Recently, the BBC posted an article soliciting opinions about whether African traditional or alternative medicines have a role in combatting AIDS. Not surprisingly there were a lot of credulous responses saying yes, but one response was more on target:
BBC, this question "Can herbal medicine combat Aids?" to me is a big joke. HIV death rate in Africa is growing at an alarming rate. If herbalists have power to cure people with HIV, why should they let the continent suffer? I have a number of old schoolmates who were affected by virus, their families took them away from town to villages thinking that traditional medicines would help them to survive but in vain.
Indeed. If African herbalists could cure AIDS, then why don't they?
It's possible that there might be herbal treatments that show retroviral activity, but there should be some sort of objective evidence for their efficacy before they are even considered seriously as a mainstay treatment.
The tragedy is that there is now a proliferation of ineffective "herbal cures" for HIV in South Africa because the authorities have deliberately denied effective remedies to the population (unless you happen to be a member of the ANC that is, when it seems possible to assume the schizoid stance of denying the existence of a virus/disease and depriving the population the chance for treatment, but somehow having the disease oneself, obtaining AIDS medication for one's own use). AIDS denial manifests in protean ways.
Well, the first principle of medicine is, "First, do no harm," right?
Here's harm by pharmacuetical drugs in botched drug trial.
There's hundreds more of these incidents in general -- I won't bore you the cites, unless you ask. Feel free to read, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of New England Journal of Medicine.
Recall, that the first (and only drug) used to treat AIDS from 1987 - 1996 was AZT.
And, recall, that AZT was developed in 1964 for cancer chemotherapy.
So, Orac, doesn't cancer chemo cause immune deficiency? (You would know, right?)
So, isn't it backwards to treat a disease characterized by immune deficiency (AIDS) with a drug that causes immune deficiency (AZT)?
So, maybe the African Witch doctors will give you roots, berries and herbs that may not work, but certainly they won't kill you as efficiently like AZT.
On the other hand, to treat immune deficiency, wouldn't good diet, fruits and vegetables kinda bolster your immune system?
Seems kinda basic to me.
Hank B.
Funny. Hank does the predictable. One drug undergoing a phase 1 trial and astoundingly failing does not say anything about the drugs that have passed everything up to phase 3.
Probable Appeal to "Science was wrong before" noted.
"Bolstering the immune system" is pretty much a nonsense phrase, nowadays. What part of the immune system does it help, and how? "Immune deficiency" strikes me as similar, unless you get specific. HIV/AIDS does it by attack T-Cells, IIRC.
Just to save people the trouble of clicking:
Hank,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZT
Read the part about AZT being an ineffective drug for cancer but being very effective as a preventive drug for AIDS. Heck, read it three or four times so you comprehend it.
Orac,
Two junior varsity flunkies have already responded, but I have disciplined myself not to respond to moronic distractions:)
When will we hear from you?
Hank
In other words, he can't defend his fallacies, misrepresentations, and intentional vagueness on immunity, so he hand-waves away our arguments because we're not Orac. "Genetic fallacy" springs to mind.
Bronze Dog,
According to your blog, you're a 25-year old nicompoop. Time is limited, I'd rather talk to the Man, than his deputized flunkies. Please go bugger off.
Cheers, Hank
Sorry, but I refuse to be silent when someone says very silly things, and then hand-waves away arguments pointing out his fallacies because they aren't from the person he wants to talk to.
Also, is it just me, or does this comment bear a whiff of ageism?
The health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang is supporting herbal "cures" such as Ubhejane which has not undergone any clinical trials.
It costs about 342 Rand for a months treatment which is more than antiretrovirals.
My question is that if AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is just malnutrition as the "rethinkers" claim then how can they afford 342R per month? Why don't they just buy food?
[Apologies to all in advance for the length of the following comment.]
I have resisted entering the Barnes fray on other issues but this one speaks to my professional expertise. By the way, Orac is probably off doing something useful, like saving peoples' lives, seriously. Hank, can we just have a little civility? I have nothing against you, just a little problem with your arguments as I understand them, and I do not believe that you refuted Orac's query. As a scientist and advocate of HIV and cancer patients, I would love nothing more for one of the BBC-cited remedies to truly have efficacy in HIV/AIDs.
BTW, I anticipated the misuse of the TeGenero/TGN1412 tragedy by CAM advocates, so I prepared this post over my morning coffee.
I have tried personally to have herbal-derived drugs moved to the clinic in cancer and we have recently expanded our program into HIV and HIV-related malignancies. The primary barrier is the lack of Pharma financial buy-in due to lack of a clear IP position unless, in the case of Taxol/paclitaxel, the compound is so rare naturally that a process (first extraction, then semi-synthesis) can be patented. I don't like it at all, but these are economic facts. The US NCI and NIH's Fogarty International Center's Intl Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) have several programs to try and support development of natural products derived from other countries. There are tremendous challenges due to international laws, bioprospecting agreements, and volatility of foreign governments, to name a few, that have led many of us to only use the flora and fauna of the US and North America as natural product drug sources. Hank, if you have answers to overcoming these barriers, I'm all ears.
To refute the AZT argument, its immunosuppressive effects are the primary reason that other viral targets like HIV protesase have been exploited to circumvent this problematic side effect. However, it was the HIV advocacy community that willingly supported the manufacture and development of AZT in HIV until another target could be identified.
Hank spouting off the first time:
Maybe when you stop calling other commenters "flunkies" and morons.
Hank spouting off for the second time, this time more obnoxiously:
Hank, I'm the only one who can tell anyone here to bugger off and make it mean anything; so do everyone a favor and stop blustering. If you want to spout off, I know that you have your own blog, and you're free to say whatever you want there and run it any way you want. Here, I'm in charge, and after having seen the effects of letting you run unchecked over at Tara's blog, I'm not inclined to wait as long as she did if you cannot keep a certain level of decorum.
Indeed, if you're going be obnoxious, make a pest of yourself, and insult others who comment here, you won't be welcome and it is you who should bugger off.
Now, want to try again?
Abel,
You know, I was going to write about that incident, but seeing the pieces by you, Derek Lowe, Peter Bowditch, et al, I'm not sure that I have much to add.
Orac,
To be honest, I have very little idea how to reconcile TeGenero's intention to use it both as an immunosuppressant in RA AND as in leukemia - even Derek got confused. I'd be interested if you or other more immuno-based folks have insights.
APB
The problem is, I'm not really immuno-based. I study tumor angiogenesis.
Orac,
Now, want to try again?
Sure, I'll try again.
The question posed is, Why do these African witch doctors prescribe mysterious herbs to fight AIDS?
I'll venture a few guesses:
1. AZT, the primary drug used to treat AIDS, was highly toxic cancer chemo, that often made the patient worse;
2. The pharmaceutical model (for disease X, give drug Y) has been over-extended in the West. (See, Dr. Marcia Angell book noted above.)
3. Herbs, roots and berries may not work, but they don't hurt (unlike AZT and Nevirapine and most other AIDS drugs)
4. Herbs, roots and berries may (or may not) boost the immune system.
So, if the focus is slightly altered from bombarding with highly toxic drugs a 9 kilobase retrovirus that is so sparse, it cannot be cultured, to trying unconventional methods to boost the immune system, Is this so wrong?
Please discuss.
Hank B
I smell misrepresentation and loaded language.
I smell a very transparent straw man
Anything that works can hurt. Sorry, but that's a fact of life. Medicine is about risk/benefit. Apparently AZT provides enough benefit to offset the risk in at least some cases.
Define "boost the immune system". I smell intentional vagueness, though I'm not sure about the intentional part.
I smell loaded language. But putting that aside: It is indeed so wrong if the "unconventional methods" either don't work, or haven't been properly tested.
Normally I don't jump into these, Orac can handle himself just fine, and there are other "flunkies" with more experience.
But I find myself as the next commenter after Mr. Barnes.
1. How would those witch-doctors you discuss know about the toxic effects of AZT? Aren't they basically illiterate and living in a society without a free and independent press? Is it more likely that these witch-doctors are reacting to an extreme scarcity of effective drugs in their communities? Apologies to any witch-doctors reading this.
2. You cite one book to refute a medical model of disease treatment that has worked fairly consistently, within fairly predictable boundaries, for how long? How many diseases - killer diseases like Polio, Smallpox, TB, Measles, etc ad nauseum - have been successfully treated, repeatedly, in incrementally better ways, following the "pharmaceutical model"? Crap analogy: if driving your car usually results in you successfully reaching destinations within your state, why would you try another method first in attempting to reach destinations in a neighbouring state?
3. How do you know they don't hurt? Plants don't just exist for our benefit - they have a spectacular array of defensive and physiological chemicals. Poison Ivy, Hemlock and English yew are all quite nasty if you eat them. Note that English yew is the source of tamoxifen, an anti-cancer drug. You have to extact and purify the tamoxifen to gain the benefits (and you don't eat that drug in a foul-tasting soup, either). Again, Orac knows much more about this than I do, but he's busy learning.
4. Again, please define "boost the immune system". Do you prefer to just ignore this request out of a failure to recognize it, or because your altie sources don't have a definition either? Alternately, please describe the difference between MHC and VDJ genes.
Apologies for length. No apologies for tone or girth.
Hank,
You haven't addressed my question.
Duesberg and others claim that AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is just malnutrition.
How can people with AIDS afford to pay huge amounts of money for herbal concoctions? Why don't they just buy food?
You again repeat your claim that HIV is "a 9 kilobase retrovirus that is so sparse, it cannot be cultured" after I have posted this paper.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Detected in All Seropositive Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals
The article is available free online. You have no excuse for not reading it.
Again you talk about "boosting the immune system". What exactly do you mean? The volunteers in the TGN1412 drug trial had their immune system "boosted". People infected with dengue virus can have their immune system "boosted".
Given Hank's love and respect of authority, I assume he'll be posting his CV here any moment for our perusal, right?
The question posed is, Why do these African witch doctors prescribe mysterious herbs to fight AIDS?
Because they are likely to prescribe mysterious herbs for every problem? Do you think they would try antibiotics or antiretrovirals first for some unknown disease?
And Hank, excuse me for butting in, but a small question:
Orac,
When will we hear from you?
...
Time is limited, I'd rather talk to the Man, than his deputized flunkies.
You wonder why blog owners don't answer your questions in two hours, yet IIRC you promised evidence for AIDS as an endogenous virus at Tara's blog, and it has been about two weeks. Don't you think that's a bit unfair?
So, it appears that Flunkies 4,5 & 6 have emerged:)
Regarding endogenous virus theory, the deal was, Yes, I would provide such evidence, if Noble agreed simply to have an open mind to review. He has not agreed.
Further, Noble is a demonstrated punk who coordinates his AIDS blog posts with Richard Jeffreys, an immunologist from TAC, (funded by Big Pharma) and George Carter, an "AIDS" activist.
So, I don't need to respond to him, since there's no use trying to convince paid Dogmatists (and their lackeys) of anything. It's why you shouldn't try to teach a pig to sing: it can't be done and it just makes him mad.
However, if somebody (anybody?) hasn't already been infected, so to speak, with current HIV dogma, and is willing to neutrally examine an alternative hypothesis, then Yes, I will make the effort to do so.
But, apparently, I have to first sift thru a buncha clowns, to find those honest scientists. But, I'm patient. The offer is still open, just not to Chris Noble.
Hank Barnes
Can I put "flunky number 6" on my resume?
OH NOES! He knows our shameful secret! Call the secret masters, and tell them our organisation has been compromised.
"Big Pharma".
Applause. Orac, maybe you should close the thread. Hank just won, I think.
Hey Hank, maybe you could try a direct answer to a direct question some time, you know, just to keep the rest of us on our toes?
But, I'm patient. The offer is still open, just not to Chris Noble.
How convenient for you.
I'm also thrilled to join the flunkies, although I have no idea who this Orac dude is, haven't even commented here before today.
Or do you mean "big pharma" flunkies? I study snail genetics, for chrissakes. So why not post your theory somewhere, or tell me where I can sign up for the big pharma dogmatist payroll.
Fine, I'll take you up on it. Reconcile the Jackson et al 1989 paper with your contention that HIV is:
And I'll be happy to listen and critically analyze your explanation, as much as I would any other. But make sure your explanation addresses the question Noble asked, and I am re-asking.
By the way, if you're going rely on ad hominem attacks like this one:
then you really should put up your CV so we can evaluate your credentials and neutrality. Put up or shut up (with the ad hominems, that is).
I smell stalling and ad homenim.
I smell pointless insult, guilt by association, appeal to motive.
I smell more excuses for stalling, appeal to motive again.
Sounds more like you're looking for targets of indoctrination, since you can't deal with counter-arguments. At least, that's how it comes out of my translator.
Sorry, but these "clowns" are adept at pointing out your logical fallacies and propaganda tactics. If you can't defend yourself against us, what hope do you have when full-blown scientists get a hold of you?
You have to be patient to employ stalling tactics.
Hey, I plead guilty to naivete. I appeared and then instantaneously, I was compared to a "holocaust denier," for suggesting that Dr. Duesberg was probably right. My bad for being naive. I make mistakes once, but not twice.
So, now, seasoned pro that I am, I have learned that many (most?) here, aren't honest scientists, debating and discussing issues, discerning evidence, and falsifying view-points. Often, they are juvenile bench-warmers, who support dogmatic opinions under anonymous nicknames (Bronze Dog, Shygetz, etc.)
Some are real-life people (Chris Noble), who are connected, directly or indirectly to the AIDS industry and are simply protecting their turf. So, that's a dry hole, too.
Hey, like politics, science ain't bean-bag. I acknowledge that. It's rough. But, rather than waste time and energy with flunkies/stooges/lackeys, I'd rather have meaningful discussion with people who at least have credentials, like Orac and Tara, and at least purport to analyze data in a neutral fashion.
So, I think I've kinda, sorta figgered out the dynamic here, the tone, the structure, some of the politics, some of the personalities, but my objective -- to find some honest clear-minded scientists -- has not yet been achieved.
I'm patient, though.
Hank Barnes
p.s. No, Shygetz, I'm not posting my CV.
p.p.s. The Jackson paper cited by Noble is interesting, and I'm reading it.
Funny. We're asking you for evidence of your hypothesis, the very core of the issue, you stall, and we're the ones no interested in discussing issues, discerning evidence, or falsifying view-points?
Genetic fallacy again? Stop changing the subject to us. Focus on the arguments, not something irrelevant like my online name.
More appeal to motive and guilt by association.
Well, considering all the logical fallacies and propaganda tactics you've employed thus far, I doubt you'd find one in the mirror.
Interesting. For all you know, I am a leading virologist who is broadly published and cited in my field, and yet you assume I am juvenile simply because I do not take your word as divine truth, and demand that you argue logically instead of relying upon obfuscation and name-calling? This, again, leads to the question "Then just who the hell are you?" Just for you, we will have to change the aphorism to "the pot calling the spotless while linen cloth black".
Actually, recheck the thread--no one here has called you a holocaust denier. However, it is in a similar vein--a person advocating a vocal minority that is not refuted by the vast weight of the evidence, and that damages or potentially damages a vulnerable population. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis is supported by the mass of the evidence by the epidemiology, the virology, the pharmacology, and the biochemistry. And history has shown that you are prone to making the same mistake multiple times (e.g. your previous misinterpretation of the Padian et al article at the Aetiology blog).
I am an honest, clear-minded scientist. Much like Orac, I choose to keep my online comments ananymous to keep them seperate from my professional life (especially important due to my employment by a government research entity), but Orac could probably tell you from my IP registration that I am a scientist. Most scientists are both honest and clear-minded. Which leads me to believe that you define "honest and clear-minded" as "credulous and uncritical". Good luck finding a scientist like that--they are as rare as an HIV-AIDS denier.
B-Dog,
You forgot the "holocaust denier" remark directed at me, outta the box.
I went in playing by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules -- but you jokers play by street fighting rules. My bad for being naive, but I won't mistake the twice.
How's the garage band going?:)
Hank
And I disagreed with the Holocaust denier remarks. Of course, even if I did make one, or agreed with them, that wouldn't matter at all. So get back on topic: Present your evidence, so we have something to talk about.
And I disagreed with the Holocaust denier remarks
Oh, really? Where were you when they were being hurled?
On February 14, 2006, I first entered the world of Science Blogs with these 2 fine entries:
Hello Dr. Harvey!
You mentioned me above regarding the famous Padian paper!
I was just reviewing it last week, so I have the salient facts at my cyber fingertips:
1. It was the longest and largest epidemiological study of heterosexual tranmission of HIV (1986-1996);
2. For 10 years, it followed 175 discordant couples, who had a lotta sex. "Discordant" means for each couple, 1 person was HIV+, and one was not.
3. So, obviously, if you're gonna have lots of sex with an HIV+ person, you're gonna get the virus, get AIDS and die, right?
4. After 10 years, the scientists found NO seroconversions.
5. The couples who used condoms, did not transmit the virus
6. The couples who failed to use condoms, did not transmit the virus
7. The couples that exclusively engaged in vaginal intercourse did not transmit the virus;
8. In fact, 39% of the couple engaged in anal sex -- they too did not transmit the virus.
The only logical, scientific conclusion from the Padian report is that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease.
Indeed, How can you have a sexually transmitted disease, that is not transmitted by sex?
If anyone here disputes any of the fact I've recited above re Padian, please feel free to read the paper and tell me where I've erred.
More importantly, assume my recitation of the paper is true. Then, what logical, scientific conclusion would YOU reach regarding HIV?
Fondly,
Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | February 14, 2006 01:11 PM
Hello, Tara!
Nice blog, you are one smart babe!
2 simple questions, both of which are purely scientific:
1. If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, please cite the actual peer-reviewed published paper that established this connection. It probably was published in the early 1980's.
2. If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, what evidence would falsify this contention?
Hammerin' Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | February 14, 2006 01:19 PM
Then, from the sidelines, we get this nice response by a fellow named Orac, whom I hadn't ever met:
Oh, goody, Tara. You know you're really hitting a nerve when trolls like Hank Barnes (a regular fixture on Dean Esmay's blog and an annoyance that MUSC Tiger had to slap down a while back) start showing up and making pests of themselves.
You could bury this guy in a mountain of papers supporting the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS and he'd still cherry pick one bit of data that casts a little bit of doubt on the connection, while ignoring the hundreds of papers supporting it. The comparison to creationists is quite apt; he uses the same fallacious argument of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus, meaning one thing mistaken equals all things mistaken, taken from the legal principle that if a witness lies in one thing that he can be assumed to be unreliable in all. The problem is, this is a legal, not a scientific, principle. The literature is littered with papers whose results were later shown to be either incorrect or only partially correct. In most cases, being incorrect doesn't mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Just as creationists try to find bits of data that seem to cast doubt on evolution (but never enough to falsify it, one must note) and ignore the mass of data that supports evolution, HIV/AIDS denialists try to find bits of data that seem inconsistent with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, ignoring all the other data that is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.
Posted by: Orac | February 14, 2006 05:15 PM
So, B-Dog, the unpleasant tone was set early and often (Orac wasn't the worst, just the best example), which requires me to adjust accordingly.
Hank B
Apparently that was at a different place than I was thinking of.
So, you're required to perform a tu quoque, rather than behave civilly.
Also, from Orac's post it sounds like he was describing your method of argumentation, and you're adding to his case by posting the way you're posting now.
But I digress from this pointless distraction. Drop the subject change and talk about the evidence.
I had a couple of minutes between meeting sessions, and I couldn't resist taking a moment to point out that here Hank is using a very easy-to-identify pre-emptive ad hominem known as the "Pharma Shill" gambit as an excuse not to answer. He claims he's not an altie, but he sure does like to use some of their common logical fallacies.
And Bronze Dog is right: It is indeed ironic that Hank almost never fails to support what I say about his commenting habits by presenting more examples to back me up. Hank's complaints aside, though, I've actually been amazingly tolerant of his antics thus far, with only the occasional snarky comment in a moment of weakness. Of course, Hank then feels free to call other commenters "flunkies" (and "morons") to his heart's content and use his view of them as "flunkies" as an excuse not to answer them, all the while ragging on me for one instance when in a moment of annoyance I rather mildly pointed out that he's a bit of a troll and nuisance who's gotten had gotten himself banned from a blog. Any bets on how long he'll continue to use that one quote by me as an excuse to insult others and dodge their questions?
As they say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
Off to a session about the role of nutrition in cancer treatment...
Any bets on how long he'll continue to use that one quote by me as an excuse to insult others and dodge their questions?
Why not apologize for it? Why not insist that your commentators not call me or anyone "Deniers" or "Denialists" -- a vicious, McCarthy-ite charge, if ever there was one?
Why not raise the standards of civility?
Why not stop disparaging Alties, Anti-Vacc guys, ID guys, George Bush et al., and, instead, engage their arguments and try to win on the merits?
The problem you have here, Orac, is a herd mentality exhibited by folks who are supposed to follow evidence, without favor or bias, and plot the points, before they draw the graph.
I expect this in politics, and the media. But I expect more from scientists.
Hank Barnes
Off to a session about the role of nutrition in cancer treatment...
Nutrition in cancer treatment? Sounds kinda altie, to me.
Abel Pharmboy,
I apologize for not responding earlier to your post. I must have missed it, in the midst of heated ad hom exchanges.
It is a model of decorum, Sir, and you are to be commended. I will follow your lead, and hope others will too.
You wrote something at the end:
To refute the AZT argument, its immunosuppressive effects are the primary reason that other viral targets like HIV protesase have been exploited to circumvent this problematic side effect.
I'm not sure this refutes any argument I made. I asserted only that AZT is immunosuppressive and was the primary drug for AIDS patients from 1987 - 1996. I fully agree that protease inhibitors were developed after AZT.
You seem to agree. Let me ask a clear question:
In your view, did AZT have immunosuppressive effects?
However, it was the HIV advocacy community that willingly supported the manufacture and development of AZT in HIV until another target could be identified.
That's true. I agree with it. The advocacy groups wanted any drug to treat AIDS, and said drug happened to be AZT. But it was the medical/scientific establishment's duty to advise them that the drug was highly toxic cancer chemotherapy, right?
As I recall, in 1987, AIDS patients were given life-time prescriptions of AZT, which is probably more than a person's liver (or immune system) can take.
I appreciate your comment and hope to continue this dialogue in the same gracious manner, in which you initiated. I wish I had seized upon it earlier as well.
Sincerely,
Hank Barnes
Hank,
We should probably do this over at my blog but, right now, we're so deep into Orac's place that it's probably only us three who are reading this.
I haven't had the pleasure of learning your precise scientific background, so my apologies if the following is either too complex or too pedestrian.
I believe that I was born the year (1964) that AZT was first synthesized and investigated for chemotherapeutic efficacy by Nobel laureates, George Hitchings and Gertrude Elion, at what was then Burroughs-Wellcome. Even after spending some time in a medical library with real print literature that is hard to find online, I conclude that it was never developed as a cancer chemotherapeutic because its host toxicity was too close to the concentration range that killed cancer cells. However, work 20 yrs later (below) suggested that it was a highly selective inhibitor of HIV reverse transcriptase. Fortunately, Elion and Hitchings made an amazing number of other contributions (6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, pyrimethamine, trimethoprim, acyclovir) that made important headway in treating cancer and viral/bacterial infections, as well as the first immunosuppressant for organ transplants. I stand in awe of what they accomplished, especially since some of their work on antimetabolites preceded the solution of the structure of DNA.
In pharmacology, we recognize that no drug is 100% specific for a desired indication, and that the dose/concentration for each effect is the primary determinant of its therapeutic efficacy for one indication over another. This concept is even more true for drugs that treat cancer, viral infection, and parasitic infections since we seek to kill the "invader" instead of the host.
For example, the antifolate, methotrexate, was first developed as an anticancer agent. However, it was recognized over time that doses lower than anticancer doses of methotrexate could suppress the immune system in atuoimmune disorders like psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. Hence, low-dose methotrexate suppresses some measures of immune function while higher doses can treat cancer. My 96-year-old grandmother successfully took methotrexate at these lower doses to manage her psoriasis for about 15 yrs.
What you ask about AZT is similar and it is not scientifically valid to answer your question (In your view, did AZT have immunosuppressive effects?) with a 'yes' or 'no.' Rather, we need to look at the dose/concentration-response curves for antiviral vs. immunosupressive actions. To answer this question, I turn to a 1985 PNAS paper where AZT was first identified as a HIV protease inhibitor. Figure 4 of this paper shows that the IC50 (concentration that inhibits 50% activity) of AZT for HIV reverse transcriptase is about 0.1 micromolar. In Figure 5, four different markers of immune suppression were assessed at concentrations up to 50 micromolar. In these in vitro surrogate markers of immune function, AZT had no effect on three measures and only a slight effect on one at 50 micromolar. Therefore, we would infer that AZT is at least 500-fold more selective for inhibiting HIV reverse transcriptase vs. immune suppression. Of course, these in vitro measurements of each activity are not absolute but rather markers for what occurs in the body. But, if I were a principal investigator in 1985, I would have strongly supported the development of AZT as an AIDs drug since it had an excellent margin of selectivity for inactivating a rate-limiting step in viral replication vs. its immunosuppressive activity. It is still capable of immunosuppression but at far higher concentrations than its antiviral activity.
I don't have the perspective to assess whether HIV/AIDs pts were given "lifetime" prescriptions for AZT but I would find it highly unlikely since people are rarely given more than 90-day prescriptions for anything.
I appreciate your civility and apologize to Orac for this diatribe on his dime.
APB
Hank spits:Further, Noble is a demonstrated punk who coordinates his AIDS blog posts with Richard Jeffreys, an immunologist from TAC, (funded by Big Pharma) and George Carter, an "AIDS" activist.
A demonstrated punk?
I did respond to Richard Jeffreys on misc.health.aids an unmoderated newsgroup that he was wasting his time posting a well considered message there and that if he wanted to address his points to Harvey Bialy he should look at Tara's Aetiology blog. This was the first time I have ever responded to Richard. I hardly call this coordination.
On the other hand I do know that HIV "rethinkers" frequently coordinate attacks on blogs and newsgroups with the direct intention of flooding them with "dissident" crap and causing them to shut down.
Some are real-life people (Chris Noble), who are connected, directly or indirectly to the AIDS industry and are simply protecting their turf. So, that's a dry hole, too.
Exactly how am I connected to the AIDS industry? You know nothing about me. If you are going to use ad hominem attacks then at least get your facts straight. Did some of your "rethinker" friends tell you this. For the record: I do not work for the AIDS industry, I do not work in HIV research, I do not receive any money from any pharmaceutical company. I have no turf to protect. The only stake I have in this is my concern for the people that will be affected by HIV "rethinkers". I think Duesberg is also motivated by his concern for people and I am willing to give you the benefit of my doubt.
Regarding endogenous virus theory, the deal was, Yes, I would provide such evidence, if Noble agreed simply to have an open mind to review. He has not agreed.
What? I said I wouldn't read it with an open mind? Where?
I will read any evidence that you present with an open mind.
Stop making excuses.
Pharmboy,
You referred to AZT as a protease inhibitor. From what you write later it is clear that this is a mistake. You meant reverse transciptase inhibitor.
The specificity of AZT for retroviral reverse transcriptase has been pointed out to Hank ad infinitum on Dean's World. The fact that AZT does not cuase the specific depletion of CD4 cells has also been pointed out to him.
AZT has been and is prescribed for extended periods. Gary Stein a regular poster on misc.health.aids has been taking AZT as a part of a combo for 10 years. Before this he came close to dying from bouts of opportunistic infections.
The early trials of AZT demonstrated significant short term benefit in patients with AIDS and ARC.
The Concorde trial showed that early treatment of asymptomatics was not beneficial. There was no significant difference in mortality between the immediate treatment arm and the deferred treatment arm. It also demonstrated that AZT was not the killer that Duesberg makes it out to be. If Duesberg's theory was correct you would expect the immediate treatment arm to die significantly faster than the deferred treatment arm.
The consensus is that AZT monotherapy is ineffective after a few months. AZT resistance develops quickly and yes, the toxicities of the drug outweigh the benefits after this point.
Hank wrote:
The question posed is, Why do these African witch doctors prescribe mysterious herbs to fight AIDS?
Because there is no shortage of people dying with AIDS that are willing to pay R342 for two plastic milk containers that contain a secret mixture of 89 ingredients that apparently came to the truck-driver-turned-witch-doctor in a dream.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200603220180.html
What is the harm?
If these people are really malnourished they should be spending the money on food.
Chris, I can't believe my typo - yes, I meant AZT is an RT inhibitor. I'm out of the loop on Duesberg's depiction of AZT, but I recall seeing him speak in '89 or '90 and being really impressed that a guy of his stature would stick his neck out so publically and vehemently - at the time, he seemed most pissed about Gallo making a ton of money off the diagnostic.
Your bottom line is very accurate: rapid development of AZT resistance is the major reason it has fallen by the wayside. Targeting an already highly error-prone enzyme, in retrospect, is a formula for rapid resistance.
FYI, I am not an immunologist or ID (infectious disease, in this case) specialist, so most of my view of HIV/AIDs drugs comes from my cancer pharmacology background.
Quoting from Chapter 3 of Bialy's book:
Duesberg's initial impetus for the whole thing appears to be a personal grudge against Gallo. Duesberg seems highly prejudiced. If Gallo says AIDS is caused by a retrovirus then it can't be true.
Duesberg also though the idea of a retrovirus being responsible for the depletion of CD4 cells (that it just coincidentally infected) was highly improbable.
He still appears to cling to that belief years later after SIV and SHIV have been demonstrated to do exactly that in various primates. That is something I just can't understand. How can somebody twist their mind so much to allow that amount of cognitive dissonance? I see it in other fields but it amazes me when I see an otherwise highly intelligent individual perform these mental acrobatic feats.
PS. My own scientific background is far far removed from HIV/AIDS. I have never claimed to be an authority on the subject.
Why not, indeed?
Apparently you haven't noticed the reasons I disparage those various woos most of the time: They, like you, employ propaganda techniques and logical fallacies instead of valid arguments, and typically don't apologize when they're pointed out, or hand-wave away their dishonesty with a "the ends justify the means" enthymeme.
When a rare one doesn't start a conversation with such base methods, I'll correct them on their misconceptions while trying to be civil. Since you quite quickly jumped to the acts you pretend to denounce, including avoiding making an argument with an appeal to pity for someone pointing out that you employ immunization against evidence, I don't think you can discuss the issue.
Prove me wrong: Show me the evidence for your hypothesis, and quit whining about the incivility you cultivated.
I remember that the AZT trials was stopped early because it became clear to all involved who was getting drug and who was receiving placebo. At the time, I remember many AIDS activists were impatient ith the usual FDA processes, and started passing around info on some altie meds, all of which proved to be ineffective. But all who wanted rigorous testing protocols were denounced as ant-gay. Anyone remember the sulfate salt treatment for AIDS?
Because I did nothing to apologize for. Why do you not apologize for calling Chris a "demonstrated punk" and (in essence) a pharma shill and calling others "flunkies" and "morons"?
Because I can understand why that term might reasonably apply (at least "denialist"). I don't like the term "denier" because it sounds too much like "Holocaust denier" and don't use it anymore in the context of AIDS. Instead, I've now come to prefer the term "dissident" in quotation marks put there for suitably sarcastic effect. If others wish to continue to use other terms, I'm not going to tell them not to, although I will mention that I don't usually use such terms anymore.
More on "herd mentality":
It sounds a lot like trying to distract people from the reasons we took our stance on the issue, and pinning it on an emotion.
It's roughly in the same vicinity of "Oh, you're all just saying that because you're jealous of John Edward's powers!", an argument I encountered earlier this week. Even if I were jealous of John Edward, my arguments would still remain valid.
I'll leave it to someone else to quote Futurama.
Unfortunately, its not just African witch doctors-- check out this hucksters recent blog post for his ideas on what Americans with HIV should take, and why....oy vey
http://www.grouppekurosawa.com/blog/
Just getting caught up on all the posts, Orac.
Hank, the problem with the witch doctors, the herbalists, etc--I happen to be an herbalist--or at least a midwife with a strong interest in pharmacognasy (sp?)--is that they don't have any data to support their knowledge. Herbs can kill. They may help cure or treat (foxglove comes to mind) but ANY drug can be dangerous, and herbs are drugs. The good thing for an herbalist is that herbs are cheap. The bad thing about any herb is that the part of it that possibly helps cure or heal will vary from herb to herb, grown place to place. Drugs, at least commercially made ones, are tested so that they are consistant in dosage.
I still use herbs. An ointment with comfrey in it heals my cuts faster then any triple antibiotic. BUT--that is anecdotal evidence. I can prove it works that way for me. I can't say it will work that way for you, or Orac (don't know how well it would work on your case) or any one else. It would take a lot of testing to determine the exact dose that works for most people. However, I'm not risking my life with it. I'll use herbs, but if I have an infection I won't be using herbs, I'll be using commercial antibiotics.
By the way--I'm not a pharma shill.
Oh, my. That blog is what the Pooflinger would call a "target-rich" environment.
Oh, please fling some poo at them (search out their nonsense on strategies for lymphoma.... Folks on lymphoma support sites are directing people to these folks... and Id love to post some poo in response
Ooh! Ooh! Poo material???
I'm all over this one... once I get through the rest of my "future target" list.
Don't forget to leave a few scraps for me!
When I pointed out (on a cancer support board) that hmm, these guys had met in prison-- and perhaps that did not speak to their integrity-- I was attacked by the woo woos, and told basically that many great thinkers have spent time in prison and it was an unfair criticism!!!!!
http://grouppekurosawa.com/grouppe.htm
Grouppe Kurosawa is an organization named after the great Japanese movie director Akira Kurosawa. Interestingly, the organization was formed in a minimum security US Federal prison camp, where three of the members were serving short sentences. The Kurosawa name was chosen because the Grouppe Kurosawa members believe in the unfashionable concept of "death before dishonor", a philosophy of life that does not fit in well in our current age of greed, dishonesty and disloyalty. It is ironic, some might think, that an organization dedicated to developing non-profit medical therapies for chronic and acute diseases was formed in a prison. This is the nature of destiny, or GOD's will. None of us know why we are on this planet, but there is some reason, some purpose for our existence. Had some of us not gone to prison, the same prison and at the same time, Grouppe Kurosawa would not exist, nor would the Kurosawa kocktail⢠medical essays ever have been written.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person's thoughts simultaneously. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any dysfunctions you may experience (there is NO FREEWILL for the oblivious/undeceived disfavored). It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal's behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or "god" asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people in this day and age:::::evil made people disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of "heaven" ultimately. Too many people would do anything they thought pleased the gods and improve their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by "made guys" who strategically ply evil for the throne. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Capitalizing on obedience, leading people deeper into evil by using deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community (migration to the suburbs, telepathic communication) in the Age of the Disfavored.
In each of their 20-30-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, justifying (frequently recurring tactic) limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry:::
60s - Ironically, freeways aren't free
80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties.
00s - Escallation of real estate. You and your parents are thrilled since your $200,000 house is now worth $1 million. Well, that $5,000,000 store is now worth $25,000,000 and that $50 bundle of goods now costs you $250. They just take the $200 out of you some other way.
There are many more examples throughout 20th century life of how they ramped up claims/instilled distractions into society so people wouldn't find their way and ascend, a way to justify excluding those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet and MP3 (must pay for new format each time). They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth's axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual sex. The earth's elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
The gods are paving the way for the Apocolypse.
Nothing has changed from decades ago, since when we were all children::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. People were misled by the temptation of the gods, the Counsel/Management Team, who don't want them to go, and now are in trouble.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent's time as well.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision.
They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female eqivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. In the Old World the young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for marriage. They were matched by elders who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today's age end up in divorce court.
CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does hip hop), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential for love that makes them better, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the "bad boy", and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of "freedom" misleads them at least into the wrong way of thinking.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don't go. You are sick because you have disfavor.). Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray.
Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON'T get your sons circumcized
-DON'T have their children baptized in the Catholic Church or indoctrinated into Christianity.
-DON'T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances.
-DO teach your children love, respect for others, humility and to honor the gods.
You need to pray, honor and respect them every day to improve your relationship with the gods. If they tell you not to it is a bad sign. it means they've made their decision, they don't want you to go and they don't want to be bothered.
This is the Age of the Disfavored and you need to pray::try to appease the gods by doing good deeds. If that doesn't work you must defy if you want to go.
When your peasant forefather was granted the rare opportunity to go before his royal family he went on his knees, bowing his head. You need to do this when you address the gods::bow down and submit to good. Never cast your eyes skyward. When you bow down you need to look within.
Lack of humility hurts people. Understand your insignificance and make sure it is reflected in the way you think when addressing the gods. Know your place and understand your inferiority.
They granted you life and they can take it just as easily.
Don't get frustrated or discouraged::these are techniques they will attempt to try to get you off the path. You all have much to be thankful for and you need to give thanks to the gods who granted you the good things in life. Your family may be grossly disfavored and progress may require patience. Make praying an intregal part of your life which you perform without fail, one that comes as naturally as eating or sleeping.
There are many interesting experiences up on the planetary systems, from Planet Miracle, where miracles happen every day, to other body experinces, such as experiencing life as the opposite sex (revolutionizes marriage counseling) or as an Olympic gold medal athelete.
Pray that you can differentiate between Artificial Intelligence creating problems by thinking through you and your own thoughts. If you bow down mentally and physically, know your place, your inferiority and allow your insignificance to be reflected in your prayer and in your life through humility they may allow progress and the dysfunctions they create with the computer will be lessened or removed.
Create a goal::to be a good child of the gods, pure of heart and mind, body and soul.
They have tried to sell people on all kinds of theories, from clones to wholesale population replacement with clones. This didin't happen and is not realistic.
I am afraid people are decieved into thinking they too are clones and cooperate and engage in evil. Clones are made, people are born. If you didn't experience the one week they suggest it takes to go from fertilized egg in the laboratory to full grown adult then you are not a clone. If you didin't experience the week of conditioning they give to (evil?) clones to ensure loyalty then you shoudln't comply with evil.
I believe people who go sometimes are replaced with clones. Clones who are replaced are simply new candidates who have a chance if they do the right thing. Don't expect you are a clone. They sent people warnings in the 20th century life would change, and they subsequenlty began to alter people's DNA, make them gargantuan, alter their appearance, do extreme behavioral issues, etc.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and in some cases replace them with clones, occassionally fake a death, real death with a clone instead, etc. It's the peasant whose brain is beemed out and put into a clone host, for they say those who do not go with the body given to them are on the clock.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family's problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. The goal is to fix your problems and get out BEFORE you have children. This is why they have created so many distractions for young people:::sports, video games, popular music, the internet::to ensure that doesn't happen.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, for royalty has great favor, and your appeals will be heard. Obtain a sufficient list for some may not want to assist you; perhaps some of your family's problems are internal.
Ask them for help, request guidance, for somewhere in your family history one of your forefathers created an offense that cast your family into this pattern of disfavor. I suspect they will offer you clues, and when you decipher these clues go to those whom consider you an enemy and beg for foregiveness:::Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends.
Again through discovery obtain a respectable list in case some among them refuse to help.
Don't forget to ask for forgiveness from the throne, the Counsel and the Management Team, for the source of all disfavor began with them:::they pushed (NO FREEWILL) or requested/complied (FREEWILL) your forefather into his offense and made his decendants evil. Perhaps they didn't like him or maybe your family was among those who had to pay for the entire village. We see this type of behavior today as they single out a family member to pay for the whole family and how they singled out Africa to pay for the human race.
Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them, the ability to forgive and respect in light of the disturbing truth revealed being the final test of the disfavored before they ascend.
In the 20th century they created an environment of preditor and victim, limiting how much time everybody gets, since the victim ultimately ends up despising the gods.
I wonder if their fear of my inarceration is borne from their refusal to address black disfavor on a macro level. The Counsel/Management Team/ruling species (the gods) abuse black people so hard, from the crack epiemic to gang membership, black-on-black violence and mass incarceration of their young. They refuse to address the issue of the prison industrial complex and its wholesale warehousing of young black men. Perhaps I can force them with my incarceration.
You are sick because you have disfavor. You need to imporove your relationship with the gods. Know your place, your inferiority and bow down mentally and physically.
Temptation takes many forms::: today the gods know how bad people want to please them, how bad they want to ascend and they will ask them to do evil things to tempt them, mislead them and cost them their chance.
Bow down and submit to good. Good woudl never ask you to circumcise your son or ignore behavioral disturbances.
You are the only one your children have and they are counting on you to do the right thing.
The gods will punish your evil by making you sick. Consider it a clue.
They stated sheep are foreign to earth, animals bestowed upon us for caretaking.
And they don't appreciate them being consumed.
They state sheep are very intelligent animals who know what is ocurring at the slaughterhouse as they're being led in.
There are many favored people who consume lamb, people who could do much better if they stopped eating these treasured animals so loved by so many among the ruling species.
There are clues::these jobs are very well paid, luring whites one would perceive as priveledged and hooking them once they incurr personal obligation. Only then do they find out the truth.