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]

No doubt that things have gone down hill since the New Deal. But our congressional reps are still susceptible to (and can do something about) local pressure from their constituents.

[joshhiggins]

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

These antiviral drugs weren't available. They never realized she had aids until she was almost dead.

[joshhiggins]

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

These antiviral drugs weren't available. They never realized she had aids until she was almost dead.

[GodGunsGuts]

What year was this, and what AIDS-defining disease(s) did she die of???

[tacticalogic]

But our congressional reps are still susceptible to (and can do something about) local pressure from their constituents.

I'm skeptical. The beltway bureaucracy is a natural constituent of Democrats and their big-government social engineering ideas. They're well entrenched and well versed in the ways of Washington and can sandbag a investigation into oblivion if they want to, particularly if they get a little help from their liberal/Democratic allies in the legislature. The deck is heavily stacked against any conservative investigation of the actions, policies, and agenda of the bureaucracy.

[GodGunsGuts]

Again, you might be right. But in the meantime, the press that such an investigation would serve to make more and more people aware of the scandal. These things sometimes have a way of snowballing and getting completely out of the hands of big-government bureaucrats. Having said that, I don’t doubt that they would fight such an investigation with everything they have.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

[tacticalogic]

Maybe. Personally, I’d suspect that the press would be just as complicit in helping burying it.

[GodGunsGuts]

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?

[rusty millet]

However, if you take the time to read Duesberg’s paper closely, I think you will find that all these anomalies are addressed and answered.

Sorry - the issues I raised are not in there. I am responding to the gentleman in the original article who has a medical condition and is complaining that his 73 year old self is not reacting well to medication. Not really sure what you are attempting to say through all this discussion. Have a blessed day!

[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

[jas3]

That’s the best advice I have heard in a long, long time.

Are you commenting on what you consider to be good medical advice now?

Are you a doctor?

jas3

[InterceptPoint]

So it ain't much, but HIV+ people are better off on ARVs then six feet under.

jas3: What do think is the best evidence that failure to use ARVs is fatal for those who are HIV positive.?

[jas3]

Except, unlike cancer, they put completely healthy HIV+ patients on chemo, and keep them on it, until the day they die.

People with HIV are no more "healthy" than people with dengue are "healthy". And ARV treatment has been repeated proven to extend lifespan of HIV+ people.

Why do you insist on posting comments that suggest HIV+ people should not take medication?

jas3

[jas3]

If people took your advice, AIDS would disappear in short order IMHO.

Sadly the advice you recommend would kill thousands of people.

You are not qualified to give out medical advice, and yet you repeatedly do so.

jas3

[Lead Moderator]

Excerpt only rules on NYT material applies downthread too.

[GodGunsGuts]

Be prepared to go on forever with jas3. He claims to be a scientist, and yet I kicked his you know what in a 500+ reply debate re: AIDS. Unfortunately, the thread was pulled. But be prepared for jas3 to go on forever using a scattershot approach designed to keep you chasing your tail. If you are going to engage him, my suggestion is to ignore his scattershots and focus on one thing at a time, and don’t leave the point until you have thoroughly proved him wrong. Just a little advice from your friendly, neighborhood GGG.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry about that. I didn’t know the NYT had to be excerpted. I excerpted it to draw attention to Larry Kramer. Won’t happen again.

[GodGunsGuts]

For instance, if you look at his “AIDS denialist” diatribe in poste #76, you will notice that he is still posting a link to “Does drug use cause AIDS?.” I showed how Duesberg et al not only thoroughly destroyed the Ascher paper, but demonstrated that it is actually powerful evidence in favor of the drug-AIDS hypothesis. And yet, jas3 continues to post it.

[jas3]

Actually, there are a plethora of otherwise healthy heterosexual men, women and children who, if Duesberg et all are correct (see post #2 and #6), are being maimed or killed by the very chemotherapy drugs they use to treat AIDS.

No, there are not "a plethora". There are a few rare people who contract HIV who can live with it with no adverse consequences. The are a tiny fraction of the population.

Duesberg is not correct. You repeatedly state his long disproven theories as fact, when the entire medical community dismissed them decades ago.

The current drugs used to treat HIV+ are quite effective. If you think otherwise, then you should submit a scientific paper to a medical journal, and not render medical advice on Free Republic.

jas3

[jas3]

Well that would be the first, and the AIDS establishment would have rushed her case into publication had they ever heard about it.

No, it would not be the first. Check out the CDC site for others that are MORE THAN 20 years old.

Why do you keep making up nonsense?

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

Duesberg and other scientists have been submitting papers to the journals, but they have not only banned him and others from publishing, but they have banned him from replying even when it is the AIDS establishment is writing about him. Thus, it is necessary for this controversy to leave the hallowed halls of science and be taken directly to the public. This is happened many times before, and it will happen again, just as it is happening now.

[jas3]

The key is a grassroots campaign to demand that our local congressional reps hold hearings and start asking the tough questions. That’s why the House of Reps have small districts and have to run for election every two years. The framers designed their office so they would be accountable to THE PEOPLE.

Yeah...that's a really effective use of tax dollars. We should also insist that money be spent on investigating the real cause of beri beri and scurvey.

If you have a radical theory, publish it in a scientific journal. If you are right, the scientific community will eventually recognize it.

Trying to get POPULAR SUPPORT for a scientific theory is like holding a vote to determine the outcome of a chemical reaction.

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

Corrected version:

Duesberg and other scientists have been submitting papers to the science journals, but they have not only banned him and others from publishing, but they have banned him from replying even when the AIDS establishment is writing about him! Thus, it is necessary for this controversy to leave the hallowed halls of science and be taken directly to the public. This has happened many times before, and it will happen again, just as it is happening now.

[Lead Moderator]

No problem, thanks.

[jas3]

I submit that these individuals were exclusively killed by AIDS chemotherapy drugs—especially AZT.

You are welcome to hold whatever fantasies you like, but your complete lack of medical qualifications suggests that your submissions are made entirely from ignorance.

jas3

[jas3]

Rusty:

You are exactly correct in your analysis.

And I completely agree that "If the complainers think the treatments are causing them problems, it is within their right to terminate treatment."

What is particularly scary is people like GodsGunsGuts repeatedly post long disproven CONSPIRACY THEORIES that AIDS is a fiction pushed on conservatives by liberals, who all the time knew that it was gay drugs that caused AIDS.

My fear is that people will read those lies on this public site, believe them, reject treatment and die.

There are many many examples of that happening already. And there are cases of parents withholding drugs from their children, who later died of AIDS.

jas3

[jas3]

Who dies of AIDS anymore?

People who follow the medical advice of GodsGunsGuts and reject ARV therapy die of AIDS. That's pretty much it.

jas3

[jas3]

All very good points. However, if you take the time to read Duesberg’s paper closely, I think you will find that all these anomalies are addressed and answered. What’s unfortunate in regards to the AIDS debate is that very few people are willing or feel qualified to take the time to sort these issues out.

Very few people, except for the entire medical community and research community worldwide, all whom have looked at Duesberg's "evidence" and all (except a TINY minority) of whom rejected Duesberg's theories more than a decade ago.

Repeatedly posting long discredited scientific theories on a political website will not make them true.

jas3

[jas3]

...otherwise healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women and children are still being put on AIDS chemotherapy drugs....

because if they are not, they will rapidly die of AIDS.

jas3

[jas3]

What year was this, and what AIDS-defining disease(s) did she die of???

In order to continue denying that HIV causes AIDS, despite the unquestionable evidence that he refuses to actually read, GodsGunsGuts will claim that your dead friend is either a drug user herself or was killed by AZT.

Don't try to tell him otherwise, because he will redefine anyone who died of AIDS prior to AZTs approval in 1987 as having died of something else or as a drug user.

jas3