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.



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.


On 11/12/13 9:15 PM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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
>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
>-----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
>I will recapitulate. I asked Sam for the toxicology of AIDS and he had
>rephrase my question. He also brought related discussion, which I
>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
>A research biochemist can corrupt his laboratory in two ways: 1) Poison
>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.