Q for the PH Doctors - HIV/AIDS
Discussion
Stumbled across this today:
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104268.htm?z=1727_00000_5024_hv_03
The point in bold really caught my eye. I've been out of the loop on current AIDS thinking for sometime now but from what I remember the one thing that was absolutely guaranteed to give you AIDS was taking an anti HIV drug like AZT.
Now, I like a good conspiricy as much as the next man, but I remember Neville Hodgkinson resigning from his post as Sceintiffic Editor for the Sunday Times over his belief that "HIV causes AIDS" is a myth - see "AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science"
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-4432801-8456668
Whilst in Katmandu I spent some time in the company of Tibetan doctors who appeared to be having some success in the treatment of AIDS - their view of it? A lifestyle disease.
I think some of the re-analysis of HIV/AIDS statistics that Hodgkinson presented in his book also indicated that one of the strongest lifestyle-AIDS links was heavy use of Amyl Nitrate - Poppers - another chemical known to trash your immune system (beware all you paarty people)
So thinking back to those governemt TV adverts in the 80's and the warning of an epidemic of biblical proportions, what is the current thinking on this?
best
Ex
the aritcle said:
Nov. 29, 2004 -- It worked in mice. It worked in monkeys. And now in humans, a therapeutic vaccine has stopped HIV in its tracks.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104268.htm?z=1727_00000_5024_hv_03
the aritcle said:
Wei Lu, Jean-Marie Andrieu, and colleagues at the University of Paris in France and Pernambuco Federal University in Recife, Brazil, tested the vaccine on 18 Brazilian patients. All had HIV infection for at least a year. Their T-cell counts -- a crucial measure of AIDS progression -- were dropping, meaning their disease was worsening. None was taking anti-HIV medications
The point in bold really caught my eye. I've been out of the loop on current AIDS thinking for sometime now but from what I remember the one thing that was absolutely guaranteed to give you AIDS was taking an anti HIV drug like AZT.
Now, I like a good conspiricy as much as the next man, but I remember Neville Hodgkinson resigning from his post as Sceintiffic Editor for the Sunday Times over his belief that "HIV causes AIDS" is a myth - see "AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science"
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-4432801-8456668
Whilst in Katmandu I spent some time in the company of Tibetan doctors who appeared to be having some success in the treatment of AIDS - their view of it? A lifestyle disease.
I think some of the re-analysis of HIV/AIDS statistics that Hodgkinson presented in his book also indicated that one of the strongest lifestyle-AIDS links was heavy use of Amyl Nitrate - Poppers - another chemical known to trash your immune system (beware all you paarty people)
So thinking back to those governemt TV adverts in the 80's and the warning of an epidemic of biblical proportions, what is the current thinking on this?
best
Ex
hornet said:I think that all blood tests are tested for HIV as a matter of routine. But because they do this without the donor's consent, then they cannot divulge the fact that someone is HIV positive.
if THEY don't know they've got it, how do the people who come up with the figures?
There will always be nutters who take the complete opposite view to currently accepted medical/scientific knowledge. Mbeki of South Africa being another one. I don't know where you got that AZT causes AIDS but that certainly is a load of bull. HIV still on the rise. If you're lucky, you live in the west where you can get medication and new drugs will be available by the time you get resistant to your medication. And you may never actually get AIDS. If you live in Africa, you're out of luck. You will most likely die in a rather unpleasant way.
As for the unknown infection with HIV, that's plain statistics. You wouldn't necessarily know you're infected unless you get a blood test. When signs start appearing you may be on the path to fullblown AIDS. But again, very many patients do not get that far these days, being kept from progression with medicine cocktails.
So let's not get started on another conspiracy thread here, this is too serious. Let's talk about Diana instead and her abduction by Martians.
As for the unknown infection with HIV, that's plain statistics. You wouldn't necessarily know you're infected unless you get a blood test. When signs start appearing you may be on the path to fullblown AIDS. But again, very many patients do not get that far these days, being kept from progression with medicine cocktails.
So let's not get started on another conspiracy thread here, this is too serious. Let's talk about Diana instead and her abduction by Martians.
mmertens said:
I don't know where you got that AZT causes AIDS but that certainly is a load of bull...
Well, it's actually quite easy to figure out - AIDS is clinically defined as the presence of any number of specific diseases (I can dig the list out for you if you want) which are known/thought to arise when ones immune system response is extremely compromised and infact has turned upon itself and it destroying its own T cells.
The current belief is that a virus called HIV causes this failure of the immune system.
Now, in a bid to stop HIV replicating AZT was developed.
AZT is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor - in laymans terms it indiscriminantly stops normal cell replication processes.
Now if my memory serves me right and it's a while since I read upon this - it also prevents the development of normal T cells - the cells your body uses to fight off infections.
So, taking AZT will stop your body producing T cells which will inevitably lead to the onset of AIDS.
mmertens said:
this is too serious.
I completely agree - what if the scientific community in its dogged determination to pursue HIV as the cause of AIDS have got it wrong -
That's an aweful lot of people that have been sentenced to death by the prescription of AZT.
best
Ex
>> Edited by TheExcession on Thursday 2nd December 22:00
Whilst a lot of what you say is true, about the role of AZT, the notion that it causes AIDS is not true.
Whilst at medical school, I also did a degree in Immunology, with an emphasis on the immune response to infectious diseases, and wrote a number of dissertations about HIV and it's consequential syndrome AIDS, therefore, I have quite substantial knowledge on the subject.
What you forget is that PRIOR to the development of AZT, people were still dying of AIDS, people shown to be infected with the HIV virus.
AZT is actually one of the more old fashioned retroviral drugs, and has been superceded by a number of newer medications, nonetheless, people still die of AIDS.
Whilst at medical school, I also did a degree in Immunology, with an emphasis on the immune response to infectious diseases, and wrote a number of dissertations about HIV and it's consequential syndrome AIDS, therefore, I have quite substantial knowledge on the subject.
What you forget is that PRIOR to the development of AZT, people were still dying of AIDS, people shown to be infected with the HIV virus.
AZT is actually one of the more old fashioned retroviral drugs, and has been superceded by a number of newer medications, nonetheless, people still die of AIDS.
Some xtra reading for those interested...
www.rebirth.co.za/azt_cause_aids.htm
www.rebirth.co.za/hiv_does_not_cause_aids.htm
And a few sound bites:
Review of the literature of the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide revealed that approximately 90% of AIDS cases in the USA and Europe are observed in homosexual men and drug users.( Fauci et al., 1998; Al-Bayati, 1999).
1. AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.
2. AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.
3. AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.
4. AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.
5. AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.
6. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.
7. Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol.
8. HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.
The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
9. The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
... results indicate that the medical evidence show AIDS is probably caused by the use of illicit drugs, therapeutic use of corticosteroids, and malnutrition. Differential diagnosis indicated that HIV is not involved
best
Ex
>> Edited by TheExcession on Thursday 2nd December 22:12
www.rebirth.co.za/azt_cause_aids.htm
www.rebirth.co.za/hiv_does_not_cause_aids.htm
And a few sound bites:
Review of the literature of the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide revealed that approximately 90% of AIDS cases in the USA and Europe are observed in homosexual men and drug users.( Fauci et al., 1998; Al-Bayati, 1999).
1. AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.
2. AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.
3. AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.
4. AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.
5. AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.
6. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.
7. Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol.
8. HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.
The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
9. The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
... results indicate that the medical evidence show AIDS is probably caused by the use of illicit drugs, therapeutic use of corticosteroids, and malnutrition. Differential diagnosis indicated that HIV is not involved
best
Ex
>> Edited by TheExcession on Thursday 2nd December 22:12
968 said:Total thread hijack here - I was diagnosed with Palindromic Rheumatism two years ago and I refused the drugs. I am managing to live a normal life by changing my diet. I no longer eat dairy products, wheat or eggs.
Whilst at medical school, I also did a degree in Immunology,
I am convinced that the symptoms started when I had a bad allergic reaction to an injection of penicillin and think that there is some mileage in the 'leaky gut syndrome' discussions that can be found on the internet.
I would be interested in your views.
TheExcession said:
Some xtra reading for those interested...
www.rebirth.co.za/azt_cause_aids.htm
www.rebirth.co.za/hiv_does_not_cause_aids.htm
And a few sound bites:
Review of the literature of the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide revealed that approximately 90% of AIDS cases in the USA and Europe are observed in homosexual men and drug users.( Fauci et al., 1998; Al-Bayati, 1999).
1. AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.
2. AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.
3. AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.
4. AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.
5. AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.
6. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.
7. Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol.
8. HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.
The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
9. The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.
best
Ex
A VERY VERY dubious website.
"1. AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses."
Yes there is a preponderance towards homosexual men, however, the numbers are becoming more even now. The use of corticosteroids in HIV patients is VERY carefully monitored and is certainly not a causative agent of developing AIDS.
"2. AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses. "
What about the tainted blood samples which contained HIV? Perhaps the fact they were infected led them to develop AIDS? Why don't 100% develop fulminant Hepatitis C in coinfected samples? They don't because corticosteroids are NOT the cause. Point 3 is answered here also.
4. Nonsense. Absolute garbage. These kids develop signs of AIDS well before they are placed on corticosteroids.
As for the rest, whoever is the author of this article, is in a severe state of denial, coupled with a pathological hatred of the use of corticosteroids. All the above points are nothing but speculation, which goes against about 20 years of hard science, and incredibly detailed research which has given us huge amounts of info about HIV.
Big_M said:
Whilst at medical school, I also did a degree in Immunology,
Total thread hijack here - I was diagnosed with Palindromic Rheumatism two years ago and I refused the drugs. I am managing to live a normal life by changing my diet. I no longer eat dairy products, wheat or eggs.
I am convinced that the symptoms started when I had a bad allergic reaction to an injection of penicillin and think that there is some mileage in the 'leaky gut syndrome' discussions that can be found on the internet.
I would be interested in your views.
Very possible. All "hypersensitivity" reactions are arguably a spectrum of one interconnected immune response. It's entirely conceivable that a severe allergy could cause a delayed autoimmune hypersensitivity reaction, causing a rheumatoid arthiritis.
Ahh, 968 - was hoping you'd be along... sorry for the delay in replying but my internet link just died there for a while 
Perhaps (or even probably/likely) _ I just pulled it out from google as it seemed to present the findings of many of the sites of this ilk (
)
But would you not agree that there is mounting evidence for the HIV-AIDS myth? No smoke without fire and all that.
It was a mistake of me to pull a page so centred on corticosteroids - but in line with my previous post would you consider that developemnt and onset of AIDS might not be so tightly related to HIV.
As I said I'm a bit behind the time on this - has HIV been proved according Koch's postulates? Requiring the presence of a virus in every instance of a pathology,
can be isolated, grown in culture, and shown to cause infection in a new host when in a purified form?
Also have HIV tests moved beyond the original Western Blot test and ELISA assaying tehniques? I seem to remeber that these only test for antibodies to an infection and therefore donot technically indicate the pressence of HIV.
Finally has a better model emerged to explain why the virus can lay dorment for so long and indeed seem to produce the dramtic drop in T cell counts long after people are testing HIV negative again?
best
Ex
>> Edited by TheExcession on Friday 3rd December 00:24
968 said:
A VERY VERY dubious website.
Perhaps (or even probably/likely) _ I just pulled it out from google as it seemed to present the findings of many of the sites of this ilk (
) But would you not agree that there is mounting evidence for the HIV-AIDS myth? No smoke without fire and all that.
It was a mistake of me to pull a page so centred on corticosteroids - but in line with my previous post would you consider that developemnt and onset of AIDS might not be so tightly related to HIV.
As I said I'm a bit behind the time on this - has HIV been proved according Koch's postulates? Requiring the presence of a virus in every instance of a pathology,
can be isolated, grown in culture, and shown to cause infection in a new host when in a purified form?
Also have HIV tests moved beyond the original Western Blot test and ELISA assaying tehniques? I seem to remeber that these only test for antibodies to an infection and therefore donot technically indicate the pressence of HIV.
Finally has a better model emerged to explain why the virus can lay dorment for so long and indeed seem to produce the dramtic drop in T cell counts long after people are testing HIV negative again?
best
Ex
>> Edited by TheExcession on Friday 3rd December 00:24
968 said:
Whilst a lot of what you say is true, about the role of AZT, the notion that it causes AIDS is not true.
Whilst at medical school, I also did a degree in Immunology, with an emphasis on the immune response to infectious diseases, and wrote a number of dissertations about HIV and it's consequential syndrome AIDS, therefore, I have quite substantial knowledge on the subject.
What you forget is that PRIOR to the development of AZT, people were still dying of AIDS, people shown to be infected with the HIV virus.
AZT is actually one of the more old fashioned retroviral drugs, and has been superceded by a number of newer medications, nonetheless, people still die of AIDS.
Indeed - I think AZT was first used around 1987 for the treatment of AIDS and the first cases of AIDS were being reported around 1981.
This is easily explained if you consider that in these early cases AIDS was caused by the use of recreational drugs.
And yet with the introduction of AZT as you say people are still dying of AIDS.
However I still fail to see how a drug that is designed to inhibit cell reproduction cannot possibly contribute to a lowing of T cells and hence accelerate the onset of AIDS.
It's interesting to note the diffrence between African AIDS and lets call it Western AIDS - the sypmtoms appear to be quite different and also the members of society affected.
With 'Western AIDS' it was (in the earlier days) mainly white homosexual men - a demographic known for their high levels of recreational drug use. Now adays we are told that this is balancing out across the sexes and into the heterosexual community - surely this could be explained by the increase in drug use in society.
In Africa it affects both men and women equally and could be attributed to malnutrition, poor sanitation etc. Also Kaposi's sarcoma is almost unknown in African AIDS.
Regarding your mention of newer medicines - are you referring to the protease and transcriptase inhibitors? Could you point me to any journals reporting their effects and results?
best
Ex
I believe HIV is spread is mostly because of a persons lifestyle, affected by emotional unhappness, Gay people have no support for stable relationships, a portion living estranged from their family, among people (Hetro or Homo) from less stable family relationships are more likely to have more sexual partners, I’ve seen hetro couples from bad family situations who have very open relationships.
Lots of these people do not care about using condoms
I know of people that lie about having blood tests for HIV.
Do you think Monica Lewinsky cared if Clinton had ever had a blood test?
Remember Charlie Sheen, the guy that claims to have slept with 5000 women.
He may have been smart enough to always use a condom,
but what about all the guys who are just looking for the next conquest.
In places like Africa, where poverty is rampant and I think most people would
agree that living in poverty would make one unhappy,
unhappy people would have more sexual partners.
Many women from unstable families and have suffered abuse, turn to prostitution.
And not having easy access to condoms,
one should easily see how HIV could spread in Africa.
So I would think malnution play very little in HIV transmission.
Intervenes drug users are more worried about their next fix,
then were some used needle has been.
I would think Heroin drug dealers are looking to make as much profit as possible.
Can you just see some heroin drug pusher picking up used needles
off the street, cleaning them with some tap water
and giving them away as freebees to whomever they
are selling heroin to.
HIV goes thru at lot of mutation, so it’s not surprising that the one
in the western world is a little different then the one in Africa.
How many cold viruses are there?
Lots of these people do not care about using condoms
I know of people that lie about having blood tests for HIV.
Do you think Monica Lewinsky cared if Clinton had ever had a blood test?
Remember Charlie Sheen, the guy that claims to have slept with 5000 women.
He may have been smart enough to always use a condom,
but what about all the guys who are just looking for the next conquest.
In places like Africa, where poverty is rampant and I think most people would
agree that living in poverty would make one unhappy,
unhappy people would have more sexual partners.
Many women from unstable families and have suffered abuse, turn to prostitution.
And not having easy access to condoms,
one should easily see how HIV could spread in Africa.
So I would think malnution play very little in HIV transmission.
Intervenes drug users are more worried about their next fix,
then were some used needle has been.
I would think Heroin drug dealers are looking to make as much profit as possible.
Can you just see some heroin drug pusher picking up used needles
off the street, cleaning them with some tap water
and giving them away as freebees to whomever they
are selling heroin to.
HIV goes thru at lot of mutation, so it’s not surprising that the one
in the western world is a little different then the one in Africa.
How many cold viruses are there?
I don't mean this to be taken the wrong way but I agree with 968.
The above so called 'evidence' against HIV leading to AIDS is extremely dubious. If it were so ground braking it would certainly have been commented upon in one of the leading medical journals. This seems rather like the views of a single worker to me.
In this day of internet access to multiple websites containing medical information, some good, some bad, it leaves members of the public open to all sorts of very biased information that they do not have the skills or knowledge to interpret correctly. Even medics find interpreting data difficult when not presented with all the facts. Many articles printed in leading journals can be destroyed when applying strict appraisal techniques.
What I am trying to say is that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. I am sure that the above authors have a wider experience of HIV etc than I do but I just wanted to add my view. Please don't take it the wrong way.
>> Edited by pullingpower on Friday 3rd December 13:02
The above so called 'evidence' against HIV leading to AIDS is extremely dubious. If it were so ground braking it would certainly have been commented upon in one of the leading medical journals. This seems rather like the views of a single worker to me.
In this day of internet access to multiple websites containing medical information, some good, some bad, it leaves members of the public open to all sorts of very biased information that they do not have the skills or knowledge to interpret correctly. Even medics find interpreting data difficult when not presented with all the facts. Many articles printed in leading journals can be destroyed when applying strict appraisal techniques.
What I am trying to say is that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. I am sure that the above authors have a wider experience of HIV etc than I do but I just wanted to add my view. Please don't take it the wrong way.
>> Edited by pullingpower on Friday 3rd December 13:02
[quote]
Indeed - I think AZT was first used around 1987 for the treatment of AIDS and the first cases of AIDS were being reported around 1981.
This is easily explained if you consider that in these early cases AIDS was caused by the use of recreational drugs.
And yet with the introduction of AZT as you say people are still dying of AIDS.
However I still fail to see how a drug that is designed to inhibit cell reproduction cannot possibly contribute to a lowing of T cells and hence accelerate the onset of AIDS.
It's interesting to note the diffrence between African AIDS and lets call it Western AIDS - the sypmtoms appear to be quite different and also the members of society affected.
With 'Western AIDS' it was (in the earlier days) mainly white homosexual men - a demographic known for their high levels of recreational drug use. Now adays we are told that this is balancing out across the sexes and into the heterosexual community - surely this could be explained by the increase in drug use in society.
In Africa it affects both men and women equally and could be attributed to malnutrition, poor sanitation etc. Also Kaposi's sarcoma is almost unknown in African AIDS.
Regarding your mention of newer medicines - are you referring to the protease and transcriptase inhibitors? Could you point me to any journals reporting their effects and results?
best
Ex[/quote]
Ex, with all due respect, I think you are very very selective in your sources. And IMVHO you consult extremely dubious ones. Find some free access to MedLine or so (PubMed) and you'll find hundreds of peer-reviewed sources about efficacy of any combination of these "new drugs" (which have been steadily coming available since the early 90s). The currently most accepted treatment, which will keep HIV under control, and if you're lucky your CD4 cellcounts at a reasonable level (as a measure for the functionality of your immune system), is called HAART, generally a combination of at least 3 drugs with anti-HIV efficacy, with in most cases slightly different mechahisms of action. You will not get AIDS as long as this is the case. The difficulty is that at some time inevitable the virus in your body will mutate into a form that is resistant to all the medicines in the cocktail that you take then. At which time your doctor will switch to another cocktail, with drugs that are still efficacious to the virus. In the current environment, by the time all options are exhausted there has invariably been new treatment possibilities/drugs available. Many people regard HIV as a containable, chronic disease now - which has some truth but also dangerously lessens the correct perception of the insidious nature of this killer.
Recreational drug use in itself does not cause AIDS or HIV infection. Using needles used by infected people does. This is the main reason why especially in the south of Europe you see HIV so prevalent under injectable drug users. HIV is transmitted by blood-blood contact (or blood-semen) and as such is sexually transmitted. Its prevalence, early on, under homosexuals has (much) more to do with promiscuity and unprotected sex in those days than anything else - as is the case now under non-injected drug users. The blood-blood contact is also the reason for haemophiliacs and blood-transfusion subjects to have become infected, and nothing else.
AIDS in Africa is spreading like wildfire because of a few factors - sexual habits and bad education thereabout, susceptibility to disease because of malnutrition, and the main one - absence of infrastructure and monetary resources.
HIV has been isolated, has been extensively characterised etc. Again, consult reputable sources, and not dubious websites, to find more references than you will care to read.
A general thing about medicines - none of them has no side effects. What makes them useable is the difference in effect and side effects. AZT and the newer drugs have much more effect on virus replication than on cell replication, that's what makes them useful. If you do not get the right dose, side effects will be worse than effects but that's the case for most drugs. You probably know that many anticancer drugs cause cancer in higher-than-therapeutic doses. But at the right dose, they are more toxic to cancer cells than to healthy cells. So again, for AZT, you have consumed insufficient knowledge and drawn conclusions too early. Blanket statements like your own show a level of uninformedness that you should recognise before giving an opinion. Which I find is a general thing on the web, but that's another story... who said it on here recently that you can believe very VERY little of what is published on the Web.
Pullingpower is very correct. A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially in the hands of people in power (like, again, Mbeki). This costs lives. The scientifically valid and many times verified evidence is overwhelmingly in the majority over the "evidence" that comes from single individuals with often very doubtful motives (economic, religious, ...). Nevertheless, such individuals often make it into the spotlights and do a lot of damage (often to the extent of indirectly causing people to die due to lack of adequate treatment) as many people still prefer to believe bushdoctors, praying healers, homeopaths, assorted weirdos, conspicuously rich inventors of miracle drugs, etc. etc.
Queue "my mother has benefitted from homeopathy for her athlete's foot!!!" messages... Before you start, 2 words - placebo, statistics.
Always remember that there are few, very few diseases where people have not reported spontaneous cures in rare or very rare cases. So individual "miracle cures of AIDS after ingesting large loads of certain peruvian cockroaches" do not mean a thing, if they are not repeated under accepted scientific scrutiny.
Maarten
>> Edited by mmertens on Friday 3rd December 09:39
Indeed - I think AZT was first used around 1987 for the treatment of AIDS and the first cases of AIDS were being reported around 1981.
This is easily explained if you consider that in these early cases AIDS was caused by the use of recreational drugs.
And yet with the introduction of AZT as you say people are still dying of AIDS.
However I still fail to see how a drug that is designed to inhibit cell reproduction cannot possibly contribute to a lowing of T cells and hence accelerate the onset of AIDS.
It's interesting to note the diffrence between African AIDS and lets call it Western AIDS - the sypmtoms appear to be quite different and also the members of society affected.
With 'Western AIDS' it was (in the earlier days) mainly white homosexual men - a demographic known for their high levels of recreational drug use. Now adays we are told that this is balancing out across the sexes and into the heterosexual community - surely this could be explained by the increase in drug use in society.
In Africa it affects both men and women equally and could be attributed to malnutrition, poor sanitation etc. Also Kaposi's sarcoma is almost unknown in African AIDS.
Regarding your mention of newer medicines - are you referring to the protease and transcriptase inhibitors? Could you point me to any journals reporting their effects and results?
best
Ex[/quote]
Ex, with all due respect, I think you are very very selective in your sources. And IMVHO you consult extremely dubious ones. Find some free access to MedLine or so (PubMed) and you'll find hundreds of peer-reviewed sources about efficacy of any combination of these "new drugs" (which have been steadily coming available since the early 90s). The currently most accepted treatment, which will keep HIV under control, and if you're lucky your CD4 cellcounts at a reasonable level (as a measure for the functionality of your immune system), is called HAART, generally a combination of at least 3 drugs with anti-HIV efficacy, with in most cases slightly different mechahisms of action. You will not get AIDS as long as this is the case. The difficulty is that at some time inevitable the virus in your body will mutate into a form that is resistant to all the medicines in the cocktail that you take then. At which time your doctor will switch to another cocktail, with drugs that are still efficacious to the virus. In the current environment, by the time all options are exhausted there has invariably been new treatment possibilities/drugs available. Many people regard HIV as a containable, chronic disease now - which has some truth but also dangerously lessens the correct perception of the insidious nature of this killer.
Recreational drug use in itself does not cause AIDS or HIV infection. Using needles used by infected people does. This is the main reason why especially in the south of Europe you see HIV so prevalent under injectable drug users. HIV is transmitted by blood-blood contact (or blood-semen) and as such is sexually transmitted. Its prevalence, early on, under homosexuals has (much) more to do with promiscuity and unprotected sex in those days than anything else - as is the case now under non-injected drug users. The blood-blood contact is also the reason for haemophiliacs and blood-transfusion subjects to have become infected, and nothing else.
AIDS in Africa is spreading like wildfire because of a few factors - sexual habits and bad education thereabout, susceptibility to disease because of malnutrition, and the main one - absence of infrastructure and monetary resources.
HIV has been isolated, has been extensively characterised etc. Again, consult reputable sources, and not dubious websites, to find more references than you will care to read.
A general thing about medicines - none of them has no side effects. What makes them useable is the difference in effect and side effects. AZT and the newer drugs have much more effect on virus replication than on cell replication, that's what makes them useful. If you do not get the right dose, side effects will be worse than effects but that's the case for most drugs. You probably know that many anticancer drugs cause cancer in higher-than-therapeutic doses. But at the right dose, they are more toxic to cancer cells than to healthy cells. So again, for AZT, you have consumed insufficient knowledge and drawn conclusions too early. Blanket statements like your own show a level of uninformedness that you should recognise before giving an opinion. Which I find is a general thing on the web, but that's another story... who said it on here recently that you can believe very VERY little of what is published on the Web.
Pullingpower is very correct. A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially in the hands of people in power (like, again, Mbeki). This costs lives. The scientifically valid and many times verified evidence is overwhelmingly in the majority over the "evidence" that comes from single individuals with often very doubtful motives (economic, religious, ...). Nevertheless, such individuals often make it into the spotlights and do a lot of damage (often to the extent of indirectly causing people to die due to lack of adequate treatment) as many people still prefer to believe bushdoctors, praying healers, homeopaths, assorted weirdos, conspicuously rich inventors of miracle drugs, etc. etc.
Queue "my mother has benefitted from homeopathy for her athlete's foot!!!" messages... Before you start, 2 words - placebo, statistics.
Always remember that there are few, very few diseases where people have not reported spontaneous cures in rare or very rare cases. So individual "miracle cures of AIDS after ingesting large loads of certain peruvian cockroaches" do not mean a thing, if they are not repeated under accepted scientific scrutiny.
Maarten
>> Edited by mmertens on Friday 3rd December 09:39
Plotloss said:
Apart from commenting that your brain is far too big for your head Ex 
I have a question.
If the assertion surrounding AIDS being a 'lifestyle illness' how does that account for 30% odd of the African subcontinent having AIDS?
I'll take the head vcomment as a compliment - for now
Re Africa - see my post above tacoboy's
best
Ex
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff