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, 17 Nov 2013 14:38:29 -0500
text/plain (76 lines)

My list of confounders is directly relevant to your claim of "great declines in AIDS mortality".

I don't see how anyone could speculate about that claim which contains so many unadjusted confounders.

How would you support your claim, aside from "belief".


You continue to dodge my question.  What is your explanation for the great declines in AIDS mortality?

Why has there been a change between a period when masses of Africans (among others) who were getting AIDS  (according to you) due to toxic exposures were pretty uniformly dying very quickly and now, when large numbers of them are getting antiretrovirals and staying alive?

As far as I can see, your arguments below are shown to be pretty irrelevant by this fact.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 5:38 pm


The symptoms of flu overlap the symptoms of AIDS, and the same clinicians 
diagnose both diseases, so the flu analogy is useful.  Everyone who has 
witnessed a doctor diagnose flu symptoms, their experience, supports my 
observation of a disregard for toxicology.

Mandi’s observations are valuable. 

In addition to the missing toxicology, HIV/AIDS epidemiology fails to adjust for 
confounders related to clinical bias, as Mandi observes:

“Any health-care practitioner in South Africa will tell you they don’t really 
need the confirmation of the tests to diagnose HIV: a patient presents with 
certain symptoms and you know in advance what’s wrong.”

That bias is baffling when the symptoms of “AIDS” consist of previously known 
symptoms for diseases known before AIDS arrived on the scene.  

That may be more than mere bias, as, according to critics who have traveled to 
Africa, it is common diagnostic procedure to omit virus testing.  It seems 
incredible, but not when you realize that it has always been that way with other 
diseases, such as the flu, in all countries.

Regarding your claim that I “ignore issues of quantity”, I actually am 
demonstrating these problems as widespread.  In terms of flu, our common 
experience supports my claims, as well as Dolan (1987).  Why would diagnostic 
standards improve when a new disease like AIDS is declared epidemic?  Mandi 
substantiates the commonality of flu and HIV diagnostic quality.  Doctors say 
the same thing about flu, ie., they “know in advance what’s wrong” without any 
tests and prescribe toxic treatments for what may be a toxic disease.

Of course, I don’t believe in HIV causation, as I explained earlier and above.  
I’m just saying that even in terms of the believers, virus testing is not 
necessary.  70% of all AIDS deaths occur in Sub-Sahara Africa, which also 
happens to be the area of greatest industrial pollution per capita, worse than 

The variety of statistical evidence you mention is thereby invalidated.

Your claim of statistical evidence for improvement of AIDS cases due to ARV’s:  

ARVs such as AZT also correlated with the rise of AIDS epidemic incidence.  The 
“improvement” arrived with the milder toxicity of the later ARVs.  In general, 
drugs at a mild toxicity have always made people feel better, examples being 
tobacco, alcohol, and in an earlier era, “arsenic tonic”.  

The real problem is the long-term effects.  The long-term studies are missing 
for ARVs, yet, we can expect toxicity problems.  ARVs are toxic.

“until more information is available from current trials and long-term studies, 
the potential risks are not known.”