In article <3608f0a9.117819364 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 22 Sep 1998 19:12:27 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>>>In article <3607ed93.51483244 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 22 Sep 1998 18:22:48 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>Hogan) 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.
>>>>>>>>Actually, the entire body of randomized clinical trialls (the only
>>>>methodology to reliably link causal information to specific drugs)
>>>>refutes this notion, at least for persons with more advanced disease
>>>>(there is no reliable data suggesting that antiretrovirals have
>>>>long term morbidity/mortality benefits in asymptomatic, relatively
>>>>high T-cell populations). But there are literally dozens of randomized
>>>>trials showing clear and unambiguous survival benefits for
>>>>antiretrovirals, particularly regimens containing protease inhibitors.
>>>>A small listing of trials that have shown "infection or death"
>>>>benefits includes CAESAR (AZT+3tC), ACTG 320 (AZT, 3tc and indinavir)
>>>>Merck 035 (same) Agouron 509 (AZT, 3tc and nelfinavir) and Abbott 047
>>>>(AZT, 3tc ritonavir) In addition to these trials, there are literally
>>>>hundreds of industry-sponsored and academic trials confirming
>>>>dramatic virologic benefits (HIV-RNA). All respect due to Kary
>>>>Mullis, an acid-popping chemist with no medical or virology training,
>>>>but HIV RNA has been mutiply verified as one of the single best
>>>>predictors of morbidity and mortality. Eager amateurs like Mullis
>>>>and the Perth group claim HIV not to exist, or to be harmless.
>>>>Nevertheless, whatever HIV RNA assays (there is substantial
>>>>agreement betwen the three most common, QC-PCR, bDNA and NASBA)
>>>>are used, there is a predictable and consistent association
>>>>between HIV RNA levels and risk of OI or death. Whatever it's
>>>>measuring (and virtually all investigators, including myself believe
>>>>it to be HIV) it is tightly associated with AIDS pathology.
>>>>>>Just dispatch old Kary, snap! Just like that. He gives you the most
>>>important biochemical discovery in the history of the world and you
>>>say thanks, see you later pal? Do you think he's a one trick pony?jb
>>>>Is this your only response to the cited scientific literature?
>>And by the way, what else medically meaningful work *has* Mullis
>>done?
>Boy, that a brilliant statement. If Einstein had only published his
>theory of relativity as a young patent clerk, that wasn't proven for
>another 20 years, would he still be considered as "limited" due to not
>solving all the problems of the world. The days of da Vincis are over
>mister. By the way, since you brought it up, what have you or your
>diatribe of coneheads done lately that made life a little sweeter?
>Haven't seen your faces or names in the paper. Maybe buried in some
>dumb as scientific journal that no one reads outside of your peers.
>Can't say that about Mullis, can you? jb
Wow. what a scyntilatingly detailed, referenced, and well thought
out rejoinder! I guess *you* dealt with all the substantive issues
I raised. By the way, diatribe refers to heated speech: it is not a
description of a group of individuals. As to my work, well, if you
can access AIDSLINE, it speaks for itself. While you may not value
"dumb as(sic) scientific journals" I am afraid those of us who
work in scientific fields find them quite valuable: far more so
than the newspaper. Isn't that one of your prime criticisms of
Gallo? That he did "science by press conference" rather than
by peer review? Boy, you dissidents are a confused bunch.
You claim that if my work isn't in the papers it is valueless,
yet Gallo needs a different standard; you embrace Concorde
for it's demonstration that AZT monotherapy is not indicated in
asympomatics, yet squawk when reminded that Concorde also
demonstrated, quite convincingly, that AZT does not cause
AIDS. Maybe you all should put together a little "talking points"
paper, so that you don't contradict yourself quite as often.
I don't think anyone requested DaVincis. Rather, I would like to
see virologists who know virology, chemists who know chemistry,
and epidemiologists who know epidemiology. Not half-baked
virologists who criticize the epidemiology, and acid-sotted
chemists who criticize the virology and immunology. By the way.
What *has* Mullis done lately (besides creating a totally data-
free model of AIDS pathogenesis)?
Regards
Carlton
>>>>Carlton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Really poor sentence structure and definitely a circular argument,
>>>>>kind of HIV=AIDzey(pronounced like 'sy' in easy)
>>>>>>>>>>>>This is a separate question of whether there is a value in using the
>>>>>>drugs for people with HIV who are progressing at fairly slow rates
>>>>>>toward AIDS. It is probably best to wait for some period, but not
>>>>>>until T cells drop much below 100. Indeed, some people can be HIV+
>>>>>>for 10 years without developing AIDS--but may still be progressing in
>>>>>>terms of continually but relatievly slowly declining CD4 counts. As
>>>>>>time passes, the risk for opportunistic infections occurring rises.
>>>>>>>>>No really, if you're going to "knock those bad boys out", why not
>>>>>start early? For that matter, why not take a cocktail with your
>>>>>multivitamin each day, especially if you want to be "absolutely sure"
>>>>>that HIV doesn't have a chance to go, mutate, waltz, swing dance...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Specific, phenotypically confirmed genotypic evidence makes it
>>>>quite clear that HIV escape mutants gain dominance in the presence
>>>>of antiretrovirals. This is yet another line of reasoning to
>>>>suggest that these drugs act directly against HIV. There are
>>>>clear cut codon-substitutions that have been corellated with
>>>>HIV escaping control of therapy. This is not conjecture.
>>>>But again, I would reiterate that there is no credible data
>>>>suggesting a long term clinical benefit to antiretroviral therapy
>>>>in asymptomatics. But there's tons for people with more advanced disease.
>>>>The acquisition of escape-mutant populations may be part of the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>By contrast, there is a group of about 10-12% of people with HIV who
>>>>>>are either extremely slow or non-progressors (for all intents and
>>>>>>purposes). Their CD4 count does not diminish. There is no rationale
>>>>>>for treating these people.
>>>>>>>>>I agree, if we could just get you to see that leaving the other 88 to
>>>>>90% alone!
>>>>>>>>Antiretrovirals save lives. That is not to say that they are innocuous
>>>>compounds, or that everyone should be compelled to take them. But
>>>>accurate informed consent should contain information on the substantial
>>>>benefits of today's regimens, as well as drawbacks (i.e. toxicity,
>>>>resistance, difficult to take regimens)
>>>>>>>>>>>>So your question needs to be clarified. The reality is, most infected
>>>>>>people WILL progress to AIDS. Not treating at a certain point in the
>>>>>>progression is a fatally stupid mistake.
>>>>>>>>>What reality? Maybe in your fairy land.
>>>>>>>>No actually the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature,
>>>>>>>>> The reality is that you need
>>>>>a reality checkup. Treating a person past a certain point, the moment
>>>>>whenever you make the decision to start treatment with your killer
>>>>>drugs IS a stupid mistake. Call HEAL, quickly. Don't listen to this
>>>>>guy, he's missing some parts from his last trip to the garage. jb
>>>>>>>>Actually everything he said can be verified by a quick trip to the
>>>>library or MEDLINE. It is your assertions that are based entirely
>>>>on faith, rather than evidence.
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
