tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post782588604641604946..comments2023-04-16T17:16:03.832+10:00Comments on Reckless Endangerment: The coming AIDS Denialist Civil War: Henry Bauer chooses sidesSnouthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-62050237472549670592009-12-18T03:55:37.094+11:002009-12-18T03:55:37.094+11:00Hm. If people care to rant in the village square, ...Hm. If people care to rant in the village square, it's thier business. Duesberg is another case; he's taking up space which should be occupied by a legit UC Berkeley professor. He's also abusing the trust placed in him by the public for reasons known only to himself.<br /><br />But he could perhaps be redeemed. A few forward looking souls could abstract this gentleman and inoculate him with a half ounce of HIV. Should he never get sick, either he has a rare and valuable resistance which can be studied used to develop cure or prevent the HIV-Aids disease progression or perhaps his theory is correct. He will be benefit from either result. <br /><br />If he does get sick, well, that's impossible so it's of no concern. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-5214147224849426782009-10-26T21:35:54.666+11:002009-10-26T21:35:54.666+11:00In their reply Perth point out, correctly IMO, tha...<i>In their reply Perth point out, correctly IMO, that it is not their task to explain where ‘HIV RNA’ comes from. Besides any answer is bound to be highly speculative, which means that Duesberg’s challenge amounts to a demand that Perth prove the negative, that this is NOT the RNA of a unique, exogenous virus." </i><br /><br />It would help to have even a remotely plausible speculation about what "HIV RNA" is if it isn't HIV RNA. <br /><br />Perth Group: "The sun does not exist."<br /><br />Sane Person: "Well, what's that big glowing orb in the sky that rises every morning and sets every evening?"<br /><br />Perth Group: "We aren't obliged to say. It's up to you to prove <i>to our satisfaction</i> that it is the sun."<br /><br />Life is too short to be bothered with such halfwit sophists.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-51329808075984755872009-10-26T20:14:09.263+11:002009-10-26T20:14:09.263+11:00Sadun, a "gold standard" is a decision p...Sadun, a "gold standard" is a decision procedure that is generally agreed to have <i>both</i> the optimum sensitivity <i>and</i> specificity for the phenomenon under consideration. Specificity without sensitivity and vice versa are, practically speaking, meaningless.<br /><br />It is obvious that the Perthians don't understand this, when they propose observing whether the birth of a baby occurs as a "gold standard" against which pregnancy tests could be measured. In fact it's a rotten "gold standard" for a pregnancy test. Sure it could be <i>specific</i>, but it's not <i>sensitive</i>. As Turner ought to know as an ED doc, one of the most important uses of a pregnancy test is when ectopic pregnancies are in the differential diagnosis. Ectopic pregnancies are real, but don't result in the birth of a baby - they result in the death of the mother if not diagnosed.<br /><br />Specificty alone, or sensitivity alone are useless at determining whether a test (or <i>decision procedure</i>) are of any informative value at all, let alone whether they can be considered a "gold standard". You need both.<br /><br /><b>So, simple and straightforward question, Sadun: what is the <i>sensitivity</i> of the Perthians' proposed "rigorous isolation/purification process" in identifying the presence of exogenous retroviruses? How did they determine this?</b><br /><br />Please don't answer with your usual waffle, or with "I'm too busy right now" or "I can't answer until Val or Eleni email me back and tell me what to say". And please don't answer with a copy paste from someone else. I've wasted enough time with your incoherent evasions.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-90424320921660873812009-10-26T18:29:10.022+11:002009-10-26T18:29:10.022+11:00According to Darin's definition the unequivoca...According to Darin's definition the unequivocal evidence for a distinct thing's existence (object, state of objects etc.) would be used as the gold standard and implemented to produce a binary result.<br /><br />Thus the virus is not the gold standard, "unequivocally the true infection status" is. Determining the "true infection status" (whether or not the virus exists) requires unequivocal evidence. So the rigorous isolation/purification process as argued by the Perth Group seems to be a logical necessity. Only then can you begin to verify how successful indirect detection techniques really are, i.e. whether or not your antibody tests give positive results only when the unequivocal evidence for the existence of the virus can also be gathered from whatever is exactly being tested, which would mean that the test is reliable.sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-91125153676023472632009-10-26T17:13:05.795+11:002009-10-26T17:13:05.795+11:00No, Sadun. It doesn't make anything clearer.
...No, Sadun. It doesn't make anything clearer.<br /><br />You start off well, with Darin's description of a gold standard as a variety of <i>decision procedure </i>. <br /><br />A virus is not a decision procedure. A baby is not a decision procedure. An aortic aneurism is not a decision procedure. The Truth™ is not a decision procedure. <br /><br />Hold that thought. The rest of your four posts are hopelessly confused waffle. The fact they are mainly Macdonald's hopelessly confused waffle rather than your own makes them even less worthy of dignifying with a response.<br /><br />No one is interested in the Perthians' claim that HIV has never been properly isolated/purified to their satisfaction. The bottom line is that they have long ago decided that they will never be satisfied with any practicable evidence whatsoever. So who cares about what they think?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-75959735462656904352009-10-20T13:04:24.612+11:002009-10-20T13:04:24.612+11:00And another one from MacDonald:
“The postulated a...<a href="http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/%E2%80%9Chiv%E2%80%9D-tests-are-self-fulfilling-prophecies/#comment-3924" rel="nofollow">And another one from MacDonald:</a><br /><br /><i>“The postulated almost-perfect correlation between a negative HIV DNA test and a negative antibody test (WB) is what is so impressive, because it implies great specificity of HIV antibodies... But how good is the correlation really, and what is the nature of this ‘HIV DNA’? <br /><br />What is less impressive about Duesberg’s isolation argument is that the extraction and cloning of ‘HIV RNA’ is still an indirect method. Duesberg IMO breaks the rules of engagement when he challenges Perth and Lanka to explain where ‘HIV RNA’ comes from if not an exogenous virus. By making the genetic material a coherent viral entity by default, Duesberg is basically killing the discussion.<br /><br />In their reply Perth point out, correctly IMO, that it is not their task to explain where ‘HIV RNA’ comes from. Besides any answer is bound to be highly speculative, which means that Duesberg’s challenge amounts to a demand that Perth prove the negative, that this is NOT the RNA of a unique, exogenous virus. <br /><br />Perth’ counter is sound: it is not their task to prove a negative, rather it is Duesberg’s task to deliver positive, direct proof that his ‘HIV RNA’ is indeed HIV RNA.”</i><br /><br />I hope it's clearer now.sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-62539849755204747902009-10-20T13:01:45.574+11:002009-10-20T13:01:45.574+11:00For more details I will quote from the linked disc...For more details I will quote from the linked discussion. <br /><br /><a href="http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/%E2%80%9Chiv%E2%80%9D-tests-are-self-fulfilling-prophecies/#comment-3924" rel="nofollow">From MacDonald:</a><br /><br /><i>"I have argued the strength of Jackson/Duesberg below, which boils down to the correlation between negative results: WB, serology, PCR etc. might not always agree on who is infected (although they do so in Jackson et al.), but in general they show sufficient agreement on who is not infected, as per Duesberg’s argument, given below in this series.<br /><br />But a gold standard does not arise out of correlation or agreement between tests alone, so we could still ask what that agreement refers to. The inescapable answer is “true infection status”:<br /><br />“The evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient…”<br /><br />Owens DK et al. “A Meta-analytic Evaluation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Infants”. JAMA. 1996 May 1; 275 (17): 1342-1348.<br /><br />In my experience, the orthodoxy will attempt a variation over the quibble with the meaning of “isolation” and “purification”. Rethinkers, or their ill-prepared lawyers will often say isolation, by which they mean purification before isolation. But technically, these days, isolation refers to something else, for instance extracting “genomic HIV” from a cell soup. This “viral soul” is then cloned as an allegedly infectious particle (transfection), at which stage it has indeed been “isolated” completely from the original soup. <br /><br />The strategy, then, is to ridicule the Rethinker for his/her lack of grasp of technical terminology and simply dodge the substantive issue. (AIDSpravda Credo: We never debate denialists on the issues)<br /><br />Likewise, they will roll their eyes and say that we don’t understand what gold standard means, ultimately trading in a possible confusion between what the gold standard determines (Owens et al.) and the gold standard test – the tool that does the determining.<br /><br />If anybody has followed my namesake’s exchange with Snout on New Scientist, they will have seen a classic example of how that plays out (except that he cut and pasted the wrong quote to begin with, Abbott test kit insert instead of Owens et al.- NOT part of the strategy)<br /><br />However, Owens et al takes care of that argument as well by using the delightful expression “determine unequivocally true infection status”. <br /><br />Snout descended into the sewers pretty quickly, but let us help him along a little bit: Could there conceivably exist something else, something which is not a test per se, but which determines unequivocally the true infection status, i.e. the presence of the virus? Yes Sir, proper virus isolation. The question then is, why has Owens et al., or anybody else in the history of lavish HIV/AIDS, funding not used such a virus isolation procedure to determine specificity and sensitivy of PCR, and the other tests?.. “</i><br /><br />Cont..sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-8213335892913235692009-10-20T12:58:30.351+11:002009-10-20T12:58:30.351+11:00Darin uses this definition for the gold standard: ...<a href="http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/%E2%80%9Chiv%E2%80%9D-tests-are-self-fulfilling-prophecies/#comment-3444" rel="nofollow">Darin uses this definition for the gold standard:</a> <i>A “gold standard” is a decision procedure which can actually be implemented to produce a binary result (yes/no).</i><br /><br />Think of it as the truth, the reality. X is either true, or not. Only one of those is possible. Whether or not we’re capable of knowing it is not immediately relevant. It is possible to not have a gold standard for every possibility… as is the case with “HIV” where there is no direct way of observing whether or not a person has the somewhat unique object that is generally conceptualized “HIV”. We can’t pull it out of the bloody mess and study any of the particles isolated from the rest. There are only tests based on certain chains of assumptions.<br /><br />It is actually more logical to first know the true state, and then proceed for indirect tests to check it routinely. Darin states it like this, referring to the misconceptions about “hypothetical ideal gold standards”:<br /><br /><i>“When it comes to aortic dissections and the like, this fuzzy thought, this idea of having an “ideal” or “hypothetical” fantasy disease state, has little ramifications, since torn aortic walls actually do exist, and so on. The problem with HIV testing is that clinicians have a mental impression of a disease state that has no correspondence to anything in reality. And then they devise lots of diagnostic tests for it.“</i><br /><br />This failure to purify/isolate is interpreted as “X is not true” by the likes of the Perth Group: The argument is that the concept of “HIV” is probably just a concept, distanced from the true state things. Since nobody even <i>attempts</i> to verify.<br /><br />Cont…sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-85979596220071042972009-10-20T12:46:44.501+11:002009-10-20T12:46:44.501+11:00Hi. I'm back. I didn't read many of the co...Hi. I'm back. I didn't read many of the comments which I assumed, hopefully correctly, were irrelevant to me. But I'll respond to a few things that I consider worthwhile.<br /><br />First this one, from PoodleStomper:<br /><br /><i>"I give you links to peer reviewed journal articles dealing with statistical approaches and the gold standard and you give me a link to...a denialist? Can you do no better?"</i><br /><br />It is more scientific to determine the veracity of an argument by looking at whether or not it's rational, and not whether or not it's approved by anonymous people perceived as authorities. I think this is where most of you people fail when it comes to scientific thinking. The concept of "authority" has no meaning in true science. There is only rational, or irrational. And to figure that out you have to read the argument of course.<br /><br />Anyway, let's go back to the gold standard...sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-33234212576557520812009-09-05T02:51:54.346+10:002009-09-05T02:51:54.346+10:00Oops my last post didn't seem to be updated, h...Oops my last post didn't seem to be updated, hope you weren't throwing your toys out of the pram!<br /><br />Just to repeat:<br /><br />Snout said that Duesberg's paper has the following claim:<br /><br /><br />...SA's HIV prevalence has remained stable at 25-30% since 1985 <br /><br />It doesn't!<br /><br />What it actually says is:<br /><br />After 1998 the prevalence<br />of HIV antibody-positives leveled off..<br /><br />So no I didn't make it up, but thanks for asking.<br /><br />Just wonder what you've been reading or inhalingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-67557539108540698312009-09-02T09:53:36.202+10:002009-09-02T09:53:36.202+10:00Thank you for your apology, Anonymous. Now would y...Thank you for your apology, Anonymous. Now would you like to explain where you got your quote "...since 1998"?<br /><br />Did you get this from the usual source of HIV/AIDS denialist disinformation... that is, you just made it up because it suited you?Snoutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-47097260558642901002009-09-02T04:19:26.158+10:002009-09-02T04:19:26.158+10:00Nope Snout (is Snout any less anonymous than Anony...Nope Snout (is Snout any less anonymous than Anonymous?)<br /><br />I apologize, I don't think you were lying but I am now genuinely concerned that you can't read.<br /><br />The 1985 clearly relates to the 1 million HIV positives in America which has remained unchanged since 1985.<br /><br />I'll get back to you on your other points after you promise me you'll try harder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-91892057001806112912009-09-02T01:12:47.388+10:002009-09-02T01:12:47.388+10:00Nope, Anonymous. The full text of the paragraph (2...Nope, Anonymous. The full text of the paragraph (2nd paragraph in the left hand column on page 4) is:<br /><br /><i>"It is consistent with the passenger virus-hypothesis that HIV (i) is naturally transmitted most effectively from mother to child, much like all other retroviruses [10], (ii) is asymptomatic for up to 25 years (since it is known) in persons free of chemical AIDS risks [10] including HIV-positive persons from the US Army [21], (ii) has remained epidemiologically stable, at about 25% to 30%, <br />in South Africans (Fig. 1b), at about 5% in Uganda (Fig. 2C, and [16]), and at about 0.3% (1 million in 300 millions) in America since 1985 [10,19]. By contrast, pathogenic viruses spread exponentially <br />and then decline exponentially within a few months due to anti-viral immunity, forming classical bell-shaped curves as described by Farr’s law [22,23]. Take, for example, the typical time course of several months of a seasonal flu epidemic [22]. "</i><br /><br />No mention of 1998 in my copy of the article.<br /><br />(Note: the text "unnecessarily with inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs, if the Harvard study prevails." in the fifth post above was accidentally copypasted from the adjacent column and doesn't belong in the original paragraph).<br /><br />In any case, to choose a period of a few years before and after the peak of a rapidly rising curve and claim this represents "stable prevalence" is a piece of cherry picking so absurd that it's difficult to believe even Duesberg would be stupid enough to think he could get away with it.Snoutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-66908102061287649632009-08-31T03:53:27.799+10:002009-08-31T03:53:27.799+10:00Snout said "SA's HIV prevalence has remai...Snout said "SA's HIV prevalence has remained stable at 25-30% since 1985" <br /><br />The article says "...since 1998" which means you are either a liar or can't read or maybe both since the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-23658129598973459692009-08-04T18:49:42.405+10:002009-08-04T18:49:42.405+10:00"Still doesn't change the fact that they ...<i>"Still doesn't change the fact that they are hard at work on how to limit exposure to ASB... I mean ARVs. There has to be a reason for that."</i><br /><br />Toko, as you well know all HIV drug trials are simply a conspiracy to maximise drug company profits.<br /><br />So obviously, if you can demonstrate that intermittent treatment (much cheaper) is just as good as the already proven continuous treatment then that means more profits for....<br /><br />Oh no, hang on, wait a minute...Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-69391980816741982802009-08-04T17:52:18.940+10:002009-08-04T17:52:18.940+10:00I am not saying ARVs cannot cause AIDS any more, j...<b>I am not saying ARVs cannot cause AIDS any more, just that it's a very different and changing picture these days.</b><br /><br />Forgive me if I have no idea what you <b>are</b> saying.<br /><br />You seem to falling into the same position as most Denialists of putting forward no coherent explanation of your own but simply trying to pick holes in the "orthodox" explanation.<br /><br />At least Duesberg puts forward a hypothesis that is capable of falsification. He just refuses to acknowledge that it has been falsified.Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-56851699830069492542009-08-04T17:03:14.555+10:002009-08-04T17:03:14.555+10:00All rhetoric, no substance? That's what they s...All rhetoric, no substance? That's what they say about Obama as well, and see how far he has gotten. But you're right, START not<br />intermittent.<br /> <br />Still doesn't change the fact that they are hard at work on how to limit exposure to ASB... I mean ARVs. There has to be a reason for that.Tokoloshenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-13186568542707946312009-08-04T15:50:47.862+10:002009-08-04T15:50:47.862+10:00Querido Tokoloko,
SMART was interrupted for ethica...Querido Tokoloko,<br /><b>SMART was interrupted for ethical reasons, and other trials have not given the same results, Moreover, START is still an intermittent ARV use study, according to description. How can they defend doing something that unethical? I bet it's because they're not quite sure yet about it all and have to try out different CD4 counts etc.</b><br />SMART was stopped because it was clear that more people were sick and dying in the interrupted therapy group. START is not an intermittent ARV use study. You must have read the description wrong. It randomly assigns participants to different strategies for timing HAART initiation. It would be unethical to assign to intermittent HAART, because we know that is inferior to continuous.<br /><b>Did you not just say that taking ARVs is like inhaling asbestos particles?</b><br />No. I implied that your theory of why intermittent therapy might have worse results than continuous HAART was a pathetic post-hoc rescue of your hypothesis that ARVs are causing the non-AIDS illnesses and death.<br /><br />I'm beginning to suspect that you might be Duesberg himself. There are few others with the same skill of convoluted ad hocery.<br /><br />By the way, I, Fulano de Tal, am also guilty of a misreading. It turns out that the difference in non-AIDS cancers between intermittent and continuous HAART was not statistically significant.<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17721103<br /> So you'll have to think of a new spin for that result.<br /><br />Abrazos,<br />Fulano de TalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-11828099914080517462009-08-04T13:38:42.596+10:002009-08-04T13:38:42.596+10:00B-b-but Senor de Tal,
SMART was interrupted for e...B-b-but Senor de Tal,<br /><br />SMART was interrupted for ethical reasons, and other trials have not given the same results, Moreover, START is still an intermittent ARV use study, according to description. How can they defend doing something that unethical? I bet it's because they're not quite sure yet about it all and have to try out different CD4 counts etc.<br /><br />Did you not just say that taking ARVs is like inhaling asbestos particles?<br /><br />Listen compadre, I haven't said Duesberg's over-generalizations and partial, unexplained quotes are my favorite thing, but clearly there is an acknowledged dose-dependent something going on here or they wouldn't keep working on working out deferred/intermittent treatment etc. They'd sooner just drug us all from crip to grave.<br /><br />Chris has made a big deal of the changing demographics and the "confounding" influence of people who are actually sick, like TB patients. Moreover, recreational<br />drug users croak more quickly, like they've always done (except in the revolutionary early hitpiece-on-Duesberg studies still proudly on display at AIDStruth, assuring us that recreational drug use is safer in HIV context than my sainted granny's rose garden)<br /><br />What you're left with after the "confounders" are gone is basically initially asymptomatic people with an HIV+ sentence, and with the most toxic drugs and regimens continually being replaced or modified. So give big D a break, will you? Things just aren't as straightforward no more.<br /><br />D will argue pretty much the same, though not as eloquently and authoritatively as Tokoloshe, who happens to be a lot smarter and therefore wouldn't use the Lancet 2006 study to contradict himself by saying the drugs haven't improved at all in the last decade, and furthermore make it sound like they haven't improved since AZT monotherapy.<br /><br />adiós friends and don't be lonely <br /><br />TokoTokoloshenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-63495629979230023622009-08-04T03:36:01.331+10:002009-08-04T03:36:01.331+10:00Loko, it's SMART, not START. Sorry. I advise y...Loko, it's SMART, not START. Sorry. I advise you to drink continuously, and avoid binge drinking. By the way, you should be a chain smoker rather than smoking intermittently, and inhale asbestos particles daily, rather than intermittently. And make post-hoc arguments continuously, not just every now and then.<br />Abrazos,<br />Fulano de TalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-73244733952968664232009-08-04T02:37:05.402+10:002009-08-04T02:37:05.402+10:00"Perhaps the bad results in the first year......"Perhaps the bad results in the first year..."<br /><br />What "bad results"? You still haven't understood the paper. In 95-96, there were 103 people who experienced AIDS events during the first year of ARVs out of a cohort of 1096 (9%). In 2003, there were 105 people out of a cohort of 1656 (6%). To put it the other way around, 91% and 94% of these cohorts had no AIDS events during the first year of ARVs, and survival was 97.8% and 98.7%, respectively. <br /><br />The only thing that can be interpreted as "bad" is the adjusted hazard ratio for an AIDS event during the first year of ARVs in the 2002/3 cohort versus the 1998 cohort, which is explained by the increased numbers of people with TB co-infection. <br /><br />During the second year of ARVs, fewer people experienced an AIDS event and fewer people died compared to the first year. For 95-96 the difference was 103 AIDS events in the first year and 32 in the second. For 2001 (the most recent year with two year follow up) the difference was 172 versus 27.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-39583873188172652082009-08-03T18:33:01.423+10:002009-08-03T18:33:01.423+10:00Chris,
I am not saying ARVs cannot cause AIDS an...Chris, <br /><br />I am not saying ARVs cannot cause AIDS any more, just that it's a very different and changing picture these days.<br /><br />I am sure you are in full agreement with WainbergTokoloshenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-90657145747475171112009-08-03T18:28:29.023+10:002009-08-03T18:28:29.023+10:00Senor de Tal,
Although I am a great admirer of y...Senor de Tal, <br /><br />Although I am a great admirer of you as a contributer to the dissident cause and as adornment on a bull's horn, you occasionally have a terrible habit of stating the obvious.<br /><br />It is for instance obvious that Mark Wainberg is incapable of thinking that the drugs could cause anything but pleasure and endless grants, a win-win in other words. <br /><br />You did notice, did you not, that regardless, he thinks it is too early to be sure of what the future will bring.<br /><br />Senor de Tal, you should know by now that I prefer a URL when you are referring to new studies. You should also know that you can't get away with not describing a study properly. The START study is a treatment interruption study, not a ARVs vs no ARVs study. If you do a study on binge drinkers like myself and steady alcoholics like my other self, it's not unlikely you'll find that the on-off shocks to the system binge drinking causes is more unhealthy than regular daily consumption although the quantity is higher.<br /><br />Furthermore, as far as I am informed, the START study just began enrollment less than 6 months ago yet, so that's some pretty early results you are privvy to. <br /><br />Be tha as it may, Senor de Tal, you have added nothing to my admission that a rigid dose-dependent based theory might not be the best explanation model, especially post 1996.Tokoloshenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-43429833188255097322009-08-03T17:47:55.242+10:002009-08-03T17:47:55.242+10:00Toko,
where are you getting your ideas about Dues...Toko,<br /><br />where are you getting your ideas about Duesberg's theory from?<br /><br />In his 2003 masterpiece he writes:<b>Since about 450,000 US citizens are currently on DNA chain-terminators and protease inhi-<br />bitors as prophylaxis against, or therapy of AIDS (see above), these drugs alone could have been sufficient to generate all of the 43,158 new AIDS patients reported in the US in 2001.</b><br /><br />Duesberg does seem to be arguing that ARVs taken in the era of HAART cause AIDS. It is entirely reasonable to expect to see a dose response curve if this is true.<br /><br />I don't know of anybody who is saying that recreational drug use is not harmful. The ART Cohort Collaboration write:<b>There is also considerable heterogeneity between subgroups in life expectancy. For example, the disparity in life expectancy between HIV-infected injecting drug users and non-injecting drug users is very large. This finding is consistent with previous findings.32,37 There may be several reasons for this discrepancy, such as issues of adherence, inadequate or unequal access to treatment, active illicit drug use, hepatitis C co-infection, higher rates of smoking and alcohol use, and socioeconomic status.38 </b><br /><br />It makes complete sense that people who are infected with HIV and continue to use illicit drugs will progress to AIDS faster than those who don't. However, there is zero evidence that recreational drugs by themselves cause AIDS.<br /><br /> <br />I don't understand why you think that I am in any disagreement with Wainberg. ARVs extend life but they are not a cure.Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-10869970514896538352009-08-03T16:10:09.710+10:002009-08-03T16:10:09.710+10:00Loko, Loko, Loko,
You must have been wearing your ...Loko, Loko, Loko,<br />You must have been wearing your blahblah glasses when reading Wainberg's essay. Those are the glasses that turn all the text into Blahblahblah..., except for the little bits that can be distorted into the opposite of the author's intention. <br />Wainberg does not entertain the hypothesis that the antiretroviral drugs are causing the non-AIDS cancers in HIV patients. He does not think it is too early to tell. He thinks there is no reason to suspect that this is an effect of the drugs (on people that the drugs are demonstrably helping to live much longer than they would have otherwise).<br />And he's right. The START trials found that the risk of non-AIDS malignancies in HIV patients was lower in those who took continuous HAART compared to those who did not, and was lower in those who intiated HAART earlier. The more HAART, the less non-AIDS malignancies.<br />Making a living through honest work that advances knowledge and improves lives is not profiteering. Ask my friends, Alexander Fleming the penicillin profiteer, and Linus Pauling, the molecular biology pimp.<br />Abrazos,<br />Fulano de TalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com