Aids HIV FAQ

AIDS Junk Science!!!

Question:

> Nope. Only the research that isn’t based on scientific reality, > which pretty much includes the entire wonderful world of AIDS > research, where all the rules of science have been thrown > right out the window. AIDS research has become the Disneyland > of science, where the rules and rigors of scientific reality > don’t matter anymore and the patients disappear into Never > Never Land. > For example, when a drug company tests an antibiotic and finds > that it doesn’t kill all of a particular bacteria, they don’t > claim that the bacteria is "resistant" to the drug and file for > FDA approval of clinical trials, do they? They don’t claim that > the drug is an "anti-bacterial" that works, do they?

Well, yes they do.  I suggest you do more reading on antibiotic resistance.

Response:

> >> will have extraordinarily difficult time accruing the study. > Wrong. I am not having a difficult time with this at all. > All I do is dismiss ALL the claims from these bizarre > "trials" as unscientific and having no basis other than > profit. Pretty simple point to argue. I win. > Much as I hate to get between the two of you I must say > that your position is only supportable if you reject virtually > all medical research produced today with the goal of obtaining > approval to market a drug, and most of the rest.

Nope. Only the research that isn’t based on scientific reality, which pretty much includes the entire wonderful world of AIDS research, where all the rules of science have been thrown right out the window. AIDS research has become the Disneyland of science, where the rules and rigors of scientific reality don’t matter anymore and the patients disappear into Never Never Land. For example, when a drug company tests an antibiotic and finds that it doesn’t kill all of a particular bacteria, they don’t claim that the bacteria is "resistant" to the drug and file for FDA approval of clinical trials, do they? They don’t claim that the drug is an "anti-bacterial" that works, do they? No — they just find that the drug didn’t kill the bacteria and they go on to look for a drug that does. Of course, outside of AIDS you don’t have a lobby of unscientific lunatics screaming for the release of such unproven antibacterial drugs. So I’m confused. Why do you think that AIDS research has anything to do with the rigors and realities of science? > There is nothing unique about the funding of HIV research > in this regard.

When you talk about "funding", are you including the outrageous conflicts of interest that reward researchers to make "findings" that run counter to the known science and actual clinical results? If you are confused, I would refer you to NIH/Chiron’s Clifford Lane and the infamous IL-2 studies/clinical trials, Lane’s patent for this treatment, and the magnificent and outrageous lies that have accompanied these trials. I would suggest starting with the fact that Lane only now publicly admits what he knew all along (and I publicly reminded him of this fact 2 years ago in front of a large audience of his colleagues) that the IL-2 increases in CD4s is an illusion due to apoptotic interference. No clinical benefit. In fact, nothing more than viral replication and progressive disease. All in the name of profit. I must ask. Is this how research proceeds in diabetes, or do they actually consider what happens to the patient? In other words, do they only care what happens to the patient when the results are immediate? >> So while it is a nice ideal, it is not very practical. > Let’s see, they started comparing to AZT as the "standard of > care"… but wait! AZT was NEVER a "standard", nor was it > "care". > Rhetorically it is cute but I think you know that AZT has > been standard care and could be considered to have been > the "standard of care" for some time .

Do you think the cocktails with protease inhibitors in all their bizarre combinations are considered the "standard of care" today when most of the doctors really have no idea how to use them and all seem to use them differently? Where is the "standard"? Where is the "care"? Of course, when we peek back into medical history, we are horrified by what was considered "standard of care" of the time. Doctors of the future will be horrified by what is being called the "standard of care" in AIDS treatment today. Of course, they will be dealing with the fallout of the babies of HIV+ mothers, ALL of whom are using AZT today as a "standard of care", supposedly to decrease the infection rate by 10% — regardless of the fact that there appears to be a 100% risk of cancer in their children as they grow up (if they grow up). Of course, doctors of the future will puzzle over the fact that we know this today yet continue to insist on the same murderous treatment. AZT fiddles with the DNA of the developing fetus and has been shown to incorporate itself into the DNA of fetal cord white blood cells. Very bad news. Unfortunately, the National Cancer Institute has been very busy trying to cover all of this up in order to protect the careers of certain bureaucrats who belong in front of a firing squad. Oh well, I guess that’s why they call this the "practice" of medicine! Unfortunately, AZT was never proven to "work", and the Concorde trial showed that early AZT intervention actually shortened survival. Otherwise, the few weeks of "benefit" realized with AZT in progressive disease was NOT due to the antiviral effect at all, but due to the provocation of the Th1 response to the drug itself (self-limiting due to immunological tolerance, at least in the great majority of cases). However, it is no surprise that the medical community would have considered AZT a "standard", simply because it was all they had. The fact that the fraudulent results of ACTG016 that carried AZT through the approval process could never be repeated doesn’t seem to matter, does it? > My problem with that term is always the question "sez who?"  In > this case, it has been NIH making the statement when, in practice, > what is a standard of care is generally settled in malpractice court. >From the patient’s point of view this is incorrect. For them,

what is standard of care has been settled in the cemetery. As to malpractice, what lawyer with any knowledge of the legal system would touch an AIDS malpractice case? The insurance companies know that such cases result in little or no damage awards because the patient has a fatal disease! Why do you think so many incompetent doctors end up specializing in AIDS? They don’t have to worry about being sued! Meanwhile, let’s revisit the antiviral concept of resistance: AZT and Viral Resistance (Lancet, Apr. 1, 1995 p820-824) The following has been summarized and excerpted from the 4/1/95 issue of Lancet. The authors say a lot which needs to be read and evaluated, but sum it up beautifully with the following: "Nevertheless, it is a tacit assumption that clinically efficacious antiretroviral drugs would be expected to show significant and maintained activity against the load of virus both expressed in serum as viral particles and carried as proviral populations in susceptible cells. Measurement of these parameters are increasingly used in phase I/II studies, as preliminary investigations of antiretroviral, but not clinical efficacy. However, a major caveat remains. Since we do not know the mechanism by which HIV-1 causes damage to the immune system, the principle that virus suppression will produce a major clinical benefit must remain an article of faith." Loveday C, Kaye S, Tenant-Flowers M, Semple M, Ayliffe U, Weller IVD, Tedder RS. HIV-1 RNA serum-load and resistant viral genotypes during early zidovudine therapy. Lancet 1995, Apr 1, 345:820-824. Division of Virology (C Loveday PhD, S Kaye BSc, M Semple BSc, Ayliffe BSc, R S Tedder MCRPath) and Academic Department of Genitourinary Medicine, (M Tenant-Flowers MRCP, I V D Weller FRCE); University College London Medical School, London; and UCL Hospitals and Camden and Islington Community Health Services Trusts. Abstract: The response of HIV-1 to initial zidovudine (ZDV) treatment was assessed in 11 patients with severe HIV disease. We quantified serum HIV-1 concentrations and mutations associated with ZDV resistance by culture-independent methods. There was a prompt fall in serum HIV-1 RNA within 1-2 days of treatment with maximum suppression by seven days, which was paralleled by changes in serum p24 antigen (p24 Ag). Serum RNA started to return to pretreatment levels within weeks. The HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) gene in most patients developed mutations associated with drug resistance within months and as early as 25 days on therapy in one patient. The codon changes were not sufficient to explain the early return of serum HIV-1 RNA levels and their patterns continued to evolve after patients stopped taking ZDV. The significance of these findings is discussed in relation to the limited long-term efficacy of ZDV. The dynamic time course of viral load and RT response to ZDV is of particular importance in short-term interventions such as pregnancy. Page 820: Introduction. Zidovudine (ZDV) can inhibit HIV-1 replication in vitro, produce a transient reduction in viral load by semi-quantitative culture in vivo, and can provide short-term clinical benefit in patients with symptomatic HIV-1 disease. ZDV is a prodrug phosphorylated by intracellular kinases, sequentially, in infected and uninfected cells to the active form, zidovudine triphosphate (ZDV TP), which inhibits retroviral reverse transcriptase (RT) by nucleic acid chain termination in cells already infected with HIV-1. ZDV therapy is associated with the emergence of retroviral strains showing increased phenotypic resistance in vitro to the drug and changes in HIV-1 RT gene at codons 41, 67, 70, 215, and 219. Although the clinical relevance of these mutations remains uncertain, the evolution of viral resistance to ZDV could results in a reduced therapeutic effect which might explain the lack of benefit of long term ZDV therapy seen in the Concorde trial. The potential of ZDV as an intervention in pregnancy to reduce maternal-fetal transmission (ACTG 076) highlights the paucity of data on the temporal response of HIV-1 to ZDV therapy. We have studied changes in serum viral load and evolving mutations associated with ZDV resistance in a series of patients with advanced HIV-1 infection who were treated with ZDV for the first time. Pages 822-4:Discussion. In this … read more »

Response:

Filed under: HIV