Jim may also be referring to the Thabo Mbeki theory, which blamed Hiv Aids on poverty – although I’m not sure how toxicology would identify that, it’s likely to be possible – poverty shares certain things around the world.

I would like to know how any report would be able to link the infection of two people I know personally:

Harry, let’s call him, is gay, middle class and has lived more than half his life in very comfortable circumstances in Johannesburg – he is now living in London, still comfortable but not as well-off as he was here. He was a PR consultant who worked on computers and with notebooks. He was diagnosed as HIV+ a long time ago, about twenty years; when the disease progressed, he went onto anti-retrovirals about ten to fifteen years ago, initially paying for them himself (in London he went onto National Health, of course) and has since been able to pursue his physical hobbies and activities of daily life as usual.

Mpume, let’s call her, was born in a squatter camp to a mother who would shortly sicken and die of Aids, as would her father a few years later. Pictures of her as a small baby and toddler show a pasty, yellowish skin colour; when I met her about ten years ago, she had a clearly sickly look. She was diagnosed with TB and that led to her diagnosis of Aids. When she went onto the anti-retrovirals provided by the state after a prolonged people’s struggle to force both government and big pharma to come to the party, it was the first time I saw the ‘Lazarus’ effect for myself: she changed within the first two months from a languid child into one who had energy and life. She is now in her late teens and slightly plump, and doing very well (pursuing boys with rather frightening zeal!) although I think there is some residual damage (I am planning to take her to see a local expert in paeds Aids about whether there’s a touch of brain issues from going untreated for so long).

What on earth could these two share in terms of toxicology?

Southern Africa is the epicentre of this disease; 69% of the people living with Aids are in sub-Saharan Africa, the bulk of them concentrated in South Africa and its neighbours. .(http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2012/gr2012/20121120_UNAIDS_Global_Report_2012_with_annexes_en.pdf) This, by the way, is how we come to have experts in paeds Aids – because in the global north, there are almost no cases of paeds Aids, whereas here there are plenty to study. Comparing babies with HIV infections to those who come from equivalents circumstances but aren’t infected is enlightening

As these countries have rolled out anti-retrovirals, which, as Sam pointed out, work by targeting “different parts of the replication cycle of one specific virus—HIV”, we have repeatedly seen reductions in death rates and in infection. If these drugs are not working on a specific virus which is at the very least the primary cause of Hiv Aids, then sub-Saharan Africa must have been the greatest case of mass delusion resulting in a placebo effect, ever.

Mandi

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:39 AM

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology

I am beginning to think that Jim has no position on HIV/AIDS other than a desire to see toxicology done everywhere to everyone who feels at all sick.

Jim: No one is claiming that the ARVs cured most of the people with HIV. I am claiming that: 1. Many of them have been kept quite healthy; and 2. Vast numbers of them are alive who would be dead.

I do not see the need for toxicological studies to prove either that: 1. They are alive; 2. That others are dead; or 3. That they do not have the opportunistic diseases or low CD4 counts that are used to define AIDS.

Likewise, if I get and then recover from a common cold, I do not see the need for toxicological studies.

The only toxicological hypothesis that I am aware of having been seriously offered about AIDS was that of immune system destruction through too much use of psychoactive drugs. This has been shown to be false long ago, as I said.

So, Jim, once again: What toxicological studies are you suggesting be done? And why?

-----Original Message-----
From: Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Nov 12, 2013 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology

Sam has my sympathy in this exchange.  Like him, I can't
make out what study you think ought to have been done
that wasn't.  Is your inscrutability deliberate?

Chandler



On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Jim West 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 ?ARV 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
>