Lessons from the “baby cure”
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2013/03/10
ABC News has an unusually well researched, insightful discussion by Sydney Lupkin of the much-ballyhooed alleged cure of an HIV-infected baby: “Experts question so-called HIV ‘cure’”.
The chief points raised are about lack of proof of infection and questions of informed consent. But I would like to point to some deeper issues in medical practice: doctors’ dilemmas and doctors’ ignorance.
“Caplan [medical-ethics specialist] and Kline [pediatric HIV specialist] said they believe Gay [the doctor responsible for the ‘cure’] had the patient’s interests at heart, and that she had the right to deviate from standard of care”.
Having a patient’s interest at heart is no more than the good intentions that, in general, pave the road to hell. Good intentions coupled with technical ignorance can have horrible consequences. Furthermore, human psychology being what it is, one’s belief to be acting with good intentions may not be well based if one suffers the usual conflicts of interest, say, wanting to demonstrate expertise.
“‘When we consider starting any medication in any patient, we always consider the risk-benefit ratio,’ Gay said during Monday’s press conference. ‘When the risk is something as serious as HIV disease, then it’s worth the benefit that you may get from preventing that disease. Even though you never want to start drugs that may cause toxicities, if the benefit outweighs the risk, you do it.’”
“Risk-benefit”, like “evidence-based medicine”, are phrases that can lull the unwary into believing that things are being done to the highest scientific standards.
But “evidence-based medicine” is a hope, a motto, an (impossible?) ideal, it is not a description of current practices, few if any of which are actually based on evidence; for example, innumerable people, are taking drugs to lower cholesterol or blood pressure and increase bone strength, yet “There are no valid data on the effectiveness . . . [of] statins, antihypertensives, and bisphosphanates” (the last, e.g. Fosamax, are prescribed against osteoporosis) — Järvinen et al., British Medical Journal, 342 (2011) doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2175.
As to “risk-benefit”, that sounds like a careful weighing of quantitative statistical data, when in practice — as in the baby-cure case — it’s no more than a subjective guess.
Ignorance about HIV/AIDS is the current “standard of care”, sadly.
For example, “transmission-reducing drugs during pregnancy . . . have been found to reduce the rate of HIV transmission to 1 percent, said Dr. Mark Kline, a pediatric HIV and AIDS specialist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Without these prenatal preventive measures, babies have a 20 to 25 percent chance of becoming infected with their mother’s HIV”
— but those authoritative, impressive-appearing percentages are based, like all else about HIV, on tests that are simply not valid. Once more:
THERE ARE NO “HIV” TESTS
CAPABLE OF DIAGNOSING
—— S. H. Weiss & E. P. Cowan,
“Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral Infection”,
Chapter 8 in Gary P. Wormser (ed.),
AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV Infection, 2004 (4th ed.).
The truth is hidden in plain sight, obscured only by cognitive dissonance. Thus Kline, who gets so much right — if only the premises were not wrong — apparently has not thought seriously about the implications of the absurdities and conundrums that pervade HIV/AIDS theory:
“‘That’s a rather surprising statistic, I think, because you think to yourself: If the mother has HIV, won’t the newborn almost certainly also have HIV?’ Kline said. ‘In fact, even in an era in which we did nothing at all, only minor numbers of infants actually acquired HIV infection.’”
Exactly. Just as this supposedly sexually transmitted disease that supposedly galloped through southern Africa and elsewhere is, in the words of Gallo himself, “distinctively [sic] difficult to transmit” (Robert Gallo, Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1991, p. 131);
and the officially claimed HIV+ rate in southern Africa can only be explained by postulating promiscuity so extraordinary that people could hardly have time for anything except sex and changing partners: James Chin, former epidemiologist for California and the World Health Organization, calculates that 20-40% of adults must have “multiple concurrent relationships” with several sexual partners, changing to new partners weekly or monthly, totaling to tens of different partners over the course of each year (The AIDS Pandemic, Radcliffe 2007, Table 5.1 on p. 64).
Surely the colossally mind-boggling absurdities and self-contradictions required by HIV/AIDS theory call for the most careful reconsideration of that theory; and reconsideration might bring to the fore the fact that “HIV” virions have never been isolated from patients even during so-called viremia when HIV is supposedly plentiful; and in absence of a sample of such virions, there cannot be a “gold standard” test to validate currently used tests. As Rodney Richards has pointed out, the so-called “HIV” tests are actually “AIDS” tests and have never been shown by evidence, only by official opinion, to show infection by HIV ( “The birth of antibodies equal infection”, Appendix II in Celia Farber, Serious Adverse Events, Melville House, 2006). “HIV” tests react positive when sera contain some of the things found in AIDS patients BUT NOT ONLY IN AIDS PATIENTS NOR IN ALL AIDS PATIENTS: several dozen conditions are capable of producing a positive “HIV” test, for instance such common diseases (in Africa) as tuberculosis (Christine Johnson, “Whose antibodies are they anyway? Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results”, Continuum 4 (#3, Sept./Oct. 1996); also Figure 22, p. 83 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory).
When Dr. Gay talked of “something as serious as HIV disease”, her belief was based in large part on the fact that, since the introduction of antiretroviral drugs, “HIV” is being held responsible for all the “side” effects of the drugs; for instance the mal-distribution of fat caused primarily by protease inhibitors (PIs) is often referred to as “HIV lipodystrophy” as though HIV and not the PIs were at fault.
In the abstract I can sympathize with doctors who follow official guidelines and believe they are doing right by their patients. In practice I am appalled at the human carnage consequent on stubborn adherence to an unsupportable theory, which remains unquestioned by innumerable so-called “researchers” even as contradictions of the theory crop up all the time. And I find myself unable to comprehend the mindset of practicing physicians who continue to administer “medications” to babies even when the result is screaming and convulsions; or the mindset of doctors supervising clinical trials where the drugs are so intolerable that they have to be forcibly administered via gastric tubes. Not to speak of the fanatics who try to justify such actions.
This entry was posted on 2013/03/10 at 11:34 am and is filed under antiretroviral drugs, experts, HIV absurdities, HIV in children, HIV tests, HIV transmission, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, uncritical media. Tagged: baby cured of HIV, Sydney Lupkin, toxic drugs for children. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.