Problems with Viral Loads? "Déjà vu All Over Again" !

No, that ain't me pontificating as usual. That's the United Press International talking about a recent study in JAMA. It's short, so I quote in full:

"CLEVELAND`, Ohio, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- Preliminary U.S. research indicates the HIV RNA level in untreated HIV-infected patients has little value in predicting the rate of CD4 cell count decrease."

{Ahem, clears throat -- really ?}

"Researchers say that potentially limits HIV RNA's clinical value concerning the decision of when to begin antiretroviral therapy."

{Some folks were calling it a viral load of crap ten years ago! But how about deciding whether the potentially limited use is in deciding whether and not when to begin poisoning? You guys are a trip.)

"Until the new study was completed, the degree to which HIV blood levels could predict the rate of CD4 cell loss was unclear."

{Unclear??  I thought the AIDS experts bunglers were very clear, and very certain about their tests, and drugs and surrogate markers like CD4 counts and viral loads}

"To address the question, Dr. Benigno Rodríguez of Case Western Reserve University and colleagues conducted a study to estimate the extent to which presenting blood levels of HIV can account for the rate at which CD4 cells are depleted among an untreated HIV-infected population of patients."

"The researchers found only a small proportion of the rate at which CD4 cells are lost could be explained by plasma HIV RNA level, suggesting more than 90 percent of the determinants of CD4 cell decline are not reflected in the amount of virus in blood."

"The research appears in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association"

Run that by me again? These geniuses are saying that 90% of CD4 cell loss isn't related to the amount of virus RNA in the plasma?  I, for one, am shocked ...again. But, Hey Benigno, what's causing the cell loss if it ain't the virus?

Comments

[A German Guest]

No, no, they must be completely 100 % wrong. CD4 cells are destroyed by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. I chose to believe because the scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming!

Charles Farthing, MD - Medical Director of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (2005 HIV Leadership Award winner):

"The people who say that HIV is not the cause of AIDS are practicing supreme denial. It is amazing how human beings can look at black and call it white or look at white and call it black. They can look at all the symptoms but if they don’t chose to believe it - they don’t chose to believe it.
Many human beings are not rational, they don’t operate on logic - they operate on emotions. And that’s exactly what those people are doing. They don’t want to believe it, so it’s not the case. But unfortunately, they’re completely 100 % wrong. There is no doubt that HIV causes AIDS. The scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming. But if you chose to ignore it, of course, you can ignore it."

(2004, http://www.theothersideofaids.com, google video)

[George]

The third quarter of 2006 has not exactly been terrific for AIDS, Inc.

1. The Annual AIDS extravaganza paid more atttention to AIDS dissidence than AIDS.

2. Thanks in large measure to the absolutely indefatigable "Hank the Tank Barnes" and his internet efforts over almost two years of pestering and waving and refusing to stop repeating the undeniable truth..all that sex and all those zero seroconversions...until there was nothing to do but resurrect the poor Padian woman herself to drool in public, captured for *all* time on their favorite, new website.

3. ARVS go up in waffle smoke in the Lancet.

4. Viral loads go down in flames in JAMA.

And just think, there is still a full quarter to go.

[Marcos]

George: I couldn´t desagree more... Please take a look at the other post placed bellow ("Darin Brown"). We as a human race should be proud of the never resting spirit of scientific research! We have finally found the origins of the bug! These are things we should be proud of! But of course, at the same time we should be ashamed of those few bastards that screwed chihuauas, pekines and pomeranians! I bet they don´t even have the guts to try rottweillers!

[noreen martin]

Well, this finding is nothing new to those of us who "LIVE" with it everyday. Just like HIV being married to AIDS so have CD4's been inter-meangled with the old viral load.

I agree with part of the above comment, I do choose to ignore it, all this Aids nonsense. Why would someone want to be placed on toxic drugs without any symptoms whatsoever? Yet this is the present mentality of the Aids doctors.

Keep chipping away until this Aids wall crumbles right on down on em!

[Dan]

"Until the new study was completed, the degree to which HIV blood levels could predict the rate of CD4 cell loss was unclear."

{Unclear?? I thought the AIDS experts bunglers were very clear, and very certain about their tests, and drugs and surrogate markers like CD4 counts and viral loads)

For those of us that have been actually following this for a while, we notice something significant: they can say anything they want, and they do, and it doesn't matter one whit if it completely contradicts what they said last week. As long as the necessary fear is maintained, the contradictory information and paradoxes go unchecked and unquestioned.

[noreen martin]

Dan, you have hit the nail, right on the head. It is a fear campaign straight from hell for those poor, unfortunates who will listen to them. It's all that these docs of doom and gloom have going for them and they use it quite effectively.

Imagine, the average Joe or Jane, being told that they will die if they do not take these pills every day of their life. It is quite an effective ploy.

I found, as being an Aids person, that one is between a rock and a hard place; not wanting to take toxic drugs and having fear installed into one to take the drugs. It's pure hell for those who have to struggle in their minds with this.

However, there is light at the end of tunnel for those who will search and discover the truth; which will definetly set one free, physically and mentally.

[George]

Put this into the (Spike) Milligan stew.

There is an editorial in the JAMA number with this paper by a slew of titles from the universities of Minnesota and Penn. and the NIAID (very impressive).

They write:

"25 years into the HIV epidemic, a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells – the essential event of HIV disease – is still lacking."

In the words of Barnes above: "Run that by me again?"

It seems incomprehensible that there are not many physicians and researchers now waking up to the flim flam game that has been played on them because of their credulity and naive faith in science as a self-correcting activity.

[Dan]

"25 years into the HIV epidemic, a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells – the essential event of HIV disease – is still lacking."

Funny how they can make it all sound so above-board with this statement. Really, though, it's a cry for help.

[A German Guest]

"In a related JAMA editorial, physician W. Keith Henry and colleagues write that the study results are stimulating and suggest that researchers should seek to identify nonviral factors that might trigger the decline of CD4+ T cells (Reuters, 9/27)."

The Body - HIV Viral Load Is Not Reliable Indicator for CD4+ T Cell Counts

"nonviral factors" - Well, this is a remarkable statement and a real breakthrough in orthodox HIV/AIDS research. Unfortunately, it's much too late for those who died from it during the past 25 years.

[George]

Well, well, well, look what we found.

In my endless pursuit of a perfect application of the principle of trim as applied to weblog surfing (not beach stone sucking) I alighted briefly upon NAR this morning to discover two things.

1. The "German Guest" had, like Kilroy, been there previously, and left the comment above, in almost an identical form, many hours earlier.

This in itself would not engender a post of this complexity, or indeed any remark at all, if not for the fact that between then and when I alighted, one of the authors of this study found it necessary to publicly reply to the remarks above, as well as others of a stronger variety such as expressed here and at other lively, dissident weblogs.

Here is what Dr. Lederman, MD, wrote in defense of the study:

"The idea that our findings published today in JAMA can be taken to support the concept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is ludicrous. The role of HIV as the cause of AIDS has been proven over and over again. Clearly the people who are misrepresenting our work are not only incapable of clear thinking, they are also apparently unable to read."
Michael M. Lederman MD

The comment was given to *Nick Bennett* in a personal communication*. http://tinyurl.com/nxxow"

I wonder if that remark applies to the distinguished editorial commenters at JAMA? I also wonder if they will ever get to see it since it appears to be published as part of a weblog discussion at a blog that has never even once been alighted on by my not so humble at times self.

Nonetheless, that is where this resonant (with the 'arguments' of JP Moore et al.) defense of AIDS, Inc. science is published - and now here of course too:).

It gets better.

The bearer of this mighty rebuke to all "thinkers" everywhere is none other than *Dr. Chris Noble* (a failed, middle aged statistician from nowhere Australia, who has nothing better to do than shamelessly defend his faith on the internet at all hours of the day and night in case you are new here.)

To wit, and as follows:

Chris Noble: "I have permission to quote from the paper's author, when he found out that the AIDS dissidents were hijacking his work."

If "rethinkers" really believe that the article should be interpretted in the manner that they think then they could at least contact the authors of the article.

It is *ludicrous* [emphasis mine, G] to imagine that people with no relevant scientific experience can interpret the data better than the authors themselves.

To which the German Guest wrote:

I understand. That's what you call scientific evidence??? *Laughing out loud!* This is ridiculous.

To which I can only add, Hey, Chris! - as Hank might write, come on over here, the water's warm, and Dr. Knobless et al. miss you terribly (as I do not).

[noreen martin]

I have to sneak in a comment about today's article concerning "Dr. Culshaw Hate Mail". Dr. Culshaw's views, like other rethinkers, are their own. People may choose to agree or disagree with them but the reality of the siutiation is that each one is responsibile for one's own decisions in regards to health.

HIV causes AIDS has evolved into a religion and if one chooses "not to believe" then one is an outcast, sinner so to speak. Apparently, it is blasphemy to question the powers that be.

History, if nothing else, should teach us something. Take a look back to the 1930's when children were taken from their families fearing a contagious disease. In reality, it was pellagra, caused by a vitamin B deficiency. This sad situiation continued until one, very bright doctor decided to research this and so was another great mystery and tradegy of medicine rectified.

Maybe the person on the street will not truly understand the situiation until he or she turns up HIV+. Then, it is a whole different ballgame with a different set of rules.

Dr. Culshaw, you are in the right league, if not the best, to state an opinion, as the world evolves around math and its rules which do not waver.

A German Guest, commenting on Problems with Viral Loads:
"Nonviral factors, this is a remarkable statement and real breakthrough in oxthodox HIV/AIDS research. Unfortunatley, it's much too late for those who died of it during the past 25 years".

That just about says it all. What about all the needless deaths from these toxic drugs. These were real people with real lives and families who loved them. How long must this go on?

[German Guest]

Hello, German Guest here!

I came to this most informative blog today - and found some of my statements at newaidsreview reproduced again in this forum.

Please take note of the fact that a few statements have not been cited correctly and that messages by "A German Guest" were posted by someone else.

Thank you and keep the discussion going ;-)