PCP, Corticosteroids, and AIDS Progression...

So I decided to look into PCP Pnuemonia outside of the HIV/AIDS Population.



PCP does affect large portions of the immunocompromised, particularly those who have been subjected to corticosteroids to suppress their immunity. 91% of patients without HIV that presented with PCP had been on corticosteroids in the previous month to three months. It has been shown that there is a link between corticosteroids and development of PCP.

http://www.utdol.com/online/content/abstract.do?topicKey=immuninf/10047&refNum=11-14

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8uaa5je1tkv2ww4/

What I am trying to understand is how they would give something that supresses the immune system and is known to cause PCP to people who are immunocompromised with PCP. Particularly those with HIV.

"These drugs are very powerful and can cause such serious side effects as high blood pressure, kidney problems and liver disorders. Some side effects may not show up until years after the medicine was used. Anyone who has been advised to take immunosuppressant drugs should thoroughly discuss the risks and benefits of these medications with the prescribing physician."

"Immunosuppressant drugs lower a person's resistance to infection and can make infections harder to treat. The drugs can also increase the chance of uncontrolled bleeding. "

http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Fi-La/Immunosuppressant-Drugs.html

But for some reason in incidences where PCP is acute in HIV/AIDS patients this is found to relieve them.

There is evidence of benefit for adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of moderate to severe PCP in people infected with HIV. There is insufficient evidence of benefit for adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of mild PCP in people infected with HIV. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/conditions/hiv/2501/2501_I7.jsp

(this is one of several clinical studies though the others glorify them much more... )

No to mention you become more susceptible to your other infections after use of Corticosteroids as it lowers your immunity and in some instances results in declining T-Cell count... This study found that people co-infected with CMV were more likely to have severe prognosis after presenting and being treated for PCP...

"Culture of CMV in BAL was independently associated with an increased (2.7-fold) risk of short-term mortality. The clinical significance of CMV in HIV-related lung disease is an issue of controversy. Several studies323334353637 conducted before the introduction of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy concluded that CMV coinfection does not contribute directly to HIV-associated pulmonary disease. However, CMV does cause significant pulmonary disease in some individuals with HIV-1 infection, although the diagnosis frequently is missed antemortem.3839 It is possible that CMV may be a significant pathogen in patients treated with immunosuppressants or who have other infections. In one study,40 the use of corticosteroids was related to the subsequent development of CMV retinitis and colitis in HIV-1–infected patients. In a previous study41 of PCP patients treated between 1989 and 1991, we showed a twofold increased mortality rate within 3 months of diagnosis in patients treated with adjunctive corticosteroids who were BAL CMV culture positive. Patients not receiving corticosteroids who were BAL CMV negative were not at an increased risk."

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/119/3/844.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11243967

Their are other anti-inflammatory options that do not have cortisol. And still PCP is a leading cause of death amongst those deemed HIV positive. It is the most common opportunistic infection... and one that often leads to AIDS diagnosis... Could it possibly be the treatment?

Then we discover this...

Conclusion: Adherence to CDC guidelines for adjunctive corticosteroid use varied according to city and patient sociodemographics. More importantly, improved outcomes seen in randomized controlled trials were not realized in practice. Among severely ill patients, mortality was 3-fold higher when corticosteroids were given according to CDC guidelines. Our findings suggest that that the utility of adjunctive corticosteroids in severe PCP needs to be revisited.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102195461.html

There is more to come I just find this absolutely mind boggling...

The Mitochondria & Degenerative Diseases or How ARVS cause AIDS

Ok... so in my little foray into blog world I have seemingly met someone from the mainstream that would like to help me clear up some of my confusion. So I have decided to start a new thread thats a little less stream of conscious and a little more focussed in an effort to get to the bottom of some things.

One of my biggest confusions which is highly validated is the role of the mitochondria in disease and the manipulations of the mitochondria which are a bi-product of ARV use.

So my first point in our debate would be the role of Mitochondria in Degenerative diseases. The fact that the slowing down, manipulation, and damage of the mitochondria is one of the tell tale signs of all degenerative diseases... and that the drugs slow down and damage the mitochondria is something that really needs to be discussed. In a recent study where they put several non-HIV positive people on HAART after only thirty days all showed mitochondrial DNA damage... that study is here:

http://www.aegis.com/conferences/lipo/2008/P-63.html

and that was even in drugs that were supposed to have a low mitochondrial toxicity... Ironically it has long been believed that it was HIV causing this mitochondrial dysfunction but there is so much evidence today that is clarifying that the drugs themselves may actually be responsible. (Just showing you that another thing blamed on HIV is being found to be unrelated)

So lets discuss, since we were last debating what actually causes AIDS... (I do believe there are many which is why its hard to believe this one little retrovirus is responsible and why I think the current HIV/AIDS theory is a misdiagnosis)

Lets first discuss the role the drugs could play in the development of AIDS and or these other "co-infections, opportunistic infections, illnesses" and states of degeneration. Particularly as you were trying to figure out how I would wish to blame the other illnesses that did not lead particularly to cell death... well what if this is what leads to the cell death and making these patients more susceptible to their underlying issues?

I will start with what the Mitochondria do... for those of you unfamiliar with it:

What Do Mitochondria Do?

Air and food are metabolized by mitochondria. Every nucleated cell in the body contains from 5 to 2000 mitochondria. They are the size and shape of long, thread-like bacteria woven through our cells. Mitochondria consume over 80 percent of the oxygen we breathe and make over 90 percent of the energy our cells need to function. They use the oxygen in the air we breathe to release energy from food. This process transforms food calories into chemical energy, water, and carbon dioxide. The released chemical energy is then stored in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is the universal currency of energy used by all life on earth. It is like an electrical power source that drives the engines of the cell. This process of burning food to make ATP is called oxidative phosphorylation. Only mitochondria can do it. Without it, muscles could not contract and neurons could not fire. Mitochondria literally make it possible for us to move and think.

Recent popular and scientific publications have focused on the "powerplant" functions of mitochondria. While it is true that energy production is one function of mitochondria, this is only a small part of what they do. Mitochondria in different tissues differ dramatically in their ability to consume oxygen and make ATP. For example, liver mitochondria consume just 2% of the oxygen that heart mitochondria do. Liver mitochondria are specialized for other duties. They contain, for examples, enzymes that allow them to detoxify ammonia, a waste product of protein metabolism. These enzymes are not made in the heart. Mitochondria also differ in the fuels they can bum. For example, mitochondria in the heart cannot use sugar for energy. They are entirely dependent on the metabolism of fats to meet their energy needs. In contrast, mitochondria in the liver can use both fats and sugars. The specialized functions of mitochondria help each tissue to perform its role in the day-to-day operation of the body. Children with mitochondrial disease have inherited specific mutations in either mitochondrial or nuclear genes (DNA). Their symptoms are a reflection of the tissues that need the function of that gene or genes most.

Now what does damaged mitochondria do/cause? (I will give you a few examples from a few different areas)

Here is one from the Brittish Journal of Opthalmology:

Mitochondrial dysfunction can produce several rare ophthalmological diseases. But in the next few decades, we will probably also see mitochondria as a subject of interest insofar as they may be secondly involved in the pathogenesis of a variety of other more common ophthalmological degenerative diseases. Examples of the first sort include chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia, dominant optic atrophy, and LHON. Examples of the second sort might include disorders that are less obviously related to mitochondria such as cataracts, wound healing, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and other age related diseases. In normal ageing and, particularly, in degenerative disorders mitochondrial dysfunction results in defective oxidative phosphorylation and may overproduce reactive oxygen species (ROS). A common final mitochondria driven pathway to cell death may be mediated by the opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP), which promotes apoptosis (see fig 1 1).). Oxidative stress is currently assumed to be a major consequence of mitochondrial dysfunction as well as a source of further damage to mitochondrial macromolecules leading to a vicious cycle that culminates in cell death.4 Indeed, we have been investigating a number of acquired optic neuropathies that all share the common feature of cell death produced by mitochondrial impairment.13
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1857143

This is another interesting article by the original people who led me to my understanding of the mirochondria and the role it plays in diseases...

"While these diseases traditionally have been assumed to result from mutations in the genes encoded by DNA in the cell's nucleus," he said, "most common degenerative diseases frequently do not exhibit inheritance patterns wholly consistent with our understanding of these nuclear DNA genetics. Our demonstration that mutations in the mitochondrial DNA can also cause the same diseases means that both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA genes that affect mitochondrial function can contribute to disease risk."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144414.htm#

(this article can also elaborate on why children exposed to ARVS and subject to mitochondrial dysfunction do not present issues at birth and only later in life)

There are so many many more affecting almost every area of the body... I will be happy to provide them if this is not enough.

So far we have issues with Opthalmology, Issues with the heart and muscle... and wonder what other issues there are that are caused by Mitochondrial DNA damage and Dysfunction? I am sure I could spend time adding much more... but would like to add a study on Mitochondrial Dysfunction in children exposed to ARVS in the womb and beyond quickly... so you can see just how far reaching these issues are:

CONCLUSION: Children exposed to nucleoside analogues during the perinatal period are at risk of a neurological syndrome associated with persistent mitochondrial dysfunction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12891063?dopt=Abstract

So please "trying to help" can you explain away how the mitochondrial damage that is caused by use of ARVS could not possibly be responsible for some of the many diseases that result in death and explained as AIDS? As this truly was one of the first realizations that brought me to thinking that some of the dissident theories may indeed hold some truth. Not to mention the liklihood that in the common years we will likely hear more and more on the damaging effects these drugs have played on the children of those exposed in the womb considering many real issues may not show up for more than 10 years...

Also I will make it a point in future to keep my questions specific and well validated. As I did tell you I do not come to these conclusions without solid evidence. Many of my conclusions have also come from things you rarely find on the dissident websites... and I truly have not felt that I could use dissident science and articles to protect me from the many mainstream protocols that truly do not apply to me. It is sad the blatent lack of case by case treatment and acceptance in a paradigm that truly has no one answer and no one cause.

I am really appreciating our discussion I must say and am very curious what your thoughts on the argument presented here are.

Validation V/S Speculation...

On this topic firstly I have to ask myself... has something truly been validated when absolutely no one is allowed to question or even verify that validation? When simply the process used for that validation has been questioned. Whats so wrong to call for a better form of validation than one that seemingly has flaws? What's most disconcerting is when those who are capable of validating that validation (that is in question) they are unwilling despite being offered payment for such a thing. Since when does a scientist deny payment for doing a procedure... simply because someone else already did it and only one person at that? I don't know about you... but that all seems very questionable.

Now don't get me wrong. I am in no position to question the existence or non-existence of HIV. Though there is much evidence and science that has called into question what HIV actually is, which I believe is hard to deny. Even though some of those theories contradict one another they are still valid representations of the fact that the current theory is flawed. Also its pretty well known that being diagnosed with HIV does not always lead to being diagnosed with AIDS and does not always lead to death by the standards currently defined to us upon that diagnosis.

One thing I have personally calculated from talking to a myriad of so called AIDS patients is that one does not get to the status of AIDS defined illness and death without a certain amount of historical/underlying factors many of which are deadly on their own and known to lead to a compromised immunity and death without the presence of HIV status. Toxoplasmosis is a prime example, Epstein Barr, T-Cell Lymphoma, and the list goes on. Those are all things that automatically lead to an AIDS diagnosis, are cross reactive on HIV tests, are not treated with ARVS, and are totally unrelated to an STD. So I will say there is enough valid information to call into question the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis without a doubt.

As someone who spent years being employed by a corporation to essentially explore what our clients could be hiding or things that could stand in the way of multi-million dollar deals, or represent failure of those deals... if I were heading an investigation of this sort I would have some questions like: Why aren't other scientists allowed to simply validate such a thing? Why are those capable unwilling? Why does everyone blindly accept one scientists word? Isn't the whole point of science to question theories and expand on them in the hopes of furthering the research closer to a solution? Why when scientists do such a thing are they blacklisted? These are truly logical questions that I believe should be answered. They are questions that might cause me to deny funding simply because there are too many holes and unanswered questions in regards to something that is the supposed foundation of that funding.

It has also recently been pointed out to me that Gallo admitted that the standard for causation he used was not suffecient enough to prove HIV causation of AIDS. This admission was made on the stand and is in the court transcripts of the Parenzee trial of Australia. It is something that leaves me unsettled as that admittance was not pursued on the stand and is something that most definitely needs to be addressed in a more in depth manner. If 36% percent does not prove causation why are we lead to believe in this case that causation for some reason it is acceptable?

So truly how fool proof is the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. When will they decide to make it fool proof? How come no one has collected the 50,000 dollar reward that shows that the isolation of HIV has been suffeciently peer reviewed and published?

All logical questions I believe.

So despite those of equal experience who may speculate on alternative theories is there still not enough evidence to call for an open debate on the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis? What are they affraid of? Why aren't those who have alternative theories that also have the credentials that back up those theories allowed funding to explore things that could essentialy lead to a better definition and a better outcome for those impacted.

These scientists are labelled Psuedo Sceintists when in reality without the exploration of these things truly I feel they are exposing that the mainstream is a medium of censorship, denialism, and psuedo science for impeding the ability for advancement... for implying that science itself is static and unchanging, and for trying to portray the belief that such mistakes have not happened in the past, and sadly this is not questionable it is proven... and on many more platforms than HIV/AIDS.

My thoughts for the day...
Oh and one last question... Why doesnt the HIV test have a gold standard?

HOUSE OF NUMBERS... and all this Blind Speculation...

This is my critique of what I found to be one of the most eye opening and objective documentaries I have seen in a long time. And it is also a response to the many people writing about this film... many I have to say have either honestly have not seen the film, or were surprised at the aggression faced when being a supporter of such notions, or at least expressed being enlightened by such information.

The message this movie conveys is one that challenges the intent, motivation, knowledge, and logic of an industry that not only doctors but also patients cling to for their very sustenance. I can see how the message is challenging for some. Some people are sick, some from the drugs, some from the many underlying illnesses that get overlooked at the point that you are diagnosed HIV+. Making the notion even more challenging.

I do not believe this film denied the existence of HIV. Though I think it called into question whether we have suffeciently proven it, and how the methods we use to diagnose and prove it are somewhat questionable.

What I saw in the House of numbers film is the fact that it takes three tests in Africa to make an assumption about diagnosis. Of course in the instances that tests are used at all for diagnosis. I lived in Africa for three years, and the images you see on the tv screen are very different than the bulk of Africa. And when you see those images on the tv screen if you were truly aware of the conditions those people were living in, you would be absolutely appalled that we are doing nothing about those things whilst forcing poor governments into backruptcy or submission for toxic drugs.

I think the way this filmed portrayed the townships that many of the poor urban africans live in was true to form. The water I drank when living in a tribal villiage was so chlorinated after a few hours in the buckets its stench was that of bleach. To speak of infrastructure and basic needs that are unmet is not unjustified. If you were aware of their diet many who sustain on corn meal if lucky to have food at all, you would see the issues that are knowingly caused by such diets, like Pellagra... a common cause of wasting and other AIDS defining issues amongst the corn subsistent.

Those drugs are proven to be dangerous and toxic in hundreds of studies at the NIH... Both to adults, and to unborn children, so I really do not find that theory questionable. The side effects of many of these drugs are death. Liver Failure, Hepatic Failure. Mitochondrial DNA damage is an unavoidable side effect. Look it up and consider those implications and another illness they mirror... And if you look at the statistics more people died of AIDS annually when EVERYONE was being drugged at diagnosis. Isn't it you guys that are always quoting the statistics? Well you obviously read selectively.

I also saw that someone at the WHO, openly admitted that the numbers used for calculating the amount of infections were doctored, and that the calculations were not based on confirmed diagnosis. Not to mention the symptoms which defined diagnposis could fit a myriad of other health issues that have been common in Africa for centuries.

I saw another person from the CDC, openly explain the state of affairs in the early 80's and how the CDC "needed" an epidemic. Go look at History doesn't sound like some far fetched theory, and hell who's wants to argue with a source that was there, and had a title in the organization.

The dissidents had minor sound bites in this film compared to the long dialogues with the core people from the HIV/AIDS frontlines. That was one of the things I found most compelling about this film. And one of the things that sets it apart from what is considered "Dissident" Films. It was highly objective.

I have to say the long comments by Luc Montagnier were compelling and mind blowing. I would not say he is not qualified to speak this perspective. I do believe he was given more airtime than any other.

The fact that JP Moore would say he was mis-quoted is absolutely Hilarious, considering he said nothing more than what we have all seen and heard him say for years. And if you are listening to his statements well... he is known to be suspect, and good at spreading rumors.

I did not see a Dissident film. I saw a younger perspective of some very valuable questions and points that can be verified as good plausable requests for validation... If you are a researcher like myself that verifies things in the mainstream before I believe them.

And as for that younger perspective, watch out cause it isn't going anywhere... and that voice is only going to get stronger... until one day... they are the very people in control.

The youth of today are not stupid. They have music bands challenging the likes of flouride.(an entire album dedicated to flouride the poison) They have issues with these authoratative people that keep trying to tell them whats good for them while they stand by and see the harm for themselves. They don't trust pharmacueticals, and they think doctors are aggressive and untrustworthy.

Oh yes... I am loving the younger perspective. Talk to any young people lately. Oh yes there is hope.

Welcome...

Firstly I want to say, I do not consider myself a dissident, nor do I identify with the term that the mainstream has coined because of some very logial questions... denialist. My position is that we need to "Rethink" AIDS. We need to allow doctors and researchers to use the scientific process to validate that things do or don't add up, as there are a substantial number of credentialled professionals that essentially have some very important questions regarding the current hypothesis and its validity. I have never used the heresay of personal opinion, nor have I solely relied on dissident science to come to the conclusions I have about the HIV/AIDS establishment.

My feelings are based on taking my questions to the most qualified databases, those of the NIH, NLM, Pub Med, etc.

The amount of research available that more than validates many of the perspectives of those in the dissident movement is staggering. Today there is study after study of the dangers of ARVS. Its shocking to discover that the slowing down of the mitochondria is the sign of all degenerative diseases, whilst discovering that these drugs intentionally slow down the mitochondria. Then I think to myself no wonder some of these mad conspiracy theorists are screaming genocide at the drug makers. If a drug causes the ailments it claims to cure, well that is not a conspiracy now is it. Research the cause of degenerative diseases, and the functions of the drugs, and see for yourself.

Many studies show that children are damaged by these ARV's in the womb. That they manipulate the DNA and the mitochondria which I could easily say are two of the most important building blocks of life. The results of this damage are unseen to the naked eye but can eventually lead to serious nuerological disorders, other health issues, and death. Investigate "Persistent mitochondrial DNA damage in children exposed to ARVS."

There is also a study by the renowned Johns Hopkins University, that shows circumcision does not lower the chance of transmission and might possibly increase it slightly. (This same study also showed that the rate of sexual trasmission was also rather low considering the number of patients used)

Another wonderful study by them showed children who recieved breastmilk by their HIV+ mothers are less likely to be terminal, are less likely to seroconvert, and are more likely to have a healthy life. (This study was done in Africa like many others on over 9,000 women.)

Diverting women from breastfeeding in Africa was about the most horrendous mistake that could be made, as a formula program is practically impossible for people already drinking from contaminated water and who have no income. Many of these children I am sure were poisoned or starved to death and written off as pediatric AIDS deaths. Though the most interesting part of this study showed that formula feeding reduced the thickness of the stomach lining making children MORE prone to seroconverting to HIV because the illedged virus could enter the body more readily in this manner.

Are you also aware that their are 80 different illnesses that cross react on HIV tests. Illnesses with their own health difficulties that do not get treated or addressed upon HIV diagnosis. To top that if you happen to have one of the many AIDS defining illnesses that are also cross reactive on HIV tests, once again the real issue is left untreated and you are given the toxic treatement of ARVS. Some people find some relief when ARVS are administered if they happen to have one of the diseases that ARVS can assist. (Only some are viral which is probably why it has been said by renowned researchers at UCSF that only 35% of patients benefit) ARVS are known to kill certain fungal infections, bacteria, virus, and so forth, but the long term use eventually begins to kill and damage all cells and therefore leading to other causes of death like Liver failure that is not and AIDS defining illness but a byproduct of ARV use. If you happen to have one of the illnesses that are not affected by ARVS you are basically being misdiagnosed and the real health issue is being ignored. Which is the sad truth about the misdiagnosis that is HIV/AIDS. In a study where they put several non-positive people on HAART for 30 days every single participant showed Mitochondrial DNA damage. This is something that was once blamed on HIV/AIDS but is now clearly being seen as a bi-product of ARV use.

Now what if you are a perfectly healthy person who has been diagnosed HIV positive. It is impossible to escape the onslought of stress, depression, fear, anxiety, shame, and all the other toxic emotions that have great potential to affect a persons health. Not to mention being told you are essentially dying when in reality you feel fine and very well could be fine. All those toxic emotions have been verified to cause immunosuppression and illness. In the instance your immunity is down you begin to become susceptible to all kinds of things and all these little things become undeniable aspects of your impending death. This is an extremely horrible place to be. I have been there. Some of us like myself have chosen to embrace our health in spite of the diagnosis that doesn't seem to fit the bill. And now years later my life is normal outside of the stigma and changes caused by being leperized by this misdiagnosis.

I know AIDS patients also who have been going strong never ill, some even without viral load all with T-Cells below 200. What does that say:

HIV/AIDS is a misdiagnosis. We desperately need to RETHINK AIDS. We need to stop categorizing a bunch of illnesses together which essentially endangers patients by treating them all the same way. Every patient is dramatically different. This Virus affects no one the same way. The Defining illnesses are not contracted nor transmitted in the same way... So truly how can anyone say that one virus in the cause for so many dramatically different outcomes. We are dealing with a serious case of misdiagnosis when the hypothesis that we live by is a misdiagnosis in and of itself.

I will be posting more on each of these topics in the future including links to the many studies I have found in the mainstream research fascilities. Stay tuned. Stay in touch. There are so many questions, contradictions, and holes, that eventually I just could no longer deny that there are things that just don't add up. Many things that need to be explored. Many theories that are ridiculed that hold substantial logic. We must investigate, debate, and get to the bottom of this. The fact that the mainstream refuses, unfortunately to my discerning eyes somewhat implies guilt on their part for possibly not being able to live up to the line they have fed us all. Join me in being part of the process to bring these issues forward and to hopefully someday see them resolved.

Thanks So much... much much more to come.