A Blogospheric Book
Dean
I've never seen anyone do anything quite like this: take a carefully guided internet discussion, edit out the chaff, and present it in book form.
Regardless of whether it's been done before, this may be the best thing ever to appear on Dean's World.
The interesting thing is that if you just sit down and read this whole thing, quietly contemplating the debate, I doubt if you will get a finer education in one place on why a lot of people think the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is terribly flawed--as well as why some people think HIV's skeptics are terribly misguided.
The release of this today (Charles Stein has been working on it for a couple of weeks) seems particularly interesting, because multiple people have sent me the following story this morning: Experts Urge Routine HIV Tests for All. They want pretty much everybody to be tested for it now. (And by the way, it's now 2005. Did you notice in that article how many people they said are HIV+?)
This to me seems of a piece with a related story from a couple of weeks ago, wherein CDC began recommending that anyone so much as exposed to HIV take drugs, even if they show no evidence of infection.
Of such stories I will only say this: this is a virus which the medical establishment (not the HIV skeptics, the medical establishment) nowadays says has a 10 year median latency, with outliers over 20 years. The same medical establishment also now admits that some individuals may be completely immune. But if you test positive for this virus, they want to put you on drugs as soon as possible--and if you have children, the state may well force them to take drugs as well. Even if (yes, even if) the children themselves do not test HIV+, they may take them away from you if you refuse to drug them.
They've done it many times before, and they are still doing it today.
By this point you must know what I think of such things. What you think: that's up to you.
In any case, I hope you enjoy this book experiment, which many of you helped to write. The working title was "Thinking the Unthinkable" but I like Charles Stein's title even better.
Click here to read Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis: Eleven Days of real-time Cyber-Drama.
(You know, I wonder what Anthony Fauci thinks? Think he'd talk to me?)
An easy read so far. Good job!
I suppose I'm chaff...I've been edited out.
Looks like you've carved yourself a niche, Dean.
Did you ever read my highly-recommended essay by Frank Tipler regarding peer-reviewed articles? It really is worth your time.
Bruce
It's in a book...let me think for a bit on how to get it to you.
Here is another eye-opening essay, this time on the net, which covers the same topic (and then mentions HIV/AIDs !)
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/then_and_now.htm
Hell, I like the idea of universal testing of adults for HIV -- here's why:
1. All adults would include doctors, med students, nurses, scientists, public health officials, and university professors.
2. Since the HIV test is so wildly inaccurate, a buncha these folks are gonna test positive.
3. That means a buncha these folks are gonna have to start taking these wonderfully benign drugs, such as AZT and Nevirapine.
4. But, then they're gonna start getting sick as dogs. They may even start asking impertinent questions -- and then they might stumble onto some heretofore unpleasant answers that refute all this theoretical jive they tend to spout.
I'm for it!
Hank Barnes
And thanks for wishing harm on so many groups of people at once. I appreciate that.
The guidelines for treating (Source):
1. Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all patients with history of an AIDS-defining illness or severe symptoms of HIV infection regardless of CD4+ T cell count. (AI)
2. Antiretroviral therapy is also recommended for asymptomatic patients with <200 CD4+ T cells/mm3(AI)
3. Asymptomatic patients with CD4+ T cell counts of 201-350 cells/mm3 should be offered treatment. (BII)
4. For asymptomatic patients with CD4+ T cell of >350 cells/mm3 and plasma HIV RNA >100,000 copies/ml most experienced clinicians defer therapy but some clinicians may consider initiating treatment. (CII)
5. Therapy should be deferred for patients with CD4+ T cell counts of >350 cells /mm3 and plasma HIV RNA <100,000 copies/mL. (DII)
Now, post-exposure prophylaxis is different...but that's not what you're talking about.
Hank Barnes
p.s. Trivia Question, Grasshopper:
1. In the literature, how many medical conditions are known to register a positive result on the HIV test?
So Few. Very few things can generate cross reactions. (I believe the number 60 or so has been thrown about by some denialist/dissidents/name of choice) Even influenza vaccines were linked in one case I blieve. But you can determine if these cases are false positives---b/c you can determine the RNA viral load (via PCR). Why is that important? B/C we use the viral load as a measure of when to treat, and if it was a false positive.
False positive results are just as rare in the case of determining viral load levels. For instance, this paper discusses small case series of patients that did have a viral load. That viral load was under 2000 copies/mL in each of those patients. It was determined to be a false positive in each case. Why? Clinical judgement and rational thought.
Even if these 3 cases had been thought of as actual positives, they still would not have undergone treatment. The viral load was too low...waaaay too low. And they all presented with normal CD4 counts. Any rational doctor would have tested them a few more times...and monitored CD4 counts and viral loads. It would have become obvious after a while that they didn't have HIV.
Why do you say "We" Grasshopper? If I want the party line, I can go straight to the party members, not the pledges:)
A few questions (even though you, sigh, ignored mine):
1. If it's so accurate, How come they don't culture the virus?
2. Any other viral infections determined by "viral load"?
3. Any other viral infections require PCR? Is PCR a proper diagnostic method for determining a medical condition?
4. Aren't T-Cell counts "wildly non-predicative" of clinical success"?
"In conclusion, Concorde has not shown any significant benefit from the immediate use of [AZT] compared with deferred benefit in symptom-free individuals in terms of survival or disease progression. The discrepancy between this result and the significant effect of immediate [AZT] on [T-Cell] counts casts doubt on the value of using changes over time in [T-Cell] count as a predictive measure for effects of antiviral therapy on disease progression and survival."
(Lancet, 341:889 (1993).)
First the question isn't how many conditions can cause a false positive but how often does it happen. Current HIV tests say false positives (on a single test) are less than 1 in 100 positive results. And as Jeremy says, positives are confirmed by repetition and a different test.
They don't culture the virus because 1. they don't need to in order to detect it 2. culturing it is expensive and time consuming.
Are there other infections determined by viral load? I have no idea. Are there other infections in which viral load is predictive of prognosis. If the answer to the latter is yes, then I expect there are.
LOL. Umm, No, they don't culture it, because they can't detect it.
BTW, How on earth can I be asking the wrong questions to youngsters who read abstracts, not the papers, and who don't even know the answers, anyway?
Answer me that!:)
Barnes, Hank
Really? That's funny because I see all kinds of papers in the literature that describe culturing HIV isolates from patients.
And again, in asking HOW you can be asking the wrong question ... you're asking the wrong question.
How you're asking it isn't the issue. Why it isn't the right question is. And I've told you why it isn't the right question.
So Few. Very few things can generate cross reactions. (I believe the number 60 or so has been thrown about by some denialist/dissidents/name of choice) Even influenza vaccines were linked in one case I blieve.
Granted I spelled believe wrong. As far as I know...the literature can be interpreted to say about 60 some odd things cross react. I don't have the time or inclination to read all 64 sources cited Christine Johnson in her estimate.
I'm telling you it doesn't matter. That if you use the combo of 3 tests--ELISA, Western Blot, and PCR--you will rarely ever be wrong.
And once again...being positive doesn't mean you treat immediately.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd quit accusing me of being some youngster who only reads the abstracts and "doesn't know the answers".
1. Why culture when you can do the others? And what are you trying to prove with this one? You can culture HIV. Please don't go Perth on me here Hank...
2. Hep C
3. Yes--PCR can be used in other conditions for instance--HSV-1/2: Source. CMV is another. There are more--and the list will continue to grow. In this case, PCR is merely a piece of the puzzle. Yes, I know the CDC/FDA/NIH have granted permission for PCR as a method of diagnosis in the case of HIV. I didn't say it was. It's just a piece of the puzzle.
4. T-Cell counts wildly unpredictive of clinical success? I think you mean of clinical success of AZT--not clinical success of the patient (most any patient with low CD4 is gonna do poorly). The Concorde study is matter for another day...it has been interpreted by both sides as proof to "back their case". Viral load is, however, representative of success in treating patients. By tracking viral load and CD4 count, you can track the progress of the patient--and how well your treatment is working. So just tracking CD4 isn't the way things are done.
Yes, I know the CDC/FDA/NIH have granted permission for PCR as a method of diagnosis in the case of HIV. I didn't say it was. It's just a piece of the puzzle.
Should read "haven't"