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 >