November 2013


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

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

Print Reply
Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:48:12 -0500
text/plain (24 lines)
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.