AIDS Patients Face Downside of Living Longer (effects of AIDS drugs "worse than having AIDS")

New York Times ^ | January 6, 2008 | JANE GROSS

[GodGunsGuts]

Those explanations do not satisfy Larry Kramer, founder of several AIDS advocacy groups. Mr. Kramer, 73 and a long-term survivor, said he had always suspected “it was only a matter of time before stuff like this happened” given the potency of the antiretroviral drugs. “How long will the human body be able to tolerate that constant bombardment?” he asked. “Well, we are now seeing that many bodies can’t. Once again, just as we thought we were out of the woods, sort of, we have good reason again to be really scared.”

[InterceptPoint]

Really? Why is that?

Because that is the way science is done. That is the way clinical studies are done. You have to have a reference if you are showing that you are providing a cure. If this were not the case, I could give you a cough drop and if you didn't die I could claim that I've cured AIDS.

I'm still waiting.

[tacticalogic]

Okay. Why is it so hard to pry an answer out of you about whether the work has been peer reviewed?

[Badeye]

Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus.

Geez, and I just got a Yellow Fever vaccine a few days ago.

I stand by my statement 100%.

Yes, you can have a virus introduced to preempt, but thats it.

[Proud_texan]

"Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus"

Sorry to wander off topic but I have always though that to be the case but the polio and yellow fever vaccine always makes me wonder.

If you, or anyone, has anything that can clear that up I'd like to know about it.

[Badeye]

In layman’s terms, as I understand it, you basically are preempting one virus with another, similiar strain.

You cannot ‘stop’ a virus. If you could, none of us would ever get the common cold, let alone HIV.

I’m always surprised at how many people don’t know this basic fact about virus’s. There is no ‘golden pill’.

[Proud_texan]

"you basically are preempting one virus with another"

Ah, but of course, I should have been able to noodle that out from how the smallpox vaccine works but then sometimes I'm not that good at noodling...

I really appreciate you clearing that up for me, thanks.

[Badeye]

Your welcome.

[js1138]

The paper has been peer reviewed, perhaps not very well before publication.

Duesberg and Rasnick (1998) also ask: "Why have doctors and nurses never caught AIDS from over 800,000 American and European AIDS cases, particularly in the absence of a HIV vaccine?" What comes to mind is that very few doctors and nurses expose their skin or mucus membranes to the semen or vaginal fluids of patients with AIDS. However, health care workers do accidentally stick themselves with patient blood. Through 1999, 56 documented cases of such HIV infection are known to the CDC; 25 of these have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors (NIAID fact sheet, 2000). Why do Duesberg and Rasnick ignore these cases?

My question regarding Duesberg is why he doesn't update and correct his claims when they are demonstrated to be untrue. That seems to be a rather fundamentally requirement for intellectual honesty.

My second question is why papers prior to the year 2000 are considered important. Much of the research on AIDS is relatively recent, and the three drug cocktail was not available before late 1995. All Duesberg's charts seem to end just at the time a relatively effectiv treatement would start making a difference in the statistics.

[js1138]

Perhaps one shouldn't accuse Duesberg of "ignoring" the 25 cases of AIDS among healthcare workers. He handles this the way he handles all disconfirming evidence: the people submitting the evidence are liars; they got AIDS because they took AZT; and besides, a mere 25 cases transmitted by exposure to HIV+ blood doesn't prove it is contagious.

Perhaps I could ask where is the laboratory animal that developed immune deficiency from recreational drugs.

[tacticalogic]

Do you think it’s possible that there’s some opposition to finding a natural cause explaination because it interefers with a supernatural cause explaination?

[js1138]

I’m not sure what you mean. I haven’t seen anyone suggest a supernatural cause.

If you are thinking about devine retribution for homosexuality, I think much of morality is based on natural consequenses.

The question for discussion is not whether antiviral medicine has harmful side effects — it does. The only real issue is whether HIV leads, in most people, to immune deficiency — and it does.

Immune deficiency is delayed. Anywhere from two to twenty years. There seems to be a small percentage of people who never progress to AIDS. But this is true of every infectious disease.

There are lots of infectious diseases that have delayed effects. Syphilis, Mad Cow, chickenpox, polio, among others. My closest friend from college died of post polio syndrome, fourty years after the infection.

[tacticalogic]

If you are thinking about devine retribution for homosexuality, I think much of morality is based on natural consequenses.

Well, not everyone believes that. The question was in response to why someone would dogmatically cling to theories that aren't supported by the evidence.

[jas3]

Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus.

Geez, and I just got a Yellow Fever vaccine a few days ago.

I stand by my statement 100%.

Yes, you can have a virus introduced to preempt, but thats it.

Yes, I've noticed that people who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS are fond of standing by their statements 100%, even after those statements have been demonstrated to be entirely false.

It is a lot easier to ignore the facts than to admit you were wrong, isn't it?

The statement "you can have a virus introduced to preempt" doesn't even make sense. Are you talking about attenuated viruses?

You are presumably not aware that to stop a virus via vaccine, in many cases all that is needed is to prepare the human immune system to identify the virus by introducing a single surface protein to mammalian immune systems.

So since nobody is bothering to "introduce to preempt" for smallpox, and since smallpox has been eradicated from the planet, under your definition is it correct to say that smallpox was not stopped?

And if so, who really cares? The goal is to eliminate the virus or its negative effects, not to meet some weird arbitrary (and meaningless) definition of "stopping".

jas3

[jas3]

"Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus"

Sorry to wander off topic but I have always though that to be the case but the polio and yellow fever vaccine always makes me wonder.

If you, or anyone, has anything that can clear that up I'd like to know about it.

First off, it isn't off topic to discuss viruses on an HIV/AIDS thread.

Second, it is definitely NOT the case that viruses can't be stopped. They most certainly can through a variety of mechanism either with antivirals like Adefovir dipivoxil or via warning the immune system in advance as to what a virus is likely to look like via vaccination.

The notion that virus can't be or haven't been stopped is just patently false.

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

Ok, it looks like all your questions have been answered. The paper was peer reviewed, and it is not too new and not too old, as per your request. So I will ask you again, now that all your requirements have been met, will you carefully read it???

[jas3]

In layman’s terms, as I understand it, you basically are preempting one virus with another, similiar strain.

Badeye, that is BadScience. Not all vaccines are strains of viruses. Some are merely collections of antigens that are common to the virus against which one is being vaccinated.

Additionally there are effective antiviral drugs, with many more in the pipeline.

You cannot ‘stop’ a virus. If you could, none of us would ever get the common cold, let alone HIV.

You can, in fact, stop "a" virus. It is true that human influenza virus has not yet been "stopped," and the common cold continues to afflict millions every year. But it is not true that viruses cannot be stopped or are not already being stopped or have not been completely stopped and eradicated from human populations.

I’m always surprised at how many people don’t know this basic fact about virus’s. There is no ‘golden pill’.

People don't "know" this because it is not true that viruses can't be stopped. If actually believed that, then you should be out campaigning against the money we waste on vaccines. It is true there is no "golden pill".

So maybe you should restate your assertion to "There is no golden pill that can protect humans from the common cold." That would be accurate.

jas3

[Badeye]

Whatever. I’m right. Your still wrong.

And we’re done.

[jas3]

"you basically are preempting one virus with another"

Ah, but of course, I should have been able to noodle that out from how the smallpox vaccine works but then sometimes I'm not that good at noodling...

I really appreciate you clearing that up for me, thanks.

Hmmm...time to re-clear that up.

Human immune systems work by trying to identify "self" from "non-self". Vaccines work by presenting to the human immune system proteins or protein sets which are similar to or are identical to the proteins expressed on the surface of a virus.

Because the human immune system gets advance warning of what a nasty looks like from the vaccine, if the virus ever does show up, the immune system knows right away that it should respond.

Different vaccines work in different ways. For example it was discovered very early that exposure to coxpox was protective against smallpox. By intentionally exposing someone to coxpox, you could prevent them from being hurt by the more deadly smallpox.

There are four different classes of vaccines. You can read more HERE.

But it is INCORRECT to state that all (or even most) vaccines preempt one virus with another.

jas3

[tacticalogic]

According to the peer review, it’s pretty fatally flawed. Can I expect to find the information it contains substantially different that what the peer review represents?

[js1138]

The question was in response to why someone would dogmatically cling to theories that aren't supported by the evidence

I'm not interested is psychoanalyzing people. Einstein resisted quantum theory to his death. Inability to change is not necessarily indicative of stupidity or dishonesty.

However, Duesberg has destroyed his career by accusing the entire worldwide medical community of being dishonest. If he were correct, the most effective thing for him to do would be continue his research and publish results without calling everyone who brings evidence contradicting his theories a liar.

Back around 1981-2000 he had a good part of the gay community on his side. He has lost that support, as he has lost the support of people like Magic Johnson.