providing evidence for his HIV = AIDS hypothesis exists today? Did you know that HIV has never been isolated from a human being? Although more money has been spent on HIV than all other viruses in history, there is still no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
2) ARE THERE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF AIDS? ALL government funding of research into other non-contagious non-viral causes of AIDS abruptly stopped with Dr. Gallo's announcement that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Although most all AIDS defined illnesses can be explained by non-contagious, non-infectious causes and treated with non-toxic regimens, no funding or media attention is paid to this avenue of research.
3) ARE HIV TESTS ACCURATE? There are NO HIV tests APPROVED by the FDA for diagnosing actual HIV infection. All tests are non-specific and unable to identify actual HIV or even HIV antibodies. Rodney Richards, the developer of the Elisa test has lectured across the country for years that the Elisa test does not work and that the new Rapid Test is even worse. Our federal government has 6 different standards that vary from one federal lab to another and even from most other countries on how to read the results of the Western Blot test. Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR "Viral Load" test has called the use of his PCR test to count HIV or HIV antibodies "an absolute fraud". Because of this, a growing number of doctors and scientists consider the tests to be dubious and unreliable.
4) ARE HIV TESTS RELIABLE? A long list of HIV tests have been recalled in the past. In 2005, the "OraQuick" test was found to be showing 25% false positives in San Francisco, though the cause was never determined. Three months later, the CDC ignored this and purchased several million dollars worth of these tests to distribute to testing centers through-out the country, and the "OraQuick" test is still in common use.
There are more than 60 known conditions such as Flu, Malaria, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis, Pregnancy, Herpes, Hepatitis, even receptive anal sex and others that can cause the immune system to produce antibodies PROVEN to register as a positive on HIV tests.
Tests considered by testing labs to be "indeterminate" are then determined to be "positive" if one is gay or in a high risk group, and "negative if one is heterosexual and in a low risk group.
5) HAVE YOU READ THE FINE PRINT? HIV tests have disclaimers written right on them that a positive result is NOT conclusive of HIV infection. One such disclaimer reads: "THIS TEST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR HIV OR AS A DIAGNOSTIC TO CONFIRM HIV INFECTION."
6) WHAT HAPPENED TO INFORMED CONSENT? Were you ever told that HIV tests can not diagnose HIV infection? People given these unreliable tests are then encouraged to hit hard and hit early with toxic drugs and lifelong chemotherapy treatments known to be toxic.
7) WHAT ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? Many of the scientists creating and testing AIDS drugs, and doctors prescribing AIDS drugs are "paid consultants" to the pharmaceutical companies that produce them. They also enjoy other financial incentives such as expense paid trips and huge stock options. All of the major pharmaceutical companies are currently under congressional investigation and/or involved in court cases, for their sales methods and kickbacks to doctors, as well as Pay Offs to the Directors and Chief Scientists of our National Institute of Health (NIH), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)--THE VERY AGENCIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM THE UNHEALTHY PRACTICES OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. Recently the New York Times and National Public Radio's weekly show, "Talk Of The Nation", exposed stories regarding payoffs to doctors from pharmaceutical companies including $10,000.00 checks in return for a promise to prescribe their drugs.
8) ARE HIV TESTS NEEDED TO DIAGNOSE AIDS? In a memo from December of 1999, The US Centers For Disease Control reminded American Doctors that NO HIV TEST IS NECESSARY for diagnosing AIDS in Gay men or other suspected risk group members. In the same memo, the CDC announced several NEW ways to declare patients to be HIV positive who previously tested negative to HIV antibody tests.
9) WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN AFRICA? In areas of Africa where AIDS is said to be prevalent, the effects of malnutrition, overpopulation, dirty drinking water, and high stress are ign(red). In many remote areas, HIV tests are not required for an AIDS diagnosis. Instead, AIDS is determined by four clinical symptoms of fever, cough, weight loss, and diarrhea! Also, Africans with antibodies to common Tuberculosis and Malaria and Hepatitis can expect to test false positive on an HIV test. The enormous numbers of estimated AIDS cases in Africa, are based on a small number of patients who test positive on non-specific tests that cross react with common African microbes. 80 percent of all notifiable disease in Africa is Tuberculosis with Malaria in second place! AND In Thailand and Asia, only the highly flawed Elisa test is given to patients to determine HIV status!
10) WHAT'S KILLING HIV POSITIVES? During the years of high death rates said to be due to HIV/AIDS, (1987 to 1995), all of the terrified people who were diagnosed as HIV positive were told they could expect to live at most a couple of years. All HIV positives during these years were also given high dosage AZT. When AZT monotherapy ended and the newer generation of drugs were introduced, the yearly AIDS death rate plummeted. A study on nearly 6000 cases of supposedly HIV related death, done by Amy Justice of the University Of Pittsburg Medical Center, was presented, and then igno(red) at the 2002 International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Spain, and found that, post AZT, and since 1995, the most common cause of death among HIV POSITIVE AMERICANS is LIVER FAILURE CAUSED BY AIDS DRUGS.
Bonus Question Number 11!
HOW MUCH DO THE MIND AND EMOTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH ILLNESS AND HEALTH? Stress has been well proven to negatively affect ones immune system. High mental and emotional stress is proven to cause the thymus gland, where ones CD-4 "T" cells come from, to shrink by as much as 50% in as little as 24 hours Though some might claim that the current generation of HIV drugs are their own key to survival, the fact is that absolutely no HIV drug since AZT has ever been placebo tested. As such, no-one knows what affect is caused simply by belief in the drugs, or because the patient who is taking AIDS drugs is then freed from a mental state of fear, panic, and apathetic hopelessness. The majority of those who were diagnosed as HIV positive and later became ill but then regained their health, even if they took HIV drugs, put mental and emotional well being at the top of their list.
Posted by: Rethink This! | April 23, 2008 11:21 AM
Here, RT, let's see if we can answer your questions accurately, and a little more briefly:
Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Nothing. What about them? No. Disease. AIDS.
and, for the bonus question,
A lot -- that's what the placebo effect is all about.
Hope this helps!
Posted by: jre | April 23, 2008 12:16 PM
"I'm sorry to stray off topic"
No you're not.
Back on topic: Sad to see all three candidates have bought it to some degree or another. Then again, are any of the three particularly appealing to begin with?
Posted by: Jim | April 23, 2008 12:21 PM
Nice copying Cathy HIVBollyx PPARGAmmaGirl, your info is like twenty yrs out-date tho!! Check out Amy Justice she doesn't say that, read about AIDS diagnosis in Africa it's not like that, tests are for testing , duh you can't say oh your gay so you have AIDS. Sheesh.
Posted by: Adele | April 23, 2008 12:40 PM
How come George Bush's "right-hand-man", Donald Rumsfeld, is a major stockholder, and was the CEO of Gilead Pharmaceuticals, which is currently the manufacturer of the most profitable HIV drugs?
No wonder Bush and Comapany were so happy to promote billions and billions of taxpayer dollars for HIV drugs for Africa!
How come the media and public never questioned these obvious conflicts of interest?
As Adele so intelligently put it, "Sheeeessshhhh"!
Posted by: Luv&kisses! | April 23, 2008 1:02 PM
The three candidates are only doing what they are supposed to be doing.
They are voicing the fear and anxiety that exists in the minds of all parents who need to have their childern vaccinated.
No We-know-better pronunciations by the medical community and certainly not by the elected politicians, is going to take this feeling of dread, that parents every where are experiencing, when they get their child vaccinated with the "approved" multi-vaccine combination in a single dose.
I would like to request a reply from this most credible of all scientific forums, to the following if possible.
Since the problem seems to involve, the combination of the three vaccines in a single dose.
Why is there not an option available, to vaccinate a child with all the three vaccines, but at suitable intervals, as had been the case for a long time before the introduction of the current multi-vaccine dosage?
Why is the commercial producers of this multi vaccine dosage so hostile to the above idea?
Thanks a lot
James
Posted by: birdflunewsflash | April 23, 2008 1:14 PM
Happy RAD ElkmountainMan
May your ribbon always be green.
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=34050
Posted by: RAD | April 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Happy RAD from CELIA FARBER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SrCaTH_oU
Posted by: Greenribbon | April 23, 2008 2:12 PM
Lucky you Tara, the antivaccers are out in force. Oh, and HIV is a big conspiracy. BTW, aliens live among us and control all the universities and so called "colleges." And my wife wouldn't have left me if Bigfoot hadn't told her to. And just for the record, I didn't total my truck because I was drunk, it was signals beamed down from satellites that made me pass out and total my truck. And some other stuff too, because shit doesn't happen there is always a purpose.
Posted by: Lorax | April 23, 2008 4:22 PM
If it helps, Sen. Obama was pointing to a guy in the crowd when he said "including this person here." It was NOT a declaration of personal opinion.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | April 23, 2008 4:26 PM
Marion,
That helps a lot. Thanks.
Posted by: Jim | April 23, 2008 5:28 PM
"Of course the candidates are screwed either way, if the look at the data and give an educated response, they would be branded as elitist and out-of-touch with the common folk....great now Im angry again." -- Lorax
Well, you're not angry enough since you're still too stupid to realize that the "uneducated" masses have damn good reason to be skeptical of vaccine research that is, after all, being conducted and funded by the very companies that profit from the outcome of the research!
In case you missed it, the ordinarily inept JAMA recently released what has proven to be a powerful indictment against such ludicrous research practices. NPR and other less-commercialized news sources, like the Newshour, offered some insightful commentary on the report, but I'm sure everyone here at aetiology plugged their ears and recited some self-esteem affirmations, in lieu of actually considering the facts. I mean just look at how ridiculous this post by Tara is when it is compared to real news stories, that have very real consequences for those of us who live in the real world--for example, say, anyone who DIED from the effects of taking Vioxx. In the least, if the unctuous ingrates here had sufficient comprehension skills, they'd realize that the conclusion from JAMA's finding are not so easily dismissed when discussing the general public's poor confidence in "scientific" research:
(From the JAMA report)
Conclusions: This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support.
Notice a trend...something about not revealing financial support seems very relevant, but I'm sure hacks like Tara will continue to shift the focus to the real bad guys -- concerned citizens and concerned political leaders who find such research practices to be the incongruous with the claims that such research is independent.
Yes, it is becoming clearer everyday as to who the uneducated masses really are, isn't it?
________________________________________
Hillary may not be fully up to speed about vaccines and autism, but at least the main point of Hillary's statement was about supporting all research. If Hillary is elected, hopefully she will be able to follow through." -- Joel
Don't count on it, Joel. This credit crisis is the beginning of the end for the reckless funding decisions that have all but ruined independent scientific research. As I've pointed out numerous times on this blog, with the same tiresome condemnations from the resident peanut gallery of course, our country is essentially bankrupt and specious researchers will soon be out-of-work.
The psuedo-elitists on this blog are in for a very rude-awakening come Fall when they not only find that the well is dry for their "research" proposals, but also for their student loan requests.
Things are about to change radically in this country, and I can't wait for the comeuppance to be doled out to all the snotty little morons who are always spouting sanctimonious drivel here at aetiology:
"Oh no! And I voted for him! But it doesn't seem like we had any other good choices. "cow tow to the least educated wedge of society" - its sad that they do that, but gives me hope that Obama doesn't really believe that nonsense. " -- Trisha
_________________________________________
"I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician."
--JustinB
Welcome to aetiology, Justin. You should fit right in if you really believe that a "scientist" being elected would change anything. Hell, most scientists are already compromising their professional integrity for political gains without moving into the explicitly political realm, where I'm sure they'd magically transform the system with their purity. If you believe that, you really should check out the link that appears earlier in this post. Ghostwriters, anyone?
No, undaunted avarice is the core value in our society, and it is beginning to cause serious consequences because the "educated elite" in this country are far less educated than they believe themselves to be. For example, I ask again...where o' where were all the leading economists (from the most prestigious universities) when this historic housing situation was developing?
Since I know that very few on this blog are capable of facing reality or speaking the truth, I guess I'll have to answer my own question. They were of course appearing all over the media telling everyone it was "different" this time...that house price appreciation was going to be a part of a "new economy" (Just like, Adele!). Why did they tell such onerous lies? Because the NAR and numerous other powerful lobbying groups were lining their pockets with enormous "compensation." End of story...or maybe not, have I mentioned that this "downturn" is just beginning?
Education in this country is absolutely pathetic and not for the reason that most on this blog believe. While it certainly fails to educate the most disadvantaged citizens, even more so, it fails to educate very few of the privileged, as well. Even the most prestigious universities are de facto "diploma mills", caring far moore about their bottom line than the "business" of educating. As such, reading the sanctimonious drivel that Tara posts never fails to affirm my belief that we deserve the horrible society that we now have.
Kevin
oh...Happy Rethinking AIDS Day to All, but especially to you, Adele. I'm sure such an event has your powerful mind churning, as usual...
Posted by: Kevin | April 23, 2008 6:25 PM
A friend of mine pointed out that what Obama said is technically true, if you interpret "the science is inconclusive" to mean "no link between vaccination and autism has been proven, but the link has not been disproven either". i.e. by the standard of falsification, it is still possible, though very unlikely, that there could be some link. This may be the best one can hope for from any politician on this subject.
Posted by: lylebot | April 23, 2008 6:27 PM
lylebot:
Before you can consider causation, you need correlation. Studies do not show correlation. It shows poor logical thought on part of Obama if this is in fact his reasoning.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | April 23, 2008 6:55 PM
Ah, I see what kind of blog this really is now.
No offense to Tara, but I realize now this not a place for people to exchange ideas about epidemiology and related disciplines. Rather, it appears this is a forum for which people can anonymously post conspiracy theories, untested pseudoscience or misinterpretations. It also seems that some people feel the need to belittle, or otherwise berate those of us dedicating our lives to discovering truth through the scientific method by calling us "elitists."
My first post is quickly followed by this one, my last. I have better things to do with my time that to argue over issues which are not science. I also will not stoop to the level of launching verbal attacks at a person when I do not agree with their ideas or beliefs. There are much more constructive avenues for discussion that that-- than the comments on this blog, apparently.
With that said, I am fully aware that many of the comments here are just to "stir things up," so I'll spend my time being more productive than getting in a pissing contest.
Posted by: JustinB | April 23, 2008 8:57 PM
Adele - I did not cut and paste anything so "my" information is neither here nor there. I would respond to the point you made but I just didn't get it. Try forming logical thoughts before committing pinkies to keyboard - there's a dear.
Posted by: Cathy | April 23, 2008 9:24 PM
Good for Obama!
People are enchanted with the IDEA of vaccines, but the ACTUAL vaccines are pretty much unnecessary.
Posted by: Mountain Man | April 23, 2008 10:54 PM
I don't think any of the current candidates have a good grounding in Science. It is also a bit much to expect any of them to try to alienate any large voting block. The question we need to ask is: which candidate is most likely to act on real evidence when making a decision. For that we have to look beyond the current retoric and gaffs to what each has done in the past.
One can never count on what is said during a campain to be entirely reality based.
Posted by: DavidCT | April 24, 2008 7:33 AM
David said something quite astute! "The question we need to ask is: which candidate is most likely to act on real evidence when making a decision".
The answer seems to be none of the American candidates to date, and it doesn't look good for any future candidates to do so either, unless foreign born people are allowed to run for office and Thabo Mbeki happens to run for president. At least Thabo had the good sense to bring both sides of an issue to the table to present their evidence, and then Thabo had the courage to act on real evidence even when it was fully against popular "beliefs" and politics.
Thabo Mbeki certainly has my vote as the ONLY head of state to have EVER looked at and "act(ed) on the real evidence" that was presented to him.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 24, 2008 10:25 AM
Hi Cathy I did not cut and paste anything HIVBollyx!!
i didn't say you cutted and pasted i said you copied stuff. Like all that stuff you said, if you read about it you find out you're wrong. Like you JUST SO HAPPENED on the same Amy Justice lie how everyone else did!!
Amy Justice never says most HIV positive people die of liver failure from anti HIV drugs. Its a lie, you read that at alive and well or some where and you repeat it ohen without reading Justice papers.
Well your other stuff is crap to so whadaya know.
Posted by: Adele | April 24, 2008 12:49 PM
Ummmm, dear addled Adele,
Amy Justice's study on 5700 hiv positive American deaths revealed that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is indeed liver failure, and that the liver failures were indeed in those taking HAART drugs, dearie. It is in her own black and white report dearie.
Now, be a good girl, and get all that monkey poop cleaned up in those lab animal cages before they get ill from living in their filth and you then blame their deaths on some imaginary retrovirus.
Posted by: Luv&kisses! | April 24, 2008 1:04 PM
I don't visit here much, but the first thing I've noticed in these coments is women's gender being used as a weapon against them. Further proof that anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the internet better be 1) anonymous and 2) male.
Posted by: knight rider | April 24, 2008 2:43 PM
"Further proof that anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the internet better be 1) anonymous and 2) male."
uhmmm.... no one and no thing is taken seriously online.
Posted by: pat | April 24, 2008 3:39 PM
AIDS is number one killer of HIV positive people.
Liver failure in people on haart can be liver failure bc of haart
or liver failure bc of some thing other or both togehter
Hm like hepatitis alcoholism drug use all known proven causing of liver failure.
Your like oh look these people all died bc of liver failure and they lived in California so living in California makes your liver fail!!
Oh but I get it liver failure in HIV positive alcohol, ID user with hepatitis is liver failure. Liver failure in HIV positive alcohol,ID user with hepatitis on haart is POISONING FROM THE VAST SCIENCE WING CONSIPRACY!!
Posted by: Adele | April 24, 2008 4:10 PM
In the mean time with al;l these "witty remarks" no one bothered to rely to the simple question in my post!
As far as Obama is concerned, here is a video that should get some chattering going:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v7015364PWgmfXBM
Posted by: birdflunewsflash | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM
"AIDS is number one killer of HIV positive people."
self-fulfillig.
"Liver failure in people on haart can be liver failure bc of haart or liver failure bc of some thing other or both togehter Hm like hepatitis alcoholism drug use all known proven causing of liver failure."
I will take a leap of faith and actually pretend I understand Adele's assumption:
In HIV Aids, people who die of liver disease die because of:
-1 part HAART and/or
-1 part Alcoholism, dug use, hep, ID user et. al.
Is this not at least 50% Duesbergian theory?
Posted by: pat | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM
BTW, living in California does make your liver fail.
Posted by: pat | April 24, 2008 8:27 PM
Yes, that's certainly where your money is. I'd put mine there too, if I were asked. But that's completely irrelevant, Elkie.
Apparently you don't realize that precisely because the NYT will never run RA's press release all people but the choosen few will nicely keep on being what they are supposed to be: herd nerds.
I think it's quite appropriate here so let me once more link to the following page which so nicely shows the facinating parallels between religion and medical science, between the medieval roman catholic inquisition and today's medical nonscience. Modern Medicine : the New World Religion
Posted by: jspreen | April 25, 2008 12:54 PM
Michael is a liar.
Amy Justice's study on 5700 hiv positive American deaths revealed that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is indeed liver failure, and that the liver failures were indeed in those taking HAART drugs, dearie. It is in her own black and white report dearie.
OK show us black and white bc No it is not. she did not study 5700 deaths. She did not study 5700 people. It was 5985 in Chorus and 881 in vacs3. There was 471 deaths. Liver failures is not leading cause of death, Amy Justice and braithwaite 2005 says a third of deaths are not of AIDS, 22 per cent from those third are from liver thats like 7 per cent!!
Her presentation wasnot promtly ignored it is on aegis here,
ww1.aegis.org/conferences/iac/2002/MoOrB1058.pdf
Go read it dont just copy lying crap off aras, alive and well.
Amy Justice says drug resistence mutations in HIV and people not taking their medicines is the biggest problem not toxic affects on liver.
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 11:08 AM
Dream on Adele.....
The words of Amy Justice
http://www.healtoronto.com/justice_liver.html
speak for themselves:
"Elevations in these enzymes signal injury to liver cells and, in some cases, to other cells in the body. The condition can result from highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART), viral hepatitis or alcohol abuse, all of which are toxic to liver cells. Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS.
While ALT and AST testing is routine in monitoring of HIV patients, elevations are not typically addressed unless they are more than twice what is considered normal. The standard remedy for extremely high ALT and AST levels is to stop or change antiretroviral medications and to counsel patients to stop drinking alcohol. Mild to moderate elevations (0.5 up to 2 times the normal level) currently are not treated.
The Pittsburgh-led study was an analysis of data on more than 5,700 participants from two observational studies: Collaborations in HIV Research - U.S. (CHORUS), composed largely of white men who contracted HIV from homosexual activity, and women who contracted HIV from heterosexual activity or intravenous drug use; and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS), composed mainly of African American men who contracted HIV from heterosexual activity or intravenous drug use.
Study participants with mild to moderate elevations had an increased risk of death that was 1.73 times the risk of those with mid-range normal enzyme levels. Those with two or more times the normal enzyme levels had a 5.06 increased risk of death. Results were consistent in both the CHORUS and VACS cohorts.
"The fact that the findings were similar in two very different cohorts suggests that these results apply to all HIV patients," said Dr. Justice. "Furthermore, the fact that the most common current cause of death among people with HIV is liver failure suggests that liver injury may be a major limiting factor in the effectiveness of current HIV treatment."
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 12:40 PM
"Up to one third of HIV patients have mild to moderate elevations in ALT and AST, yet physicians largely disregard the readings unless they are two to four times above the normal range," said Amy Justice, M.D., associate professor of health services research at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and staff physician at the Pittsburgh Veterans Administration Medical Center.
"Our study shows that even patients whose elevations are mild to moderate have a death rate that is nearly twice that of patients with mid-range normal levels. This association with increased mortality suggests that any elevation in ALT and AST should be addressed."
Elevations in these enzymes signal injury to liver cells and, in some cases, to other cells in the body. The condition can result from highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART), viral hepatitis or alcohol abuse, all of which are toxic to liver cells. Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 12:56 PM
Adele's "Michael is a liar" contribution nicely confirms the Modern Medicine: the New World Religion hypothesis referred to above and she will go to any length to keep the sloppy HIV=Aids castle of cards from falling apart.
So my message to all so-called HIV-Denialists: you can't make 'em HIV=AIDS crappers change their mind unless you make 'em realize what fears they carry around in their little black hearts.
Posted by: jspreen | April 28, 2008 12:59 PM
There is great truth in what you say jspreen.
Unfortunately the believers in HIV causing AIDS are overtaken by paranoia and delusions mostly due to their childhood belief in bogeymen under their beds that has morphed into paranoia of invisible viruses that they believe are out to destroy them and all of mankind.
They are yet children and know not what they do, as they create even more death and destruction around them, in their "fight or flight" efforts to outrun their paranoia.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 1:15 PM
Here is the study that tested Michael's claim that stopping ARVs makes people healthier. It reports incidence of liver disease (table 2).
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/22/2283
Posted by: FM | April 28, 2008 1:19 PM
So Michael when theres HIV infected drug users on haart
and HIV negative drug users, no haart
First group gets way higher liver death rate right.
oops guess not.
Kohli et al CID 2005, they had that two groups of people,
12% from HIV infected people on haart died from liver disease
37% of HIV negative people died from liver disease.
Heh heh not the first time a dumb journalist intern at a uni f's up a press release. Wanna know about Amy Justice work, read her papers rather a report on healtoronot about a inacurate uni press release.
The real words of Amy Justice
Combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) has transformed HIV from a rapidly fatal condition to a chronic disease, and their benefits overwhelmingly exceed their harms for individuals with pretreatment CD4 counts below 200 cells/μl Value in HEalth 2008
HIV-positive veterans have a higher relative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and NHL than HIV-negative veterans. For hepatocellular carcinoma, this association appears to be largely explained by the higher prevalence of HCV and alcohol abuse/dependence. Journal of clincial oncology 2006
Of the 382 deaths recorded in CHORUS to date, 126 (33%) were unrelated to AIDS. Of these deaths 28 (22%) were from cardiovascular causes, 15 (12%) were from cancer, 28 (22%) were from liver failure, and 55 (44%) were from other causes. american journal of med 2005
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 2:07 PM
See you accuse Bob Gallo that he had a press conference but his papers was already past peer review.
Then you do your Amy Justice thing with a inacurate press release on a deniosaur site and you ignore her real stuff, all the other research to.
so you are a hypocrite AND liar Michael.
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 2:13 PM
Dear Addled Adele. Bob Gallo's garbage was not peer reviewed by a single retrovirologist! It was rushed through limited review so that it would be published. And furthermore, it showed that a mere 36% of AIDS patients had evidence of RT activity and NEVER showed anyone actually even having had any contagious retrovirus in their blood.
Furthermore, the conclusion in the papers was that HIV MAY BE, not "IS" the cause of AIDS.
Only 36 percent even had rt activity Adele! And ZERO had any purified or isolated retrovirus!
That, Adele, is evidence of NOTHING. So what was even there to peer review?
NOTHING!
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Excuse me Adele, I mistakenly said above that Gallo found that 36 percent of his "AIDS patients" had rt activity that was ASS-umed to be due to a retrovirus.
The actual figure on his paper was 36 out of 70 some AIDS patients, or a mere 42% that showed RT activity.
Furthermore, Gallo recently admitted in the Parenzee trial that he did NOT acquire an EM photo of anything, and that the photos he had fraudulently used and claimed as his own, were photos from the Pasteur institutes work and were never proven to be of any actual retrovirus!
Adele, Ballo merely showed that some of these people had RT activity that is nowhere proven to be only caused by a retrovirus. And even if it was, it certainly was not shown that this RT activity was the cause of anything!
Adele, your paranoid delusions are again getting the best of you.
And I do realize that in such a state of paranoid delusion, you, as well as many others, are certainly unable to admit, let alone even consider, that you, just like many others, are quite mistaken about the entire HIV issue in your belief that HIV science is solid. It certainly is not.
Grow up, and deal with it.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 2:42 PM
Actually, I am at this point quite sure that the HIV orthodoxy is actually more terrified by HIV dissidents then they are of their belief in HIV.
Hey Adele, BOOOOO!!!
Get over it.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 2:54 PM
Adele,
Of the 382 deaths recorded in CHORUS to date, 126 (33%) were unrelated to AIDS. Of these deaths 28 (22%) were from cardiovascular causes, 15 (12%) were from cancer, 28 (22%) were from liver failure, and 55 (44%) were from other causes. american journal of med 2005
How nice of both you and Amy to confirm Peter Duesbergs work, and admit that HIV positives are not dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems.
What is NOT nice about you, is that you continue to scare people to drugs, drinking, self destructive behaviors, and states of mind that are destructive to their well-being by telling them they are going to die from HIV/aids unless they take toxic drugs.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 3:13 PM
OK. I'm like totaly scared of you and Bob GAllo is what ever you say. So what.
Doesn't change, in the study up there injection drug users without HIV are more likely to die from liver disease then HIV positive injection drug users on haart.
Doesn't change, Amy Justice had 33% of deaths from non AIDS, 22% of them was liver failure.
Doesnt change hepatitis injection drugs or alcohol are there in near every death from liver failure.
Doesn't change haart is so good HIV positive people live longer so they die from heartattacks and cancer like HIV negative people.
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 3:14 PM
Michael why don't you have some body hold the camera for you when you go on you tube, no deniosaurs in your town??
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 3:18 PM
"How nice of both you and Amy to confirm Peter Duesbergs work, and admit that HIV positives are not dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems."
Hey Ahemm. 67% of the deaths were related to AIDS. So a much larger percentage of HIV positives ARE "dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems" than from non-AIDS related reasons.
Posted by: ozzy | April 28, 2008 3:25 PM
And "non-AIDS" does not mean not HIV-related. HIV causes persistent inflammation which can lead to problems distinct from opportunistic infections. That's why people in the NEJM study linked to above who interrupted ARVs had a higher risk of serious cardiovascular, renal and liver disease. Strongest predictors were D-Dimer and IL-6 levels (IL-6 levels have been known to be elevated in people with HIV since the late 80s): http://www.natap.org/2008/CROI/croi_50.htm
Posted by: FM | April 28, 2008 3:37 PM
ozzy said: 67% of the deaths were related to AIDS. So a much larger percentage of HIV positives ARE "dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems" than from non-AIDS related reasons.
and FM said: HIV causes persistent inflammation which can lead to problems distinct from opportunistic infections. That's why people in the NEJM study linked to above who interrupted ARVs had a higher risk of serious cardiovascular, renal and liver disease. Strongest predictors were D-Dimer and IL-6 levels (IL-6 levels have been known to be elevated in people with HIV since the late 80s)
However, kids, absolutely none of your so called "evidences" bothered to take into consideration the physical effects of those who were drug addicts, stressed out, malnourished, the effects of aids drugs, etc.
The supposed inflamation and the D-Dimer and IL-6 levels and their meanings are also unknown because you leap to conclusions that this is not also an effect of some HIV drugs, drug addiction, malnourishment, high stress, or other causes.
Your presented studies never take anything into consideration except the hiv hype pothesis, and are without controls or good common sense and are completely meaningless.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 4:05 PM
absolutely none of your so called "evidences" bothered to take into consideration the physical effects of those who were drug addicts, stressed out, malnourished, the effects of aids drugs, etc
Poor Michael thats what HIV research does all ways. Amy Justice researched affects of arvs. Kohli R et al from CID 2005 did affects of drugs in drug addicts. Theres lots of stuff on nutrition, HIV. Read some of it, you will know.
When they look on drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities they find the same thing like when they look on age and co infections and sex and race, yeah alot of this stuff has an affect but HIV is the biggest one.
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 4:30 PM
Adele, nice of you to admit that When they look on drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities they find the same thing like when they look on age and co infections and sex and race, yeah alot of this stuff has an affect but HIV is the biggest one..
Well, Adele, just how much of an affect does "stuff like drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities" play in all this AIDS business?
Does it not seem strange to you that this is what was said 20 some years ago, by Peter Duesberg, whom you and others have continuously slandered and stripped of funding, in that he was quite right about drugs and stress and nutrients and the immune system?
And even if he were but partially right, do you really think he deserved to be barred from publishing and funding for these issues?
The "mountain of evidence" of HIV studies has only ever showed correlations, and not causations. Even after 25 long years.
One thing is certain.
I am far from alone in recognizing that the most rational conclusion one can make, as regards the HIV believers-Orthodoxy-and-dogmatists, is that they are completely irrational as regards critical consideration of their own data.
HIV is hyped, while all of the other obvious facts and factors are nearly ignored.
Completely irrational, don't you think?
Yet, so many of these irrational people were given PHD's.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 28, 2008 4:50 PM
I am far from alone
So get one of your deniosaur buddies holding the camera next time Michael I think you are alone aren't you. Sheesh, videotaping your self!!
Posted by: Adele | April 28, 2008 5:02 PM
Pile on me, but while "Ahemmmmmm" is certainly wrong in every sentence he's written above, "liar" is perhaps unfair. Michael is simply (and credulously) repeating the lies of others he has read on the internet. Because he lacks the education to evaluate these claims, and because his denialism precludes critical thinking and insulates him from accurate information, he can't very well be called a liar.
Also, it's important to remember that liver-related deaths have reportedly made up a majority of deaths in several HIV cohorts. But these cohorts are usually quite small compared with large cohorts like those of the ART or CHORUS studies, and may include mainly IDU. (For one example: Bica I, et al, Clin Infect Dis, 2001 February 1.)
Posted by: ElkMountainMan | April 28, 2008 6:23 PM
"Your presented studies never take anything into consideration except the hiv hype pothesis, and are without controls or good common sense and are completely meaningless."
Did you follow the NEJM link? 5,472 people were randomized to stop or delay ARVs or start/continue ARVs. The explicit purpose of randomization is to account for potential confounding variables. The people who delayed/interrupted did worse on every outcome measure, including opportunistic diseases, non-opportunistic diseases (the serious cardiovascular, renal and kidney diseases mentioned before) and grade 4 events (many of which had previously been assumed to be drug-related). An analysis restricted to people not using ARVs at the time they joined the trial showed similar results: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/586713
And here is what Celia Farber wrote in Harper's Magazine: "Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight. "
Oddly enough, Duesberg doesn't feature the study that actually tested what he "thinks" on his website.
Posted by: FM | April 28, 2008 7:03 PM
FM: Lovely!
Your study indicates there isn't a single condition in HIV+ patients, including "Non-AIDS" events, that isn't HIV-viral load-related. And not a single condition not positively influenced by AIDS-drugs.
Next Merck can market Abacavir as a prophylactic against heart attack, perhaps sprinkle it on our cornflakes after the morning yoga session.
http://blog.find-group.com/?p=371
Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | April 29, 2008 6:13 AM
Yes, MEC, the immune system does have the fortunate (or, in cases of deficiency, pesky) tendency to interfere in almost all aspects of human health. When an immune deficiency exacerbates a heart condition and is caused by a virus, antivirals may well be protective. You are the first to suggest antivirals would help against non-virus-related heart disease, though.
PS: Merck marketing Abacavir would be quite the generous gesture towards GlaxoSmithKline, who make Abacavir.
Posted by: ElkMountainMan | April 29, 2008 7:49 AM
Hehe... Sir Elkie, I thought you'd pick up on the Merck remark. My suggestion was of course that they could market Glaxo's Abacavir to make up for the recent "Vi-oopss-honest-mistake... honestly".
But considering that Abacavir alone doubles the risk of heart attack, rates of HIV-induced heart attacks must be pretty steep for Abacavir to actually improve the situation, wouldn't you say? I wonder why we have never heard about the tremendous rate of HIV-induced heart attacks and liver failures before the drugs came into play. It's very fortunate that "HIV-disease" is not only such a wide net, but also so malleable a concept as to always be able to catch the fish of the day.
Poor Rodriguez! If he had only known that viral load was such a great predictor of heart attack - better even than yellow fingers - maybe he wouldn't have gotten into trouble with the AIDStruth Inquisition over the viral load - CD4 count issue.
http://www.aidstruth.org/rodriguez-lederman.php
Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | April 29, 2008 9:09 AM
I wonder why we have never heard about the tremendous rate of HIV-induced heart attacks and liver failures before the drugs came into play
BC you don't read Claus that, is why.
N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 4;315(10):628-30.
Congestive cardiomyopathy in association with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.Cohen IS, Anderson DW, Virmani R, Reen BM, Macher AM, Sennesh J, DiLorenzo P, Redfield RR.
and SToneburner Science 1988 A Larger Spectrum of Severe HIV-1--Related Disease in Intravenous Drug Users in New York City. B4 AZT they had heigten heart and liver problems in New York City drug users most new deaths in HIV poz.
Alot easier to see heart and liver stuff now bc people live alot longer with haart but they knew it b4 azt.
Posted by: Adele | April 29, 2008 11:16 AM
FM, Thank You! I have been waiting for the opportunity to comment on this NEJM study for quite a while.
Did you follow the NEJM link? 5,472 people were randomized to stop or delay ARVs or start/continue ARVs.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/586713
Perhaps you overlooked that the study was produced by the ACTG drug trials group.
Perhaps you also overlooked that the directors of the ACTG trials are fully funded by the companies selling the hiv drugs.
Perhaps you are unaware that these groups are paid an average of $10,000 and up to trial the drugs for the pharma companies.
Perhaps you are unaware that the directors of the ACTG trials are about as financially conflicted with all of the hiv drug manufacturers as they can possibly get. Most of the directors are stock holders, as well as paid consultants of the pharma company drugs.
Do you really fail to recognize that having the ACTG groups do a trial such as this is like having a police department internally investigate murders done by their own officers?
The financial conflicts alone render this trial meaningless.
I can hear them now, scaring their patients out of their wits: "Well Johnny, I know we have been telling you for years that your virus is gonna mutate out of control if you don't take every single dose of your meds on time, but now we are gonna try to give you a break from the drug side affects, even though we are sure your gonna get sick, and may even become drug resistant by doing this. But here is 750 bucks to go get loaded on so you can forget your worries"
This trial was as poorly done as they get, and included lovely things like those who came down with colds, flus, std's, and herpes outbreaks as being "Opportunistic Infections". The group chosen to do this study had many sex and drug addicts who simply wanted the money they were paid to do the study.
Ignored were overuse of antibiotics in the sex addicts, the physical repercussions of removing someone from the drugs, the stress that was put on those who were now deprived of the placebo effect of taking hiv drugs, poor diets in the addicts who were enrolled in the studies, the effects of illicit drugs, and on and on and on.
Lovely, FM. Thanks for pointing out the "mother of all least credible studies" in all of hiv/aids-dom.
By the way, FM, do you know what "critical thinking" means? If not, please read this post again.
Posted by: Ahemmmm | April 29, 2008 12:30 PM
Wow, Adele, you overwhelm me!
Two studies of which one has the word "cardio" in the title. There now, that certainly puts me in my place.
Especially the revelatory study of IV drug users with heightened risk of liver and heart problems. If that doesn't prove rethinkers wrong, I don't know what will.
I guess soon people will live long enough (thanks to HAARTs of course) for us to be able to see the soaring rates of HIV-related deaths of Old Age. But in the beautiful study brought to us by FM and Tara's sponsors, we didn't have to wait quite that long. In fact a few months was enough to show how wonderful the AIDS-drugs were in every conceivable category.
Do you know the one about what to think when something looks to good to be true. . . ?
Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | April 29, 2008 12:31 PM
In the post above, I said:
"Perhaps you are unaware that these groups are paid an average of $10,000 and up to trial the drugs for the pharma companies".
By the way, the $10 grand and up average payment is paid by the pharma companies to the ACTG groups on a per patient, per dru