Mitchel:

OK.  But the specific issue is are there causes, e.g., environmental, that
are misdiagnosed as HIV/AIDS?

If there are none, then the current treatment, whatever its problems, is
the best available, which is what I think Sam's point is.

Larry

On 11/13/13 12:41 PM, "Mitchel Cohen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Funny you should bring up smokestack pollution, Larry.
>
>Jim was the main researcher for the No Spray
>Coalition who examined the EPA's maps of
>petroleum refinery emissions and found that the
>incidence of West Nile encephalitis in NYC
>attributed to the virus mapped precisely to the
>areas and times of those emissions, mostly from New Jersey!
>
>I've discussed with Jim the possibility that BOTH
>are right, that the emissions in some way impact
>cells to produce particular viruses, but no one
>is even looking at that. Only lately has the term
>"epigenetics" come into respectable use --
>environmental impact on DNA. Could LaMarck have been right, after all?
>
>Hmmm.
>
>Mitchel
>
>
>At 12:20 PM 11/13/2013, Romsted, Laurence wrote:
>>Jim:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>On 11/13/13 12:13 PM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >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 ©øARV
>>success©÷.
>> >>>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
>> >