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.”

[GodGunsGuts]

You read the paper in post #2? As regards to the gentleman who has made it to 73 years of age, I suspect that he either tolerates chemotherapy EXTREMELY well, or he stayed off the same.

[DungeonMaster]

Thanks for posting the article. I hope it isn’t from one of those sources that gets us in trouble.

[DungeonMaster]

I’ve only read the first 5 sentences and I’m already saying WOW! Remember posts a few years ago about gays they called “bug chasers”? Those who purposely got infected thinking it was managable and hating the restrictions of not shagging every homo they met.

[tacticalogic]

The MSM would most certainly try to 1) ignore and then 2) undermine such an investigation. Sounds like the kind of battle the conservative rank and file are used to fighting, no?

Yes it does. Unfortunately it also sounds like the kind of battle they've been losing for the last 70 years.

[InterceptPoint]

As I said "This was in the early days of the epidemic"

OK. I understand. But I don't think HIV causes AIDS and so getting an infection of HIV by accident would not lead to death. So I'm naturally suspicious of the diagnosis. How do you know that it was AIDS that she died of? People die for all kinds of reasons.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Yes it does. Unfortunately it also sounds like the kind of battle they’ve been losing for the last 70 years.

If we win on this one we win huge. First, we will have exposed the public health movement for what it is. Second, poeple we become far more skeptical of scientists. Third, we will expose how they used AIDS to push their anti-family, pro-homosexual, pro-drug abuse agenda in our public schools. Etc, etc, etc.

Like I said, if we win this one, we WIN BIG.

PS Can you imagine if the AIDS scandal and the human caused global warming scandal were to be exposed at the same time?!?!?

[GodGunsGuts]

I remember hearing stories about them. How are you connecting it to this story?

[Badeye]

“How long will the human body be able to tolerate that constant bombardment?”

Gee Larry, perhaps having sex with men isn’t healthy for you....(eyes rolling)

Science has never figured out how to stop a Virus. Be it the common cold, or HIV, it doesn’t matter.

The difference is you choose to engage in sex acts that transmit the virus, the common cold is airborne and unavoidable.

[tacticalogic]

Second, poeple we become far more skeptical of scientists.

That's a back-channel agenda I'm not going to support or get sucked into.

[GodGunsGuts]

Read post #2 and #6, it may change your mind about what causes AIDS, and how they used scare-tactics to push their anti-family, anti Judeo-Christian morality, pro-homosexual, pro-socialized medicine agenda.

[GodGunsGuts]

==That’s a back-channel agenda I’m not going to support or get sucked into.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Don’t you agree that the public and the congress needs to be more skeptical of the politically-driven claims of climate/AIDS scientists?

[tacticalogic]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Don’t you agree that the public and the congress needs to be more skeptical of the politically-driven claims of climate/AIDS scientists?

Yes. Are those the only ones your concerned with having people be skeptical of?

[Osage Orange]

(1) AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

Baloney

[Osage Orange]

Who dies of AIDS anymore?

Thousands of people....

[steve86]

...It’s the ones who contract it by means of their perverted conduct I can’t feel much sympathy for.

Sometimes I feel that way for a moment and then catch myself. It isn't Christian and we have no right to put some kind of conditions on those who are suffering and need compassion. Obviously, though, if they continue the self destructive behavior and even infect others, they are going to the back of the line as far as compassion goes.

[jas3]

Answering AIDS Denialists and AIDS Lies

The Durban declaration states:   "The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science." And also, "HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives."

---

What bona fide AIDS researchers and activists will and will not do when countering AIDS denialists
We will:

1. Expose the lies and the factual misrepresentations made by the denialists, particularly when these appear in the mainstream media.
2. Expose individual cases of avoidable illness or death caused by the actions of denialists.
3. Make supervising authorities or professional organizations aware of conduct by AIDS denialists, particularly scientists, journalists and civil servants, which breaches the normal standards of professional ethics or competence.
4. Assist investigative journalists in uncovering the financial links between AIDS profiteers and the AIDS denialists who provide mutual support to each other.
5. Provide factual information on HIV/AIDS to legitimate, mainstream journalists and bona fide members of the public (i.e. not AIDS denialists or agent provocateurs).

We will not:

Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes. The reasons are:

1. The debate has been settled: HIV causes AIDS, AIDS kills, and AIDS can be treated with significant success by the use of antiretroviral therapy. These are the facts.
2. The information proving the above is already in the peer-reviewed science literature. The scientific facts are ignored, misunderstood or willfully misrepresented by the AIDS denialists. However, it is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.
3. Debating denialists dignifies their position in a way that is unjustified by the facts about HIV/AIDS. The appropriate way for dissenting scientists to try to persuade other scientists of their views on any scientific subject is by publishing research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. For many years now, AIDS denialists have been unsuccessful in persuading credible peer-reviewed journals to accept their views on HIV/AIDS, because of their scientific implausibility and factual inaccuracies. That failure does not entitle those who disagree with the scientific consensus on a life-and-death public health issue to then attempt to confuse the general public by creating the impression that scientific controversy exists when it does not.
4. Our time is better spent conducting research into HIV/AIDS and/or educating the general public about the facts about this virus and the deadly disease it causes.

This November 2003 Nature article shows why debating denialists is a waste of time.

---

To help prevent lives from being lost due to ignorance or misunderstanding, we have assembled the content below to address the most common assertions made by AIDS denialists:

HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science – Martin Delaney

Does drug use cause AIDS?

The Consequences of HIV Denialism – Dr. Robert Voigt

Joseph Sonnabend, M.D., makes it clear that denialists are including inappropriate references to him in their literature

AIDS Truth member criticizes AIDS denialists

Several denialist websites proclaim that two—even three—Nobel Prize winners question HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is this true? AIDS Truth investigates.

What our work means: Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection

HIV causes AIDS: An independent review of the evidence

Debunking the Myths of the AIDS Denialists

Response to the Seven Deadly Deceptions

CD4 Counts and Viral Load

Drugs, Disease, Denial

HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science

AIDS denialism: still crazy after all these years - and still killing people in South Africa

Price of Denial by Mark Heywood

Bad Science: Former Denialists Wake Up

Lies, Damned Lies and Dr. Rath

Nature Medicine Editorial: Denying Science

The Curious Case of AIDS Denialist Roberto Giraldo

Echoes of Lysenko: State-sponsored Pseudoscience in South Africa

Correcting the AIDS Lies

HIV denialists ignore large gap in the study they cite

Denying AIDS and the Rwandan Genocide?

Misrepresentation of the Concorde trial perpetuated by AIDS denialists, particularly Anthony Brink

Words of Dr. Harvey Bialy

[GodGunsGuts]

I think the public should be skeptical of all kinds of politically motivated, so-called “science” agendas. In fact, save for national defense, I really don’t think the government should be involved in science at all. Science should left to the free market, where competition prevents entrenched orthodoxies, and weeds out wacko ideas like human caused global warming, etc.

[tacticalogic]

I think a “politically conservative” philosophy has to take into account the constitutional mandate to “promote science and the useful arts”.

[jas3]

Don’t forget about all the innocent and otherwise healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women, and children who are put on these highly toxic AIDS chemotherapy drugs.

Nobody has forgotten about them. They are put on those drugs to improve their mortality and morbidity. If you think that HAART therapy is not appropriate, please post the medical evidence.

jas3

[jas3]

well if the side effects are worse than having AIDS..... stop taking them.

The consequences of not taking ARVs is death. The consequences of taking ARVs is extended mortality and reduced morbidity. So it ain't much, but HIV+ people are better off on ARVs then six feet under.

jas3