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

Carlton Hogan carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Tue Sep 22 13:36:36 EST 1998


In article <3607299a.1305896 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
 <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>That's exactly the point, there are no controlled studies to prove
>that they don't.  I suggest that you contact the Los Angeles chapter
>of HEAL.  Talk to some real live people that gave up on being guinea
>pigs and are very healthy, despite being HIV +.  Start with Christine
>Maggiore.  Duesberg has been screaming for a controlled study like
>this for at least 9 years. 

Actually, if you read Duseberg carefully, what he advocates is 
case-control or cohort studies, which are inferior for inferring
causality. The controlled studies have been, and are being done.
Each one drives another nail in Duesbeg's ideological coffin.
The kinds of studies Duseberg prefers are majorly flawed. As an example,
let's consider his argument that AZT is killing hemophiliacs.
He makes this argument by comparing death rates in AZT-taking 
and non-AZT taking groups. He claims the higher death rate means 
AZT is killing hemophiliacs. What he ignores, in his lack of 
understanding of proper study design, is that AZT is only prescribed
for people with HIV. So sorting by AZT or no-AZT actually does 
a pretty good job of sorting by HIV or no HIV. To properly do such 
a study. you would want to compare people taking or not taking AZT
who were otherwise matched for all major prognostic factors (HIV
status, CD4 count, weight, age, gender, etc). Randomized trials 
would be preferable to both approaches. His study design is
too flawed to show anything.

> The AIDS establishment doesn't want it to
>happen.  But again,  the best evidence is in speaking with real live
>persons.

Actually, anecdotes tell you nothing (or close to it). Everyone is 
unique: their pharmacokinetics, their immmune system, their rate 
of progression. I have been on antiretrovirals for ten years,
yet I would never claim that "proves" they work. The only way
to reliably answer the general question (i.e. are ARVs better for 
most people) as opposed to the specific (what one individual, or 
others commenting on that individual believes) is properly designed 
studies.

>  There are plenty of the real dead ones that went your route
>that can't defend themselves. jb

Most of my friends from the eighties refused antiretroviral treatment,
and used "holistic" medicine. They are all dead. The majority of HIV+
cases in this country have come from from emergency room visits
with pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. There are lots dead on both 
sides of the argument. But controlled studies show that ARVs buy
you more time.

Carlton
 
 __________________________________________________________________________
 |                                                                        |
 |   Carlton Hogan  (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)                         |
 |   Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center  |
 |   Coordinating Center for Biometric Research                           |
 |   Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health                   |
 |   University of Minnesota          http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
 |   2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200              Voice: (612) 626 8899 |
 |   Minneapolis  MN 55414                            FAX: (612) 626 8892 |
 |________________________________________________________________________|
   Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.
   
>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:41:44 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>Bosch) wrote:
>
>>In article <3606c736.257123235 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:57:23 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>>> Carter) wrote:
>>> 
>>> >Todd Miller <todd33 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>AIDS Treatment News / Immunet wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
>>> >>> and found combinations which work for them.  
>>> >
>>> >>Does anyone know of a reference that supports this statement?
>>> >>Is this statement true because by definition, a "long-term
>>> >>survivor" is a person who HAS taken the establishment's therapy,
>>> >>while a "long-term non-progressor" is a person who has avoided
>>> >>this therapy?
>>> >
>>> >There is evidence that people with AIDS (who have progressed whether
>>> >they took drugs or not) have better clinical condition and survival
>>> >when they take drugs in combination than those who do not use drugs
>>> >who have progressed to AIDS.
>>
>>> There is evidence to the opposite also, that is, that those taking the
>>> immunosuppressive "AIDS" drugs have worse clinical conditions and
>>> poorer survival when they take drugs(I assume you are speaking of the
>>> usual poisons, AZT and PI's)in combination than those who do not use
>>> drugs(again I am assuming the same thing) who have progressed to AIDS.
>>> Really poor sentence structure and definitely a circular argument,
>>> kind of HIV=AIDzey(pronounced like 'sy' in easy)
>>
>>Could you please post that evidence ? That is: studies that show that
>>people on anti-HIV cocktails fare worse than matched HIV-1 infected
>>untreated controls. Please.
>>
>>Marnix Bosch
>





More information about the Immuno mailing list