SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

November 2013

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:15:23 -0500
Reply-To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments:
To: Sam Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Sam,

Granted, you are not a toxicologist.  Neither are you an epidemiologist, nor are you a virologist.  Yet, you have very strong opinions in favor of HIV causation, despite the missing toxicology.

I'm looking for the toxicological studies for AIDS causation.  They should be rigorous, not conjecture, and they should be at the cell, animal, human, and epidemiological level, and they should substantially fail, if they are to support the HIV theory of causation.  These studies should have occurred during the discovery era of the AIDS epidemics.  I doubt any such studies are to be found.

Jim

===
I am not a toxicologist, so I am trying to understand exactly what you are getting at.  I am also pointing out that the evidence suggests that toxicological explanations would not fit the epidemiologic data.  The only attempts I know of to make toxicological arguments had to do with early thinking that drug use overload (heroin, cocaine, maybe some club drugs of 70s) might explain AIDS.  These did not work out, as I partially explained below.

Do you know of any other efforts on this? And do you have any reason to think that the network-based data that strongly imply person to person transmission are inadequate?

best
sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>; Sam Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology
Sam, You are speculating from non-toxicological studies.  Apparently you are 
unaware of any such toxicology studies.  

========
If by that you mean where is the evidence that exposures to chemicals or 
whatever are not important causes, the Auerbach et al (1984??) study that showed 
the sexual networks connecting AIDS cases was pretty good evidence that personal 
contact was involved.  The evidence that only injecting drug use was involved in 
the early AIDS cases among drug users suggested pretty strongly that drug 
toxicity was not a critical factor, as has the wide variety of different 
injection drugs in different countries that have been associated with AIDS risk.

And, again, if it is toxic exposures, then medicines that target a specific 
virus should not have been so effective at reducing both AIDS incidence and AIDS 
deaths 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>; Sam Friedman 
<[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 8:58 am
Subject: HIV AIDS and toxicology

Sam, Thanks for your reply.

Rephrasing my question:

Where is the toxicology of AIDS?  Toxicology should be a primary area of study 
for an emerging disease.  Otherwise, characterizations of a causal virus could 
be severely biased.

Jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2