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]>
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:38:49 -0500
text/plain (122 lines)
The flu analogy demonstrates that medicos are capable of treating people with toxic drugs for a toxic disease, with drastic results, hidden.  It shows that epidemiologists are willing to overlook toxic flu, and still claim “vaccine success”.

It is “similar acts evidence” could apply to AIDS too, as follows:

A person could have flu, which can be a prelude to pneumonia, an AIDS symptom.  In NYC, causation could very likely be an unventilated stove or boiler in his apartment complex, or any other massive NYC pollutant source.  Toxic cause wouldn’t have to be heroin use.

If his doctor ordered an environmental review, the man goes home and the medical system may never see him again.  There happens to be a huge conflict of interest.

Otherwise, the status quo:  The man with pneumonia is given an ELISA test which is known to cross-react with many non-HIV diseases.  He is diagnosed HIV positive, though with virtually no toxicology in the AIDS paradigm at any level (virological, clinical, epidemiological), AIDS could be a toxic disease.

The epidemiological perception of "ARV success" fails to adjust for toxic confounders potentially inherent at many levels of "AIDS".  Without the toxicology, that success is moot at best.  Normally, epidemiologists obsessively adjust for confounders, yet, with AIDS and flu, they ignore those confounders.

===Sam wrote=======
I would not go too far with the flu analogy, though.  The success of antiretrovirals in AIDS is very impressive indeed.

This does not mean that they work for all causes of immunosuppression. Thirty years ago that might have been a problem, but diagnostic tools now can tell the difference pretty precisely.  

It is misleading to think that no toxicology studies got done, just that they were limited in time and scope.  And that they did not lead to much of value.

The strongest one I am aware of is that around drug use (heroin, cocaine, etc) as an immune overload, which was popular in the period in 1983 or so in some circles, but no evidence was found to support it.

By the way, I spent two or three years as a member of NJ COSH in the late 70s early 80s, so I understand what toxic exposures can do.  It is just that there is no evidence for them in the AIDS case.  And overwhelming evidence that the main thing operative is HIV.

This by no means rules out social and economic causative factors.  We can have that discussion if anyone wants to start a new thread.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, Nov 13, 2013 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology


Thanks.  This should move the flu parallel closer to AIDS.

With flu, the epidemiology shows “vaccine success” despite virtually no attempt 
to distinguish between virus flu and toxic flu.  The flu paradigm is heavily 
promoted, and the toxic paradigm gets no press or science.  Virus vaccines are 
even promoted by MDs to pregnant women and nursing mothers despite specific 
manufacturer’s contraindications.



I get the idea that causes of illness can be misdiagnosed.  What looks like flu 
is actually caused by something else, e.g., environmental pollution.

If for example, environmental pollution was making people ill and not HIV/AIDS, 
then it should show up in epidemiology, e.g., environmental pollution is 
geographically based and anywhere there is a smokestack spewing stuff, more 
people should be getting sick in its vicinity.
Although distinguishing environmental causes from person to person transfer 
might not be easy.  I do not know much about this.


On 11/13/13 12:13 PM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>What do "get" of that?  So I can know how to respond.
>- Jim
>Thanks. I get that. Are there published examples of environmental 
>poisoning being misdiagnosed as HIV/Aids infection? If so, is there a 
>pattern in them? Seems to me that only the discovery of real poisonings 
>misdiagnosed as HIV would make the case. Otherwise, how would you know?
>On 11/13/13 11:43 AM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>As an example, as requested, let me draw a simpler parallel.
>>[Flu Parallel]
>>Jane has the flu and sees an MD. According to common protocol, he 
>>gives her pills and sends her home to recover, “See me again if you 
>>don’t feel better.”
>>Jane gets worse and lives miserably with a cycle of chronic disease 
>>and pills, seeing the MD routinely.
>>10 years later, her friend Bob, an environmentalist, finds that her 
>>basement apartment is undoubtedly polluted by boiler exhaust, 
>>measuring hazardous levels of CO and NOx.
>>Jane vents her apartment and the landlord has the boiler vented properly.
>> Jane recovers and tosses the pills.
>>[End of Parallel]
>>Poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed as virus flu. One of several 
>>studies is Dolan (1985).
>>Dolan (1985), Abstract:
>>“Subacute carbon monoxide poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed as an 
>>influenza-like viral illness. All patients presenting... with flu-like 
>>symptoms during February 1985 were asked to give blood samples for 
>>carboxyhemoglobin determination. ... “
>>“No patient with a carboxyhemoglobin level greater than or equal to 
>>10% was diagnosed as having subacute CO poisoning by emergency physicians.
>>Physicians must seek out the possibility of CO toxicity in patients 
>>with flu-like illness...”
>>To this day, MD’s commonly misdiagnose poisoning as virus flu, by 
>>omitting toxicology, i.e., environmental reviews for their clients.