"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 30 14:26:07 EST 1998

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:47:41 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:

>In article <363a015d.328914173 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >I would not recommend antivirals for anyone 
>> Thank you
>> who has only an antibody test
>> >to demonstrate HIV status.
>> Not everyone agrees with you.  I repeat, pregnant HIV + women are
>> being "treated",  as are their children in the womb and for a while
>> thereafter, with AZT.  They are not necessarily AIDS patients.  Care
>> to dispute this?  You'll lose, I'll definitely cite the reference on
>> that, if you'll apologize immediately thereafter.  Also, since my
>> credibility as a medical health person has been questioned(repeatedly
>> ad nauseum) you might ask the CDC to confirm the recommended protocol
>> of AZT for individuals "possibly" exposed through accidental needle
>> stick or exposure to HIV contaminated blood or sputum.  No HIV +
>> status even required there.
>For pregnant women that are HIV-1 infected I would still like to see a
>viral load test
Why would you want to look at a bunch of dead virus?  Remember, Mullis
says(kind of like Simon says, it's his test you know), "Quantitave PCR
is an oxymoron".
, but I understand
You don't have a clue as to what you just said.  The "study" that
precipitated the advocacy of using AZT with HIV+ pregnant women
indicated that there was a 50% reduction in the incidence of HIV+
offspring(I think that's the impersonal scientific terminology you
would prefer).  Narrowing this down so that we can understand that 50%
isn't always 50%.  The CDC's own statistics show that there is,
without any poison being added to the diet of the HIV+ mother, a 25%
chance that the child will be HIV +.  You, divide that figure in half
and you get 12.5%.  Now, that's interesting, isn't it.  We give 100%
of the fetuses and mothers poison so that MAYBE only 12.5% will be
born with a serological marker that doesn't mean anything.
 that the risk of the baby to get
>infected is greater than the risk to the mother from short term AZT
Wake up Marnix!  The prophylaxis isn't for the mom, it's for the kid!
And people exposed through needlesticks are of course a
>different category altogether
Oh yeah?  Walk through any medical, dental or nursing school and see
if there isn't a protocol in big ugly black letters telling you what
you should do should you have an accidental needle stick injury, even
if the seropositive status is unknown.  You are such a moron.  You're
in my court now, little man.
. If you're going to hung for citations maybe
>you could provide a few that show that the advocated (short term)
>treatment in both of these situations is adversarial to the health of the
>individuals under treatment. 
Is this one of those can't prove a negative kind of situations.  O.k.
I can't prove dragons don't exist, you win.

>>  As for your question: such a person would have
>> >antibodies to the viral proteins contained in the vaccine prep. This could
>> >label him/her seropositive. 
>> Thank you
>> Various proposals are under discussion as to
>> >how to distinguish this status from true seropositivity resulting from
>> >infection.
>> Yes, I'm sure we at Reappraising AIDS and HEAL would love to know how
>> that is going to be done.
>Some proposals would include a unique antigen irrelevant to HIV-1, others
>would exclude certain HIV antigens. Both have their drawbacks. What would
>you advocate ?
Dropping the entire argument that HIV=AIDS, educating people on the
hazards of drug abuse, enforcing drug trafficking laws and severely
penalizing those that do.  Keep people off of meds prophylactically
that promote promiscuous behavior.  Stop scaring the crap out of
doctors who don't know whether to touch an HIV + or PWA or scream and
run.  In short, be responsible and logical and scientific, and
Christian and whatever theological tenent that espouses the virtues of
monogamy, abstinence from drugs(street drugs, hallucinogenic drugs and
performance enhancing drugs.  Stop ostracizing the gay community that
just wants to be gay  by making them look like lepers unless they
become fringers who aren't even tolerated by the mainstream gays.
That isn't very scientific, is it?
>>  All vaccines in clinical trials to date (that I'm aware off)
>> >use only selected HIV-1 antigens
>> But, er, don't they "keep on mutating".  What's a fella to do?
>Vaccines don't mutate
Boy, aren't we glad polio didn't have the same problem?
>> , mostly envelope.
>> Just the envelope or is that your way of saying that this is just like
>> every other garden variety retrovirus, or virus for that matter?
>I'm talking about recombinant proteins. Ask your educated pathology
>buddies about them.
I can think of better things to do.
>>  Thus immunized
>> >individuals would not be seropositive for HIV-1 but only show reactivity
>> >to a limited subset of HIV-1 antigens.
>> I'm sure THAT will make the poor schmucks being immunized feel a lot
>> better!  I can see it now.  We're going to immunize you but we don't
>> know if we are immunizing you against the strain of HIV that you may
>> be exposed to, so BE CAREFUL. Also, since you will now be HIV +, you
>> don't have to worry about getting a job in a hospital, at a blood bank
>> or procuring life or health insurance because we know how open minded
>> these institutions are to speculation.
>> But, I do appreciate the "kinder" tone of your chastisement this time.
>> Thank you for being somewhat civil. jb
>Your inclusion of terms like 'asshole', and 'genocidal' makes civility
>somewhat one-sided sometimes. 
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt YOUR feelings.  I do slip every once
in a while when I'm trying to SAVE LIVES.
Indeed the risk of forgery of vaccination
>documents and the like could jeopardize career prospects or mortgage
>applications of goodwilling vaccinated individuals.
Thank you.
 However it is also in
>the best interest of eg mortgage companies to reduce the chance of someone
>they're ponying up the money for to become infected with HIV-1. Thus, they
>would love to have their whole 'population' vaccinated against HIV-1.

So would I, then the issue would be dropped.
>What's your solution ? Stop all vaccination efforts
yes, for that issue.  That would suit me just fine.  
, or trying to deal
>with the issues you bring up ?
Read about the real lives of people who go through the ostracism of
being HIV+.  Imagine that it were you and you didn't have any risk
factors typically associated with becoming HIV+.  Simplify this issue
for the non braniacs who might be cruising this newsgroup for some
help. jb
>Marnix Bosch
>> >Marnix Bosch

More information about the Immuno mailing list