EPandAmerica
New Yorker
Martha 
Have a wonderful vacation!
AIDS in Africa. Is Bono fighting the wrong fight?
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Martha Have a wonderful vacation!
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
You rule, dear!
Here is what I'm going to say about this subject. I find that, in both the scientific community and with the general public, HIV / AIDS has taken on a status of "mythic proportions." Now, let me clarify this statement before someone takes it out of proportion; I mean "mythic," in the academic sense, as in "taken as fact at face value" and "unquestioned." I don't know of any scientific position that has *ever* reached such a status; I should remind people that portions of the "Theory of Gravity" was recently disproved, for instance, modified, of course, with a new theory on gravity.
The problem, of course, is that HIV / AIDS is a disease that is laden with more socioeconomic baggage than I have ever seen before, and we need to get a grip. This is a *disease,* not a person or a group of people, and if anyone starts attributing homophobic or racist comments with HIV / AIDS, I will be the first to call them on it.
I have read some of the material questioning the link between HIV and AIDS, and, frankly, at face value, it does hold up logically as a theory, assuming the data they use as evidence is true. A kind of awkward statement, yes, but the same can be said for Holocaust denial--except that Holocaust denial is blatantly false, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the Holocaust deniers, and the fact that most of them are anti-Semitic certainly erodes their credibility. However, does AIDS / HIV deserve a status different than all other forms of science? Because that's what we're talking about here: science, a field that thrives on inherent uncertainty and questioning. Is it wrong to question HIV and AIDS, as long as the questioning is in the realm of *science,* and not racism, homophobia, or other forms of intolerance?
I cannot answer this debate, but I welcome the questioning, as long as it is based on sound science and can be discredited on the basis of sound science similarly. Where I start asking questions is the fact that I do have a similar distrust of pharmaceutical companies, and the fact that HIV / AIDS is only a 23 year-old disease. I've also never known an immune disease to cause so many "various" problems that are so radically different from other immune system diseases. Also, it is within the realm of possibility that these drugs are killing people, as AZT was a chemotherapy drug (and all drugs of this class destroy immune systems in themselves!) and protease inhibitors are known to cause liver failure. The latter about the protease inhibitors isn't a theory either; it is already acknowledged by the pharmaceutical industry and liver failure is now the top cause of death for HIV positive people in the U.S., not AIDS. So when people die, was it AIDS killing them or the drugs? Again, this is a 23 year-old disease, and most of the people who died early on could possibly ruined their immune systems elsewhere, because all those drugs and partying really can kill you, and it doesn't matter who you are: gay, straight, male, female, white, black, etc.
What is also intriguing, though, is research that has come out more recently regarding HIV / AIDS, such as wondering if much of HIV / AIDS is the result of something triggering a massive cortisol release from the adrenal glands. It has been noted that many of the same symptoms attributed to HIV / AIDS are also exhibited in hypercortisolemia, from night sweats to fat accumulation in the abdomnen. Cortisol also triggers suppression of the immune system. So if there is an unknown genesis causing a massive release of cortisol, then there are drugs to counter the cortisol release and bring it back in balance. Kaposi's Sarcoma has also been linked to amyl nitrate poppers, a toxic muscle relaxant often used by the gay community supposedly to enhance sexual pleasure. Amyl nitrate also destroys your immune system, and will do this to anyone, regardless of gender, age, race, or sexual orientation. And then, to chuckle a bit, "vitamin supplements" were noted to help HIV and AIDS patients. A vicious virus being foiled by "vitamins"? Maybe you can see why I cannot reconcile these rampant inconsistencies.
I could go on and on. The point for me here is to not dismiss the link between HIV and AIDS. It is, rather, a plea for inquisitiveness. When I hear of people who have been diagnosed with HIV and have taken alternative therapies to still be alive, in spite of not taking the drugs to "save their lives," I ask questions, assuming that those stories are true. This should not be equated to other forms of "denial," though, merely because this is about science, and science is all about ripping itself apart and reconstructing itself. If gravity can be ripped apart and reconstructed, I don't see why HIV and AIDS should not be, assuming, of course, that the science is sound and the arguments are not tainted with socioeconomic prejudice.
And that's all I have to say.
Melon
The problem, of course, is that HIV / AIDS is a disease that is laden with more socioeconomic baggage than I have ever seen before, and we need to get a grip. This is a *disease,* not a person or a group of people, and if anyone starts attributing homophobic or racist comments with HIV / AIDS, I will be the first to call them on it.
I have read some of the material questioning the link between HIV and AIDS, and, frankly, at face value, it does hold up logically as a theory, assuming the data they use as evidence is true. A kind of awkward statement, yes, but the same can be said for Holocaust denial--except that Holocaust denial is blatantly false, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the Holocaust deniers, and the fact that most of them are anti-Semitic certainly erodes their credibility. However, does AIDS / HIV deserve a status different than all other forms of science? Because that's what we're talking about here: science, a field that thrives on inherent uncertainty and questioning. Is it wrong to question HIV and AIDS, as long as the questioning is in the realm of *science,* and not racism, homophobia, or other forms of intolerance?
I cannot answer this debate, but I welcome the questioning, as long as it is based on sound science and can be discredited on the basis of sound science similarly. Where I start asking questions is the fact that I do have a similar distrust of pharmaceutical companies, and the fact that HIV / AIDS is only a 23 year-old disease. I've also never known an immune disease to cause so many "various" problems that are so radically different from other immune system diseases. Also, it is within the realm of possibility that these drugs are killing people, as AZT was a chemotherapy drug (and all drugs of this class destroy immune systems in themselves!) and protease inhibitors are known to cause liver failure. The latter about the protease inhibitors isn't a theory either; it is already acknowledged by the pharmaceutical industry and liver failure is now the top cause of death for HIV positive people in the U.S., not AIDS. So when people die, was it AIDS killing them or the drugs? Again, this is a 23 year-old disease, and most of the people who died early on could possibly ruined their immune systems elsewhere, because all those drugs and partying really can kill you, and it doesn't matter who you are: gay, straight, male, female, white, black, etc.
What is also intriguing, though, is research that has come out more recently regarding HIV / AIDS, such as wondering if much of HIV / AIDS is the result of something triggering a massive cortisol release from the adrenal glands. It has been noted that many of the same symptoms attributed to HIV / AIDS are also exhibited in hypercortisolemia, from night sweats to fat accumulation in the abdomnen. Cortisol also triggers suppression of the immune system. So if there is an unknown genesis causing a massive release of cortisol, then there are drugs to counter the cortisol release and bring it back in balance. Kaposi's Sarcoma has also been linked to amyl nitrate poppers, a toxic muscle relaxant often used by the gay community supposedly to enhance sexual pleasure. Amyl nitrate also destroys your immune system, and will do this to anyone, regardless of gender, age, race, or sexual orientation. And then, to chuckle a bit, "vitamin supplements" were noted to help HIV and AIDS patients. A vicious virus being foiled by "vitamins"? Maybe you can see why I cannot reconcile these rampant inconsistencies.
I could go on and on. The point for me here is to not dismiss the link between HIV and AIDS. It is, rather, a plea for inquisitiveness. When I hear of people who have been diagnosed with HIV and have taken alternative therapies to still be alive, in spite of not taking the drugs to "save their lives," I ask questions, assuming that those stories are true. This should not be equated to other forms of "denial," though, merely because this is about science, and science is all about ripping itself apart and reconstructing itself. If gravity can be ripped apart and reconstructed, I don't see why HIV and AIDS should not be, assuming, of course, that the science is sound and the arguments are not tainted with socioeconomic prejudice.
And that's all I have to say.
Melon
Last edited:
najeena
War Child
AZT is toxic? Of course it's toxic, how else could it kill the AIDS virus? Most drugs are toxic to a degree. How do you suppose antibiotics work? Chemotherapy? 'shakes head'
najeena said:
Please. I do sense some hostility in this response. Perhaps Hitman was a bit "hostile" in his way of bringing across his point, but I'd like to bring in a bit of civility from my point of view. I am not saying that you can't feel "hostility," but I just hope that you understand that I am bringing up these issues in the spirit of inquisitiveness. So do understand my point-of-view.
Equating chemotherapy drugs to antibiotics is specious reasoning. Antibiotics have been demonstrated to selectively kill bacteria, without harming existing cells. They are a completely different class of drugs; it would be like comparing heroin to Viagra.
AZT, however, has some known nasty side effects. If you do not believe me, here is a site with information on the drug, unaffiliated with any of the HIV deniers:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0805569.html
"Bone marrow depression" isn't a surprise, because large doses of chemotherapy drugs are used to destroy bone marrow in those with leukemia; they then have to undergo a bone marrow transplant, because they have no immune system left. Standard cancer patients do not get a destroyed immune system, because the doses are not as high or frequent enough. But we are giving HIV positive people this drug for years on end; it can conceivably destroy your immune system, which will then be attributed to an AIDS infection.
I am also dismayed by this fact:
Science and politics should never mix. I'm not saying it should have taken 8 to 10 years, but we also did not get any of the long term studies to prove if it really worked or if it were a placebo. The placebo effect is a well-documented phenomenon in medicine, and is certainly an issue with a disease laden with as much fear as AIDS has.
It should be known that there has been, to this date, no virus that has ever been cured, let alone HIV. Vaccines, however, have been successful, which prevent viral infection before it happens; thus, it is not a "cure" for existing infection.
Melon
Last edited:
I am an Immunologist by training and educational background.
The assertion that HIV does not exist is so ridiculous and ludicrous that it does not deserve a rebuttal.
You can always find a quack doctor or a quack scientist to tell you what you want to hear. There is a reason the other 99.99999999999999% are unified, arguing the opposite.
The assertion that HIV does not exist is so ridiculous and ludicrous that it does not deserve a rebuttal.
You can always find a quack doctor or a quack scientist to tell you what you want to hear. There is a reason the other 99.99999999999999% are unified, arguing the opposite.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
See, Melon, you actually bring up facts to support your argument; you can cite real websites, thoughtful reflections on what you're talking about, not just rants about how the doubters should "google it themselves." Not just the same list of questionable "experts."
Thank you. I was hoping you'd show up.
Thank you. I was hoping you'd show up.
anitram said:
Well, I respect what you have to say. I am going to admit that I am not a scientist, but I do think that "questioning," at least, can perhaps shed light on the effectiveness of existing treatments against HIV.
My stance on this, I believe, is reasoned. In light of the existing facts, we should continue forward with existing treatment options. However, I still have my concerns over the safety of the existing drugs, and some of the logical inconsistencies attributed to a virus, amongst other things.
But this is a long-standing concern of mine over the scientific process. I had treatment for depression in a completely "unscientific" manner. I should have taken a slew of prescription drugs, but didn't, and the natural ones I took did better and had no side effects. I then found out later that I tested for far below normal levels of all the essential amino acids, and, once I boosted my protein intake, I solved a 10+ year problem that would otherwise have been treated with faulty prescriptions.
So please understand why I think that existing science, no matter if 99.99999999999999+% of all scientists are in agreement, deserves questioning, as long as the arguments are untainted by socioeconomic prejudices. I've seen some of their faulty group logic before.
Take care...
Melon
follower
Refugee
My answer to the topic would be no, Bono?s not fighting the wrong fight. He surely have studied the issue and he knows what has gone right in terms of AIDS prevention and treatment. For instance, he has cited my country, Brasil, several times, when it comes to practice a successful policy to deal with the problem, and that is true. In case you might be interested, this is an article from CBS News I found, dated July 06, 2004.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/ap20040706_471.html
Brazil Sets Example for Taming AIDS
Experts Praise Brazil for Its Handling of HIV/AIDS Crisis Including Providing Cheap Generic Drugs
The Associated Press
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil July 6, 2004 ? A decade ago, health experts predicted an AIDS explosion in Latin America, striking hardest at Brazil, with its teeming population and sexual permissiveness. But the explosion never came, and experts say Brazil's handling of the problem may keep it from ever happening.
"If you look over the map of HIV/AIDS in Latin America it looks like the African map from 15 years ago," said Paulo Lyra, a consultant on Latin America for the Pan American Health Organization.
"But what's different with Latin America is that it is by far the developing region with the most access to antiretroviral treatment."
Antiretroviral drugs reduce the HIV in the bloodstream, making HIV infection a chronic disease rather than a terminal one.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, about 400,000 people are believed to need AIDS drugs and about 55 percent are getting them. In Africa, an estimated 4.4 million people need drugs but only 2 percent are getting them.
The biggest success story is Brazil, thanks to a program of crisis management that has been praised by AIDS experts.
With a population of nearly 180 million, Brazil has by far the largest number of patients. By manufacturing cheap generic versions of the otherwise expensive AIDS drug cocktail and offering them free to all who need them, the country has put itself at the forefront of Latin America's war on AIDS.
Brazil's drug industry faced a threat when the country entered the World Trade Organization, which mandates compliance with trademark rules. But it was able to negotiate deep discounts with pharmaceutical makers simply by threatening to break the rules if treatments became too costly.
Brazil was a global pioneer in the manufacture of cheap generic AIDS drugs and still manufactures those patented before it signed its intellectual property law. It distributes these to patients who have not yet developed resistance and need more advanced drugs.
Brazil spends about 1.5 percent of its health budget, or $175 million a year, on anti-AIDS drugs.
The giveaway cut the death rate in half in just four years, saving an estimated 100,000 lives. Since then, the death toll has crept back up, but only gradually.
In 2002, the last year for which numbers are available, 11,047 Brazilians died from the disease, only slightly more than the 11,024 who died in 1997.
In 1990, the World Bank estimated Brazil would have 1.2 million people infected with HIV by 2000. Today, authorities estimate the total is about half that many.
Proportional to population, Brazil has had far less than its share of the 100,000 people who died of AIDS across Latin America and the Caribbean last year.
Its neighbors have taken heart from Brazil's example.
Experts who argued that treatment was too expensive and complicated in the largely impoverished region now hold up Brazil's program as a model.
The Brazilian government funds five pilot programs in Latin America, providing free anti-AIDS drugs and expertise.
Most of these programs only treat about 100 patients, except in Bolivia and Paraguay, where the total number of patients is only about 500. Brazil treats nearly everyone.
Also contributing to Brazil's success is its frank, often graphic AIDS propaganda, and the distribution of millions of free condoms at festivals such as the Mardi Gras carnival.
Still, some 80 percent of Brazilians are Roman Catholic, and although their church has not come out strongly against the condom program, distribution is less widespread outside the cities.
There are no guarantees that Brazil has been spared for good, warns Mauro Teixeira, an adviser with the Brazil Anti-AIDS program.
He points to the tiny southern African kingdom of Swaziland, which he says had a 4 percent infection rate 10 years ago and today is at 40 percent.
"There's nothing to say there won't be an explosion, if something isn't done," he said.
It can be done, and Bono knows that.
Cheers
MT
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/ap20040706_471.html
Brazil Sets Example for Taming AIDS
Experts Praise Brazil for Its Handling of HIV/AIDS Crisis Including Providing Cheap Generic Drugs
The Associated Press
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil July 6, 2004 ? A decade ago, health experts predicted an AIDS explosion in Latin America, striking hardest at Brazil, with its teeming population and sexual permissiveness. But the explosion never came, and experts say Brazil's handling of the problem may keep it from ever happening.
"If you look over the map of HIV/AIDS in Latin America it looks like the African map from 15 years ago," said Paulo Lyra, a consultant on Latin America for the Pan American Health Organization.
"But what's different with Latin America is that it is by far the developing region with the most access to antiretroviral treatment."
Antiretroviral drugs reduce the HIV in the bloodstream, making HIV infection a chronic disease rather than a terminal one.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, about 400,000 people are believed to need AIDS drugs and about 55 percent are getting them. In Africa, an estimated 4.4 million people need drugs but only 2 percent are getting them.
The biggest success story is Brazil, thanks to a program of crisis management that has been praised by AIDS experts.
With a population of nearly 180 million, Brazil has by far the largest number of patients. By manufacturing cheap generic versions of the otherwise expensive AIDS drug cocktail and offering them free to all who need them, the country has put itself at the forefront of Latin America's war on AIDS.
Brazil's drug industry faced a threat when the country entered the World Trade Organization, which mandates compliance with trademark rules. But it was able to negotiate deep discounts with pharmaceutical makers simply by threatening to break the rules if treatments became too costly.
Brazil was a global pioneer in the manufacture of cheap generic AIDS drugs and still manufactures those patented before it signed its intellectual property law. It distributes these to patients who have not yet developed resistance and need more advanced drugs.
Brazil spends about 1.5 percent of its health budget, or $175 million a year, on anti-AIDS drugs.
The giveaway cut the death rate in half in just four years, saving an estimated 100,000 lives. Since then, the death toll has crept back up, but only gradually.
In 2002, the last year for which numbers are available, 11,047 Brazilians died from the disease, only slightly more than the 11,024 who died in 1997.
In 1990, the World Bank estimated Brazil would have 1.2 million people infected with HIV by 2000. Today, authorities estimate the total is about half that many.
Proportional to population, Brazil has had far less than its share of the 100,000 people who died of AIDS across Latin America and the Caribbean last year.
Its neighbors have taken heart from Brazil's example.
Experts who argued that treatment was too expensive and complicated in the largely impoverished region now hold up Brazil's program as a model.
The Brazilian government funds five pilot programs in Latin America, providing free anti-AIDS drugs and expertise.
Most of these programs only treat about 100 patients, except in Bolivia and Paraguay, where the total number of patients is only about 500. Brazil treats nearly everyone.
Also contributing to Brazil's success is its frank, often graphic AIDS propaganda, and the distribution of millions of free condoms at festivals such as the Mardi Gras carnival.
Still, some 80 percent of Brazilians are Roman Catholic, and although their church has not come out strongly against the condom program, distribution is less widespread outside the cities.
There are no guarantees that Brazil has been spared for good, warns Mauro Teixeira, an adviser with the Brazil Anti-AIDS program.
He points to the tiny southern African kingdom of Swaziland, which he says had a 4 percent infection rate 10 years ago and today is at 40 percent.
"There's nothing to say there won't be an explosion, if something isn't done," he said.
It can be done, and Bono knows that.
Cheers
MT
Given that I'm not a doctor or a expert in the field of treating Aids
I go on what I've read which has been alot to make me knowledgable enough to not feel stupid in a meeting or debate I hope.
The drugs that have been provided in place like Haiti , patients that have been put on ARV's etc, people are living longer and there has been a reduced rate of infectionTo me my view is treating HIV with thse drug outways the alternative , lowering the possibility of transmitting the disease and builiding at least some of that immune system back up is a good thing ..
If you ask most all mothers if they had the chance to prevent the transmission to their child what do you think there answer would be , you'd bet on most mothers despite risk to themselves and given that option would want to save that child .
Bottom line access to medicines gives them and option and a chance it's more then they had before , it's part of a multi layered solution to this emergency.
I go on what I've read which has been alot to make me knowledgable enough to not feel stupid in a meeting or debate I hope.
The drugs that have been provided in place like Haiti , patients that have been put on ARV's etc, people are living longer and there has been a reduced rate of infectionTo me my view is treating HIV with thse drug outways the alternative , lowering the possibility of transmitting the disease and builiding at least some of that immune system back up is a good thing ..
If you ask most all mothers if they had the chance to prevent the transmission to their child what do you think there answer would be , you'd bet on most mothers despite risk to themselves and given that option would want to save that child .
Bottom line access to medicines gives them and option and a chance it's more then they had before , it's part of a multi layered solution to this emergency.
Last edited:
I believe that we should also put this same amount of emphasis on improving Africa's infrastructure as we do on emphasizing pumping them up with drugs. AIDS drugs aren't going to solve their atrocious sanitation problems. AIDS drugs aren't going to solve starvation problems in some areas. AIDS drugs aren't going to solve the myriad of diseases that still plague them, such as malaria. Since malaria does not occur in the Western world anymore, for the most part, many pharmaceutical companies have just stopped making the drug and there is now a shortage.
It is my opinion that, in part, our emphasis on AIDS drugs over all of these other longstanding problems is solely out of the fear that they will give us AIDS--not out of real concern for their welfare. Otherwise, we would have solved their sanitation issues and we would have made sure that a completely treatable disease like malaria would never have a shortage of medication.
Giving Africa AIDS drugs will not solve their problems. It will only scratch the surface; and are we truly committed to helping Africa or are we only thinking about ourselves? It is a question worth asking.
Melon
It is my opinion that, in part, our emphasis on AIDS drugs over all of these other longstanding problems is solely out of the fear that they will give us AIDS--not out of real concern for their welfare. Otherwise, we would have solved their sanitation issues and we would have made sure that a completely treatable disease like malaria would never have a shortage of medication.
Giving Africa AIDS drugs will not solve their problems. It will only scratch the surface; and are we truly committed to helping Africa or are we only thinking about ourselves? It is a question worth asking.
Melon
Last edited:
melon said:
I understand what you are saying, but I do think there is reasonable and unreasonable questioning.
It is reasonable to question whether prescribed treatments are the best options out there. It is reasonable to question whether non-Western medicine may be an aid. It is reasonable to question where funding goes and why. It is reasonable to question the protocols of research.
But when somebody says HIV "doesn't exist", to me, that is not 'reasonable questioning', but rather a dubious statement. There are level 3+ containments all over the world which house the HIV virus, and to then have somebody say that it does not exist simply does not correlate with the facts.
melon said:
Pharmaceuticals are a big business. People trust their doctors, while they go to the vet and think the guy is selling them unnecessary drugs to make money. Well, don't deceive yourselves in thinking doctors are some sort of special moral saint. They are not, and another problem is that there are very few "high experts" in the field. Another major issue with medicine is that doctors are absolutely hideous researchers and that save for those few who have a combined MD/PhD, they know almost nothing about molecular biology.
We get them all the time in our lab, medical fellows who come for 6 months and have no idea why DNA runs on the gel from the negative to the positive electrode. This is simply stunning ignorance, so you can imagine how little they know about the process of research or the true significance of side effects. Side effects are well understood by those who are in the field of cell biology, because they understand protein-protein interactions, things like downregulation, transcriptional activation, suppression and so on. All a doctor knows is what the drug "does" and what the dosage is, and they can never give you an accurate view of any sort of mechanisms on a molecular level. IMO, medical schools need to be restructured.
Actually there is an emphasis on all of these thngs they just don't make it to the ears of the general as often.. the drugs on the list to get to Africa include that for Malaria and T.B . The real answer to that is if we treated the third world as equals there would be no shortage. There are many attempts to solve these long standing problems and we have to ask why they're not, it is for selfish reasons on the part of other countries.T he drugs like I mentioned are a piece to that puzzle that can not be negated . The drug's arent all that much use if you don't have water to drink and food in your belly thats true, not much use if you don't have the eduaction and early prevention awareness to stop the spread before it starts.
No one thinks pumping them full of drugs is the solution to all the problems , it's why there are the Millenium Development Goals , the 3 by 5 , the Fair Trade Campaigns , Jubilee , DATA , Global Fund to Fight HIV Aids T.B, and Malaria. You know another thing these drug do, they give them hope , they give them back some independance
I think it's very wrong to say it's out of fear that they will give us Aids and if people still think that way how very sad for them get over your petty insecurities, your racial indifference and see the problem for what it is I would tell them.
melon said:
I agree, the response was hostile, but I feel that najeena's point is valid. Many drugs are indeed toxic to some degree. However, your comment about antibiotics is perfect.
One has to examine how the medicine works before realizing how toxic it is.AZT is toxic because it simulates a molecule (nucleotide) on a building DNA chain in a cell. The AZT is incorporated into the building DNA chain, but its the addition will stop the chain from continuing. Without the proper DNA chain in place, the virus cannot form. The theory is that a virus replicates very quickly, hence, the cells containing the growing viruses will use up most of the AZT. Once the DNA (or in the case of HIV, RNA) chains stop forming due to the uptake of AZT, the virus cannot continue to grow. As such, AZT was the first of the anti-viral drugs.
Of course, AZT can also be incorporated into healthy cell's DNA building process which will destroy growing cells - hence its toxicity. In contrast, antibiotics are specific for certain bacteria. There often is little to no side effect as human cells have no means to uptake the antibiotic.
It's because of these reasons that often cancer patients and HIV patients "take a break" from drugs. The drugs are given in cycles. The drug will harm real cells, but the goal of chemotherapy or anti-HIV drugs is that hopefully most of the medicine is attacking cancer cells or HIV or HIV-containing cells. But due to the toll on one's body (which will include the immune system and often the liver), a break is given to allow the patient to "recover" from the drug. Then the process is started again. Doctors have found this method of drug delivery to be more powerful.
It is true, the FDA rushed the approval of AZT for the very reason of HIV treatment. But I disagree that this was a notion of "politics vs. science". People were dying. There was NO treatment whatsoever available. People were willing to take anything to hopefully extend their lives a bit - with the goal that in the years to come better drugs would become available.
When faced with the decision of having people die or giving them a drug that may help, the FDA, IMO, made the right decision. AZT was indeed better than nothing.
However, those claiming that AZT is really what causes AIDS are misinformed. People had AIDS *before* they started taking AZT. They were dying. They weren't dying because of AZT. Yes, AZT was not a great drug - but it may have given some people a few extra years. Protease inhibitors gave them more. And now cocktail drugs, often consisting of anti-virals and inhibitors, are allowing people to lead almost normal lives! HIV drugs have allowed the virus to drop to near undetectable levels. And instead of taking multiple drugs every day, some only need to take a few pills once a day!
While there is no cure for HIV, for some, it is a disease that can be tolerated for some time. In other words, it's become like diabetes. It's rare that a person is "cured" from diabetes (some argue that one is never cured), but often people can live with it without much hassle. And, as Melon pointed out, science has never found a cure for a virus - only the immune system can defeat it. But this is true for ALL diseases, including cancer. What drugs do is help the immune system. An antibiotic is like a helper coming over to aid in the battle agains a bacterial infection. Cancer and HIV drugs are the same. Often an infection or disease can overwhelm one's immune system - especially if that immune system is the item being attacked (as with some cancers and HIV). What medicine does is help our body fight diseases. A person who is HIV+ may always be positive, but the drugs help that person remain as close to negative as possible.
Anyway, as I've stated several times, I've read all the reports regarding HIV being "nonexistent" - I read them 5 years ago. None of this is new. And while the thought was intriguing, current science simply doesn't back it up. More and more work has been done on HIV and with the current medicines being less and less toxic, the argument that the drugs are killing people is no longer valid. There is proof that HIV exists, there is proof that the medicines specifically attack HIV, there is proof that HIV levels drop with these medicines, there is proof of people who were once on their deathbeds returing to normal lives after taking these drugs. The notion of HIV being just a "myth", while a worthwhile idea that merited discussion, no longer holds true. A few years ago, Hitman, I might have been backing you up stating that more work needs to be done on HIV to prove the connection. But now, five years later, that work has been done. I can no longer support the notion that HIV doesn't eventually lead to AIDS.
Bono's work, of course, is for far more than just AIDS. He created DATA, which also deals with debt and trade issues. If Bono were only fighting for AIDS, some of the criticisms could be valid. But he is fighting for overall relief - better trade policies, debt relief and, of course, AIDS relief. We can do this and the fact that leaders around the world are still "hemming and hawing" about this should be the real atrocity, not some piddly squabbling about the precise mechanism of the HIV virus.
Wild Angel
The Fly
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 188
Hitman and Melon: this sounds weird I know, and I don't profess to have had a real revelation but it did mean something to me. One time when I was almost asleep, a feeling came to me, and it wasn't a voice but a thought in my head. It was telling me, chemo and other chemically based drugs are the wrong thing to use, they are poison. A cure is out there, but it is natural, like penicillin was from nature, after centuries of people dying from simple infections now easily cured. It was mold, who'd have thought it would be a miracle drug? Aspirin came from willow tree bark! The same is destined to happen and cure AIDS, cancer and other things, but the research is not going in the right direction. They keep using chemicals, more chemicals, new chemicals, chemical based medicines and that is not the answer. The cure will be something in nature. It's out there, somewhere on the earth, in a rainforest, along a riverbed, in the tree on a mountaintop. God put it all here, we have only to find it.
Last edited:
Well, and perhaps this is equally weird (and I say this not as a scientist or with any evidence, but, rather, as a hypothesis), but I also think that HIV is perhaps overdiagnosed, instead being used as a scapegoat for poor lifestyles in *some* people (I'm not saying *all*; hence, my phrasing of "overdiagnosed," like with the controversy over Prozac), whether it be immune systems being destroyed by illicit drug use or through horrendous living conditions like those who live in Africa. I also believe that we lack sincere knowledge on the effect of stress on the body. Like I have mentioned, it is, to much dismay, to me, that many symptoms attributed to HIV/AIDS are also noted in people with elevated cortisol. In my own experience, I find that the medical establishment is utterly not even thinking about stress hormones, unless one has full blown Cushing's Disease.
I also do register questions about HIV testing. Are the tests we use completely reliable? When a test result is questionable, does the status of whether the individual belongs in an "at risk" group come into account? In other words, will a same questionable test result end up in a "negative" for a white heterosexual female and a "positive" for a black homosexual male? Ask most people, of course, if they have ever had sexual relations, and I'd counter to say that most people have. In the case of the HIV positive individual, even if they had always used protection, there would be the excuse. Does AZT and the anti-retrovirals ultimately kill in their own right? Even people who are not part of the "virus myth" crowd acknowledge that AZT is toxic and the anti-retrovirals can result in liver failure. In fact, I'm utterly horrified by the side effects attributed to the anti-retrovirals, from fat displacement to liver failure, with the latter being the most common cause of death for HIV positive individuals in the United States, not AIDS. In fact, the side effects in the anti-retrovirals looks suspiciously like the results of a form of high-stress cortisol overproduction, particularly since the hormone is designed to literally feed on the body and fat displacement is noted in some of these individuals.
This is why I believe that questioning, most definitely, is needed, as, perhaps, additional therapies can be suggested to counter the effects of HIV drugs or to substitute them out completely. I am not a scientist, so I certainly think that most of my ideas either will fall on deaf ears or may be completely grounded in incorrect science. I am aware of my own limitations on the subject. I just find myself questioning whether everything we have been told over the last 23 years of this disease--with most of the "facts" having been developed only within the initial years of the discovery of AIDS, mind you--are correct.
In terms of cancer--and this is an equally uneducated hypothesis--if I remember right, tumors feed on sugar. Thus, one of those extreme Atkins diets with about 0% carbohydrates might help "starve" the tumors. Is it true? I hope I never have to test it.
The pharmaceuticals are quick to blast natural medicine, but what they are really doing, since they cannot patent natural compounds, is studying natural compounds they believe work and are synthesizing the active ingredient. Of course, what makes them ineffective much of the time is that the natural remedies are often bundled with *several* active ingredients, and they are just trying to synthesize one and boost its potency.
Melon
I also do register questions about HIV testing. Are the tests we use completely reliable? When a test result is questionable, does the status of whether the individual belongs in an "at risk" group come into account? In other words, will a same questionable test result end up in a "negative" for a white heterosexual female and a "positive" for a black homosexual male? Ask most people, of course, if they have ever had sexual relations, and I'd counter to say that most people have. In the case of the HIV positive individual, even if they had always used protection, there would be the excuse. Does AZT and the anti-retrovirals ultimately kill in their own right? Even people who are not part of the "virus myth" crowd acknowledge that AZT is toxic and the anti-retrovirals can result in liver failure. In fact, I'm utterly horrified by the side effects attributed to the anti-retrovirals, from fat displacement to liver failure, with the latter being the most common cause of death for HIV positive individuals in the United States, not AIDS. In fact, the side effects in the anti-retrovirals looks suspiciously like the results of a form of high-stress cortisol overproduction, particularly since the hormone is designed to literally feed on the body and fat displacement is noted in some of these individuals.
This is why I believe that questioning, most definitely, is needed, as, perhaps, additional therapies can be suggested to counter the effects of HIV drugs or to substitute them out completely. I am not a scientist, so I certainly think that most of my ideas either will fall on deaf ears or may be completely grounded in incorrect science. I am aware of my own limitations on the subject. I just find myself questioning whether everything we have been told over the last 23 years of this disease--with most of the "facts" having been developed only within the initial years of the discovery of AIDS, mind you--are correct.
In terms of cancer--and this is an equally uneducated hypothesis--if I remember right, tumors feed on sugar. Thus, one of those extreme Atkins diets with about 0% carbohydrates might help "starve" the tumors. Is it true? I hope I never have to test it.
The pharmaceuticals are quick to blast natural medicine, but what they are really doing, since they cannot patent natural compounds, is studying natural compounds they believe work and are synthesizing the active ingredient. Of course, what makes them ineffective much of the time is that the natural remedies are often bundled with *several* active ingredients, and they are just trying to synthesize one and boost its potency.
Melon
Last edited:
Leeloo
War Child
melon said:
I agree, 'synthetic' antibiotics never work for me, only the pure amoxicillin. When I try to tell the doctors this, they still insist the synthetic or synthetic mix is best! It's new! But it doesn't work, and eventually I have to get penicillin to cure my sinus infection, after suffering 2 10 day doses of 'new' whatevericin that does nothing but give me headaches. All this makes me wonder if the doctors are getting some kind of payola or kickback for pushing these drugs, and maybe there really is some kind of big racket with the drug companies. What a shame, big money at the expense of people's heath!
The Pharma Industry is big business , I don't see them as anything other then that , not in the health care profession just business, maybe some of the scientist are there to develop new life saving drugs for teh right reasons but the people in the board room thats another story. R&D of new drug's is important therfor it's important that money flows back into that end .This is where government has to come in and somehow find a right balance that allows for example legislation that stops the bloc of big pharma companies from allowing generic drugs to reach those who need them
Katey said:
The irony...
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080504drugCost.htm
And why the Bush Administration is clearly uninterested in helping:
Ah "America." We supposedly have all this "great healthcare"--at least, that's the propaganda we're inundated with every day--but make sure you never get sick, because, unless you're wealthy, you'll never be able to afford it! In the meantime, our most common avenue for health care, employers, are busy knocking down their coverage and hiking the co-pays, while not giving us corresponding pay raises. This country is something else after a while...
Melon
Last edited:
follower
Refugee
Found something interesting in the M?decins Sans Fronti?res website, in case some people might be interested:
ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUG PRICES
Difference between proprietary company offers and generic producer prices
Price of AZT/3TC:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company), special discount price: US$ 2 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.96 per day (52% cheaper)
Price of Nevirapine:
- Boehringer Ingelheim (proprietary company): US$1.19 per day (3)
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.59 per day (50% cheaper)
Price of AZT:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company): US$1.6 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.09 per day (94% cheaper)
Price of 3TC:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company): US$0.64 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.41 per day (36% cheaper)
FarManguinhos is where the generic retrovirals are produced in Brazil. It?s part of Fiocruz, a public entity funded by the Federal Government and associated with the Ministry of Health. Brazilian antiretroviral prices are low because FarManguinhos is a public entity which aims to ensure that antiretroviral treatment is available to all people living with HIV/AIDS in Brazil. This approach has enabled over 100,000 people in Brazil to gain access to life-saving drugs.
Cheers
MT
ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUG PRICES
Difference between proprietary company offers and generic producer prices
Price of AZT/3TC:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company), special discount price: US$ 2 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.96 per day (52% cheaper)
Price of Nevirapine:
- Boehringer Ingelheim (proprietary company): US$1.19 per day (3)
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.59 per day (50% cheaper)
Price of AZT:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company): US$1.6 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.09 per day (94% cheaper)
Price of 3TC:
- GlaxoSmithKline (proprietary company): US$0.64 per day
- FarManguinhos (generic): US$0.41 per day (36% cheaper)
FarManguinhos is where the generic retrovirals are produced in Brazil. It?s part of Fiocruz, a public entity funded by the Federal Government and associated with the Ministry of Health. Brazilian antiretroviral prices are low because FarManguinhos is a public entity which aims to ensure that antiretroviral treatment is available to all people living with HIV/AIDS in Brazil. This approach has enabled over 100,000 people in Brazil to gain access to life-saving drugs.
Cheers
MT
Leeloo said:
The "once-a-day" antibiotics do not react well with me. They are usually too potent of doses. Unfortunately, that leaves me with pretty much one standard antibiotic that I can use that is "weak" enough to be taken every six hours.
I'm allergic to penicillin, but so are many people.
Melon
stagman
War Child
Hey Jick.... YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Knock it off eh.
melon said:
Your regular cells feed on sugar too. The difference is in the metabolic rates of glycolysis between tumorigenic cells and healthy cells. I think cancer cells break down glucose to lactic acid something like 10 times faster than other cells, which is astounding.
You cannot have a diet with 0% carbohydrates, and furthermore even very low levels are unhealthy. Brain cells preferrentially break down glucose and when your blood sugar is very low, your body will then start breaking down muscle to obtain glucose. So you are doing potentially irreparable harm.
The biggest (IMO) concern in treating cancer is how to prevent metastasis. Only now are we starting to look at adhesion molecules which may promote metastasis by transporting cancer cells from one tissue to another, or the downregulation of such cell surface proteins which then detaches the cells from the primary tumor and allows them to spread. This is actually what my work involves and it's pretty interesting even if I did have the longest damn week in the history of work weeks.
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
stagman said:
BostonAnne
Refugee
melon said:
I think a lot of people use this argument as a reason to be inactive. What I have heard is: Giving Africa AIDS drugs will not solve their problems, so why bother?
I hope people take the time to read about the issues that Africa faces and the plan that Bono and friends (including Bill Gates) have begun to help Africa conquer them. Bono's foundation gives great information and relates the need for Trade & Debt assistance in addition to AIDS assistance to really help Africa solve it's problems.
http://www.data.org
I'm also very proud of the group that started and volunteer their time for the African Well Fund. AWF was started in 2002 by U2 fans that were inspired by Bono's trip to Africa with former Secretary of U.S. Treasury, Paul O'Neill. Their goal is to raise money for the construction and maintenance of clean water wells in Sub-Saharan Africa. They certainly aren't thinking about themselves.
http://www.africanwellfund.org/
I'm sure most of you have visited these sites, but it can't hurt to educate any minds that haven't.
Last edited:
BostonAnne -
And you are correct - isn't it strange that the people who have enough time to endlessly post in forums either are filthy rich so they don't have to go to work or
have so much time to post in forums about all the things that are wrong in the world but won't leave these forums long enough to go out and DO SOMETHING to make the differences in the world that they want to see!
Again, the dictionary defines that as hypocrisy, doesn't it?
THE GOAL IS SOUL..... 
And you are correct - isn't it strange that the people who have enough time to endlessly post in forums either are filthy rich so they don't have to go to work or
have so much time to post in forums about all the things that are wrong in the world but won't leave these forums long enough to go out and DO SOMETHING to make the differences in the world that they want to see!
Again, the dictionary defines that as hypocrisy, doesn't it?
THE GOAL IS SOUL.....
Ahh I know out of frusteration you can say things but I'm not the judge of anyone but myslef so I think it's best to be careful with that type of statement. I believe in fighting this emergency with all my heart but not everyone feels that way, my job as I see it as an activist is to state what I know give people the correct
information and the drama and I hope they will do the right thing.
I get frusterated as anyone that more people havent steped up , I might be extremely dissapointed but I can't hold a gun to there head and make them do it . The information, unbiased information and the facts are much better bullets then slinging mud .
I am know more responsible for what happened in my countries history then those in Africa are, by geography I have faired much better in a land that has flourished in prosperity . It gauls me that so many people use the corruption of the past in Africa and that history as an excuse to not change things today . It's not like drugs are being dropepd with a smiley face and were saying here you go good luck with that, same with the money. It goes to where countries have met the stipulations .
As our buddy Bono says 6500 live a day is truly not a cause it is an emergency and it's an emergency that grow's everyday because were simply not keeping up with it.
Less and less people are going to stand by where rich countries continue to ignore the third world, or the havenots . So you might not agree that the medicines are perfect of course they are not or that the Global Fund works perfectly, or that . So when we talk about equality and justice there is no excuse for how we treat the third world countries, I am right there with Bono in the fact that we will be judged . It is about Human Rights and giving them the chance and the tools to make things better
But the more we sit around and make excuses the worse it gets, and to me when the solution is so simple everything else is an excuse made out of fear or apathy or greed just isn't a great advertisment for what humanity is suppose to be about
