Print

Print


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
> >