Print

Print


At 12:48 PM 11/13/2013, Romsted, Laurence wrote:
>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

I understand Sam's point, Larry, and I don't know the answer.
I also understand Jim's point that no one is bothering to look.

Mitchel



>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
> >> >