Sam,

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 China.

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.

ref:
http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/news/studies/mtn003/drfacts
“until more information is available from current trials and long-term studies, the potential risks are not known.”

===Sam wrote===
It also seems like a weak analogy.  An article about misdiagnoses by emergency room physicians in the 1980s--many of whom would have been interns and residents working 110 or more hour weeks back then--hardly seems the basis for criticisms of flu epidemiology or vaccinology, much less for criticisms of anything about HIV/AIDS.

-----Original Message-----
From: Romsted, Laurence <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology

Jim:

Sorry, but at this point argument alone is not enough.  What you claim is
true for flu misdiagnosis need not be true at all for HIV/AIDS, which is
what the discussion was about.  I have learned nothing new from your
information.