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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Sep 22 12:39:16 EST 1998


On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:00:31 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:

>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. 
>
>Is this your best response to my request ? You said literally that 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".
>
>So we have to take your word for this assertion and balance that with data
>from clinical trials that show that:
>1) people on monotherapy do better (and certainly no worse) than untreated
>individuals
>2) people on combination therapy do better than those on monotherapy
>
>I for one would like to see data where untreated individuals are compared
>to matched individuals on triple drug therapy. But such a study can only
>be done in places where the standard of care is 'no treatment', with all
>the ethical problems associated with that (like future availability of the
>drugs etc.). Duesberg of course knows this, so screaming for such a
>controlled study means ignoring reality. 

Ethical problems?  You guys(and women) have been advocating  toxic
drug therapy for asymptomatic HIV + people for a long time.  Why are
you throwing a question of ethics into this.  HEAL 
>
>> 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.  
>
>Of course there are long-term infected individuals that are healthy in the
>absence of treatment. Same is true for long-term smokers. That however
>does not prove anything.
>
>> Duesberg has been screaming for a controlled study like
>> this for at least 9 years.  The AIDS establishment doesn't want it to
>> happen.  But again,  the best evidence is in speaking with real live
>> persons.  There are plenty of the real dead ones that went your route
>> that can't defend themselves. jb
>
>There are a few studies in macaques infected with SIV showing that
>untreated animals die of AIDS-related disease and that treatment keeps the
>animals healthy and alive. Unfortunately there is no animal model where
>HIV-1 causes AIDS directly. Which is why drug companies now get away
>without having to prove efficacy in an animal model. Wish that were
>otherwise.
Doesn't this just devastate you?  No animal model?  We agree again,
durg companies get away without having to prove efficacy.  I wish it
were so too.
>
>Marnix Bosch
>
>> 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