Larry,

What do "get" of that?  So I can know how to respond. 

- Jim

=========
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?

Larry

On 11/13/13 11:43 AM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Larry,
>
>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.
>
>Jim
>
>================
>Jim:
>
>I have been following this exchange most of the time. I do not understand
>what you mean.
>
>Perhaps you could give a concrete example that illustrates what you mean
>with a reference or references that illustrates the point that toxicology
>studies made a difference.
>
>Larry
>
>On 11/12/13 9:15 PM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Sam,
>>
>>The assumption of toxicity is not necessary, nor the finding of toxicity,
>>nor the separation of views.
>>
>>Required is the toxicological context to actually understand any disease,
>>perceived "successful" recovery, and the characteristics of any suspect
>>microbe.
>>
>>Without the toxicology, fundamental data is missing from the picture, any
>>picture related to AIDS, including your hypothesis of ³ARV success².
>>It's basic science.
>>
>>===============
>>That assumes that his specimens are toxic, I think.
>>
>>The trouble with your argument here is that it avoids the point I have
>>been making: The intervention methods based on the HIV theory worked.
>>Lots of people got well and did not die.
>>
>>Until you have an answer to that bit of history, you are just saying "You
>>did not play in my sandbox so I don't like you any more."
>>
>>However, I will play in your sandbox a little:
>>
>>Exactly what toxicological studies do you think should have been done?
>>
>>Maybe what you wanted was in fact done and maybe I know about it.
>>
>>What hypotheses, or kinds of hypotheses, do you think should have been
>>tested?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:09 am
>>Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology
>>
>>Kamran,
>>
>>I will recapitulate. I asked Sam for the toxicology of AIDS and he had
>>me 
>>rephrase my question. He also brought related discussion, which I
>>delayed 
>>getting into premature to my initial topic.
>>
>>Thanks to Sam for answering my question: Sam is unaware of AIDS
>>toxicology, and 
>>that concurs with my experience.
>>
>>Here is my continuance in the context of Sam's related discussion.
>>
>>I will draw a simple parallel, since HIV/AIDS science and politics can be
>>confusing.
>>
>>A research biochemist can corrupt his laboratory in two ways: 1) Poison
>>his 
>>specimens. 2) Avoid the toxicological status of his specimens.
>>
>>If either option is selected, then his laboratory findings are moot. The
>>characteristics of any virus studied in such conditions are moot. All
>>subsequent research and literature based on the findings of that
>>laboratory are 
>>in doubt.
>>
>>Option #2 represents the history of AIDS research.
>>
>>Jim