Sunday, September 03, 2006

Does HIV/AIDS cause death?

I have been having a conversation with a BLOGGER by the name of Man_with_no_Name. This is my response to him, now my response will be long as well so I decided to make this a regular BLOG post, plus I have a feeling that we both might learn something and help educate others so this needs to be front and center. I hope he does not mind this and I hope he agrees that we might be able to help others understand what is going on with HIV/AIDS. Below was going to be my response till I figured out it was over 1k words. I normally would break this up into two seperate posts but I figured it would be best to leave it be. Sorry for the length but this subject is very important to me and I get passionate when talking about it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow that is a long post man; I will check out your BLOG and read what you have to say. I am interested in reading everything I can as that is a good way to learn. And just because someone has taken the time and spent the money to get a PHD, doesn’t make them any less of a crackpot, just a crackpot with time and money; remember those that can not do a real job, teach. When our kids start to receive a better education in the public schools then maybe my view on teachers will change. Right now we rank near last in industrial nations in our little ones being educated and I can not take a teacher or professor seriously with such staggering failures on that front. I want readers sure, who doesn’t? But I am not going to play the PC card, I do not believe in being PC as I think that is causing a lot of our problems in society. We are overly worried how others will feel when we state our opinions or just the honest to god truth. I am open minded enough to read information that you base your opinions on, and if they make sense after I weight them with everything else on the subject I will amend my opinion.

Gattina said the opposite of what you are saying, she stated that “Do you not read the US news” meaning that I should believe what the media is saying in this story and others. In case you are wondering, a majority of the papers and news agencies report how poorly this fight is going and many state it is because the US government did not give enough to the UN to fight this disease globally. I responded that was her problem she was buying into the propaganda spread by the US media. Every wonder why Hollywood and the Media spread such negative views of America? Why not show what those of that live day to day and not rely on people to watch us so we can make millions to then shove our opinions down their throats? Anyway I think you mistook what she said as she is definitely one of the little sheep that buys everything the media tells her.

Now to the main substance of your post, I will agree that there is a lot of money tied to the HIV/AIDS debate. The conference in Toronto showed just that, in fact it was blatantly obvious they were more worried about gathering money for them than taking this disease head on. They all condemn the US for giving its money directly to the local governments in Africa, the fact is and the article showed that it was doing much more good in the last 5 years than previously when we just gave our money to the UN and other organizations. In my opinion this was the case because like any large organization you have lots of hands in the pot, and they tend to take that money for other reasons than what it was donated for. I have no love for the UN and I feel that it is the largest reason for the World being so disrupted. More good can be done at the local level than at the international level as this article showed.

I think it is important to have accurate information, AZT did cause a lot of deaths, one report was 2 deaths per 1000 I think. I know that deaths were higher in 1989-1999 (I think have to recheck and I have not time right now) when AZT was prescribed as the main medicine to helping HIV patients. The fact is though that AZT did let them live a few more years than they might otherwise have had at that time. But with research there comes better and more efficient drugs, which is why the deaths to HIV/AIDS have fallen to around 15k a year in the US. There is still over half a million diagnose with the virus in the US, this is according to CDC. Now you are correct in saying that there is a lot of miss reporting. In fact if you look for the information you will find that they are uncertain as to who has contacted this virus in the US.

A majority of HIV/AIDS cases in the US are among the Gay and Drug users in the states. Not to say all but a majority. The reason for this, and I am not sure if this holds true I am sure someone will be able to shed light if I am wrong, is that Gay men do not generally wear condoms, which would help keep the spreading of this disease down in their group. Drug users that get HIV/AIDS get it from dirty needles. Now I think the reason we are seeing a drop is that people are getting educated as to what spreads HIV/AIDS and they are taking the necessary steps to protect themselves and those around them. Local governments, as in a City close to me does this, are setting up areas where drug addicts can come and get a clean needle. Now I do not agree with this as they should be helping these people get off their drug addictions, but at least they are helping in saving their lives from HIV/AIDS and having them spread it to those they come in contact with either sexually or by sharing a needle.

And that I think answers your question in your last paragraph of your reply. I look forward to your reply and will be making my way to your BLOG in the next few days. Holiday weekend and I am busy as all get out.

4 Comments:

Blogger Man_with_no_name said...

You said...

"I think it is important to have accurate information, AZT did cause a lot of deaths, one report was 2 deaths per 1000 I think. I know that deaths were higher in 1989-1999 (I think have to recheck and I have not time right now) when AZT was prescribed as the main medicine to helping HIV patients. The fact is though that AZT did let them live a few more years than they might otherwise have had at that time"

But an newer larger study than the one you cite. The Concord study determined that...

"Concorde went on for three years, examining 1,749 HIV-positive but healthy people at 38 health centers in the U.K., Ireland, and France. Because the research lasted the longest of all AZT studies to fate, and its pedigree was unassailable (it was conducted by the highly reputable British Medical Research Council and its French equivalent), Concorde could not be dismissed. The team concluded that AZT - a highly toxic and carcinogenic drug - neither prolongs life nor staves off symptoms of AIDS in people who are HIV-antibody positive but still healthy."

Some HIV/AIDS dissenters think that instead of helping HIV/AIDS patients, AZT and its derivatives can make thing worse for the patient.

From Duesberg..

If Azt is so toxic, how is it that the incidence of infected children has decreased from 25% to 8% (in Italy and in France) in babies born to mothers who had been treated with Azt during pregnancy?

A3: Treatment of HIV-positive, pregnant women with the DNA chain terminators has reduced the incidence of HIV in their babies from 25% to 8% in France and Italy as well as in the US. This is to be expected from a drug that was designed to kill cells including those in which HIV replicates. AZT was developed over 30 years ago to kill cells for cancer chemotherapy.

The first problem with this hypothetical triumph of anti-HIV treatment is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The second more serious problem that AZT induces abortion, and generates birth defects in humans and causes cancer in animals born to AZT-treated mothers. For example, a study published in 1994 found that among 104 AZT treated HIV positive women, 8 aborted spontaneously, 8 had to be aborted "therapeutically", and 8 had babies with birth defects such as cavities in the chest, heart defects, extra fingers, misplaced ears, triangular faces, misformed spine, and albinism (Kumar et al., J. AIDS, vol. 7, p1034 (1994), cited in IAV).

Another assertion you make...

"A majority of HIV/AIDS cases in the US are among the Gay and Drug users in the states. Not to say all but a majority. The reason for this, and I am not sure if this holds true I am sure someone will be able to shed light if I am wrong, is that Gay men do not generally wear condoms, which would help keep the spreading of this disease down in their group. Drug users that get HIV/AIDS get it from dirty needles."

Are you impling that A.I.D.S is a lifestyle disease? Cause if so that puts you out of the mainstream arguement of the orthodox HIV/AIDS hypothesis and its espousers, they might dissagree with you. You might not get much of a probelm by people like Dr.Peter Duesberg..who's been saying that in the U.S AIDS resembles more a "Lifestyle" disease. A lifestyle disease is diferent from saying that "A.I.D.S is a pandemic,and HIV is its infectious agent,,hence HIV/AIDS is an infectious disease. An lifestyle disease might infer that there is something other than HIV that is causing AIDS...and you'll get plenty of dissagreement about that.

In Africa I think HIV/AIDS is said to be transmitted sexually, inferring that the disease can be spread by introduction into the blood stream, as you hint at least in America they say HIV/AIDS can be spread by I.V recreational drug use...If that is true, then why isn't HIV/AIDS spread by vectors like mosquitoes or something?

1:48 PM  
Blogger Man_with_no_name said...

Second post. I'm going to logg my comments as a post on my Blog "ozymandias62.blogspot.com", with your replies of course..maybe I'll try to use some kind of a link.

1:52 PM  
Blogger Talad said...

Interesting study there, have to read more on that one. I have heard of it but never really got into it.

YEs I agree that AZT is a bad drug, but from the studies I have read it helped the AIDS patients live a little longer than they otherwise would have. I will definetly have to read the Concorde study and see what they have to say. then weight that against everyting else I have read. It would not be the first time I have changed my opinion on something.

Yes I believe that HIV/AIDS is a lifestyle choice. My uncle and his partner contracted the HIV then AIDS back in the late 80's they both were dead by the spring of 1990. Roughly 2 years after they were diagnosed. They both were gay men, neither did drugs to my knowledge. Why is it not transfered by mosqitos? that is a good question and one that I am not sure much study has been done on. I know that it has been proven to be transmitted by sex,and by putting a dirty needle in your body. You can also get HIV/AIDS through a blood transfusion hence the steps they take now to test blood for the virus. So it goes to reason that maybe they have not done the required test on biting bugs to see if they too transmit the disease. It would I think put a scare into the population that west nile could never do though.

In africa there is not many drug users, and I am not sure of the gay population. But I do know that they are contracting HIV at an alarming rate. I do not see HIV/AIDS as a pandameic but I do see it as a major problem that with out proper education can lead to something much much worse.

Any progress that can be made to stop a disease that targets our immune system and then leads to our deaths. You might not die from AIDS, but surely you can agree that it weakens your Immune system and causes your death another way? For the record my Uncle died of pnemonia and his partner died of cancer. Both were quite healthy before contracting HIV/AIDS.

I have to run my daughter to school so I will apologize for any spelling errors I have made.

7:27 AM  
Blogger Man_with_no_name said...

"Any progress that can be made to stop a disease that targets our immune system and then leads to our deaths. You might not die from AIDS, but surely you can agree that it weakens your Immune system and causes your death another way? For the record my Uncle died of pnemonia and his partner died of cancer. Both were quite healthy before contracting HIV/AIDS."

I certainly would agree with you, but how do we know this to be sure?
You can believe what you hear in the media and press..but it doesn't make it so however don't ask me to experiment and find out myself though.

In other words I'm suggesting you can't believe everything that you read and hear about in the media.

I would suggest checking out Peter Duesbergs Website and read some of his articles, Virusmyth is okay but its more... soundbites...there's Christine maggiore's website... You have not done your homework about this issue..if you want to hear the "orthodox' views abot HIV/AIDS
You can hear it about everywhere.

I, like you had a relative who died of A.I.D.S, it was strange to me that a healthy girl was now taking (powerful) medicines, I take for Asthma. But my aunt picked up some bad habits. I just happen to see Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS virus", and read it. Duesberg might be controversal, his theories seemed very down to earth..its the orthodox view on AIDS that might be ..."far out". At least this is the feeling I got after reading that book, That the HIV/AIDS was not neccessarily a germ created in some mad scientists laboratory, but that HIV/AIDS is more a medical invention, something more created on paper that it is on fact. When I tried to asking some questions about it ( I.A.V) from credible sources..I got rude replies "We don't do Duesberg!"

I think the study you site was the one that intially got AZT rolling. It was a study supposedly done for 17 weeks (though not for all the participants) and the conclusions for that intial study seemed favorable for AZT ( 1% died vs 20% of the people untreated). But some dissenters say that that study was full of flaws in the way they put the numbers together plus the study was only done for 17 weeks. Nearly all the participants in that study needed blood transfusions cause of the AZT.

The Concorde study seems to have been a longer one and better done..though the results might be
open to interpretation also.
Did Both of your friends die? (your uncle and his partner of AIDS)? Maybe its was the drugs used to eradicate HIV, that might have been responsible for their deaths. High doses of AZT as given in the early days of the epidemic in the U.S, would surely kill you just has HIV was alleged to do, by weakening you and your immune system till you die. The newer drugs use to eradicate HIV are simular to AZT but not AS toxic.

As I said earlier, In the orthodox opinion about HIV/AIDS its not considered a "lifestyle" disease though scientist like Duesberg would agree with you that it is.

HIV/AIDS would not be considered a lifestyle disease in the orthodox view maybe because HIV is considered the main pathogen of the disease and other people in unrelated lifestyles seemed to get the disease. Homosexuals, sex workers, I.V Drug Users, people exposed to the Virus in the U.S.

Obviously you have not done your homework about this topic, not your fault..and I guess I have too much time on my hands, good luck raising your family.

2:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home