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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Another interesting thing to ponder:
Three interrelated mechanisms may be operative in NRTI toxicity (Fig. 1). The first was observed clinically and experimentally. Its principal feature was energy deprivation secondary to mtDNA depletion. Concomitant with or resulting from mitochondrial energy deprivation is the second key event: mitochondrial oxidative stress. Evidence for this stems from in vivo studies with NRTIs and from correlative data in other systems. Lastly, mtDNA mutations may result from oxidative mtDNA damage, aberrant mtDNA replication, and altered mtRNA transcription. Together, these form the "mitochondrial dysfunction hypothesis." This hypothesis takes into account all of the pathophysiological events that are important in NRTI toxicity. In some ways, it is analogous to approaches that examine defects in genetic mitochondrial illnesses in which the defective mitochondrial gene product, oxidative stress, and the environment contribute to disease pathogenesis (Schapira and Cooper, 1992).
http://www.nature.com/labinvest/journal/v81/n6/full/3780288a.html
I think you are setting up a giant straw man argument here.
No one is claiming that antiretroviral therapy is free of unwanted and adverse effects, including on mitochondrial function. Or that treatment side effects can be serious. As you point out, the studies on this are drawn from the mainstream scientific literature, and understanding and minimising these risks in treatment is a major focus of investigation.
So also is trying to work out which adverse events are part of the disease process, which are caused by the treatment, and which are caused by other factors. This is not as simple as many dissidents try to claim.
For example, dissidents commonly attribute all liver disease deaths to drug side effects. This is not borne out by the evidence: nearly four out of five liver disease deaths occur in people co-infected with chronic hepatitis B and C infections. The risk of end stage liver disease in such HIV+ people increases with falling CD4 count (and less effective immune response to HBV and HCV) , and decreases with longer and more effective antiretroviral treatment.
That's not to say that ARVs never contribute to liver disease in individual cases, but that overall such treatment is more likely to be protective against, than causative of, end stage liver disease.
But the key point you are missing is this: the decision whether or not to use treatment (and which treatment to use) needs to be informed not only by the risks associated with that treatment, but also by the risks associated with not treating. A truly informed decision needs to weigh up both considerations. And to do so by examining the evidence of both risks and benefits.
HIV treatments are serious drugs, and are far from perfect. But HIV/AIDS is a serious disease.
The issue I have with dissidents is not that they draw attention to the adverse effects of treatment (which is an important consideration), but that they ignore and often frankly misrepresent the other side of the equation - what happens when you don't treat.
If your starting point is "HIV is a misdiagnosis", then I can't see how you can possibly weigh up risks and benefits of treatment in a rational way - because you are completely ignoring one side of the situation.
Well the Irony is the largest cause of Hepatitis is Drug Induced Hepatitis...
Distinguishing Drug Induced Hepatitis from Viral Hepatitis is quite difficult.
(Not to mention the number of people who run themselves into the ground upon diagnosis)
Not to mention the main cause of Viral Hepatitis is Intravenous drug use which on its own leads to depleted immunity...
Opiate induced Immunosupression---
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/8/2194)
http://journals.lww.com/co-supportiveandpalliativecare/Fulltext/2008/03000/Opioid_induced_immunosuppression.4.aspx
Methamphetamine induced Immunosupression
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599328?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jid
http://www.citeulike.org/user/JuanMiguelMarin/article/5402148
(this one shows how the drug is immunosupressive and how drug use with ARVS in the instance of HIV is highly toxic)
Drug abuse is a well known cause of death in the absence of HIV... (as this also affects cd4 and cd8 cells) so once again on that point how do we still blame HIV? Just because its there?
====
the Hopkins team found that one-half of the virus' changes in its genome are in sites under attack by the body's immune system. As the virus evolves and these changes weaken the body's immune response...
According to Cox, the hepatitis C virus naturally mutates, or alters its genome, very rapidly. Its strains have two to three times more genetic variability, for example, than HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and hepatitis C reproduces more than 100 billion times per day, 100 times faster than HIV. Compounding the problem, the infection is asymptomatic in the acute stage, making it less likely that diagnosis will be made early, when it is easiest to treat.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25898.php
Wow the way it evades the immune system sounds incredibly familiar...
=========
Truly how can we blame HIV?
-------
Not to mention many of the so-called co-infections also cause hepatitis... Herpes, CMV, Epstein Barr... and so forth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis
And I still have to ask myself if you happen to have two or three of these alternate infections (which many if not all do that have ever truly gotten sick and progressed to AIDS with actual illness) how is it that those infections combined are not the real culprit of AIDS progression as opposed to this elusive retrovirus HIV.
You would think if your body is fighting a myriad of issues it might just burn out at some point... particularly if you have done your share of abusing it along the way...
As for the drugs themselves... so you throw some immediate relief onto this already out of control fire... maybe it kills some bad stuff and gives you temporary relief... stops the acute aspect of your illness and gives you back your health... but in truth the long term effects are irrefutably damaging. There is no way to avoid them, and there are not many doctors who direct you to go off once they are started. Though I have spoken to many who have gone off against doctors orders and are amazingly well.
And truly if your hepatitis is caused by those many other diseases why not give treatment for those other issues rather than a standard treatment that has only been shown to benefit 35% of patients.
Particularly when that treatment can shorten the length of your survival... as seen here that NRTI use actually impeded success of treatment for positive people with HCV...
Patients with HIV who start pegylated interferon and ribavirin treatment have considerably lower success rates if they are also taking nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) drugs for HIV, two European studies have found.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/E25328C5-59B2-43B4-BC3A-3B6364C5158D.asp
I also don't think many doctors weigh the risks and benefits truthfully on a patient to patient basis... when a myriad of doctors would push them upon a pregnant woman in perfect health with no virus... (so much so I had to get an attorney to protect my refusal even with a child who tested negative at birth... and this was done prior to even testing) When truly transmission in healthy women without drug history and in good health have actually never been properly evaluated even in the event virus is present in the blood work. (as most studies of transmission are derived from Africa and these protocols are forced upon people of a substantially different demographic)
Not to mention when speaking with Doctors in say NY and SF during the 80's/90's most if not all positive mothers had drug abuse habits... So truly what was responsible for their sick babies?
Why are healthy mothers being forced, manipulated, and coersed in to using dangerous drugs that in reality may not be necessary particularly when the mother is in good health and is missing many of the aspects that actually lead to illness?
Funny also if I were to take the drugs my pregnancy would immediately be labelled high risk because of all the dangers of taking the drugs.
"then I can't see how you can possibly weigh up risks and benefits of treatment in a rational way - because you are completely ignoring one side of the situation."
As for what happens when you don't treat... have you spoken to the many people who have never taken the drugs, and the many people who stopped the drugs in a hopeful effort to regain their quality of life.
I admit no two people are the same... some people are terribly ill... some people find relief or are fixed by the acute administration of them... Why HIV is a misdiagnosis is because the real issues are being overlooked, are going undiagnosed, are not being treated because of some basic treatment structure in the face of HIV positivity... at the end of the day this is truly what is responsible for the actual AIDS death... far more than this elusive retrovirus HIV... particularly when many of the "co-factors" are far worse than HIV on their own... and HIV in the absence of those "co-factors" truly is nothing more than a positive antibody test.
Of course there is little research in these subjects... if so it is directed or labelled as "super-immunity" and they are labelled LTNP or Elite Controllers... when in fact it very well could be the lack of other factors that actually lead to AIDS and because being in good health (and minus the many lifestyle and co-factors) has given them the strength to supress the virus...
Maybe you could also answer why nothing is done to boost peoples immunity or cellular damage prior to the need for drugs...as the only response I have gotten from a professional thus far is "We still know so little about the immune system" which I have to wonder how if such is the case that gives them the knowledge to prescribe dangerous toxins known to affect the immune system and human body negatively. I couldn't help but respond well then why are you even attempting to treat something you know so little about?
I hope you can see why I think there are serious flaws in the current paradigm... Particularly when scientists can discuss the role of gluthathione, cystiene, and other things that can be supplimented and have been found beneficial in states of mitochondrial dysfunction and other factors of compromised immunity.
In the year 1995 - 1996 I had ever made a study on HIV/AIDS, and I wrote articles published in mass media. Much to my surprise, the result of my study chime in quite well with the basic idea in this site : HIV is a Misdiagnosis.
The darkness in AIDS problem is caused by " the wrong identification " on the meaning of HIV. The are more than 5 reasons about the possibilities why the wrong identification on the meaning of HIV can happen ( My article : Why is AIDS hard to be healed ? ).
" HIV " or AIDS viruses is not a kind of micro living things, but it is a poisonous agent. This poisonous agent can happen because of chemical process in a living tissue, caused by radiation effect. Ultra Violet is the main causal factor. Another factor is radionuclide which naturally exist on its surrounding. The different " HIV " strains are caused by the differences of local radionuclide.
In relation to inappropriate life style ( MSM, Drugs user ), the participants make their bodies as a radionuclide with negative ions, which have the characteristic to absorb the UV radiation ( = Increase sensitivity to sunlight / UV ). Although they use condoms, they still make their body as an UV and other radiation absorbent ( My article : What is the true HIV ? ).
AIDS Treatment : It is not necessary to do Chemotherapy.
Please see on http://www.yalagada.com ....Forum.
Thanks so much... I will definitely check out your work. Yes I believe the fundamental issue with the HIV/AIDS paradigm is that the real issues are being overlooked and that the theory and the diagnosis are a misdiagnosis. I am currently looking at how Corticosteroids predispose many to PCP yet those with HIV that have PCP are being treated with it... How this drug is immunosupressive, and how it causes CD4 decline and it has been found that those who are treated with this progress to AIDS definition faster... (something that gets blamed on HIV and PCP pneumonia) Yes there is no one definition and many of the so called treatments only exacerabate the issue, creating other issues, and it all gets blamed on something that has never been suffeciently proven to be the actual cause... Oh it is a steaming mess... and boy do I have lots of work ahead.
Misconcept and misdiagnosis not only for HIV. Misconcept in Virology :
1. Where does Influenza ( and Smallpox ) viruses came from ?
2. Why did Baboon Marrow Transplant Fail ?
In my idea, the Baboon's immunity on AIDS is not because its T-Cell protein layer composition, but it was a natural immunity on radiation which is caused by feathers and skin structure and its habitat that is resistant on radiation.
Why is AIDS hard to be healed ? .....http://www.yalagada.com Forum.
AIDS Treatment : It is not necessary to do chemotherapy, just high-nutrient food from natural substances but not from genetically engeneered substances. The suggested menu is roast beef from a fat young cow ( The Jakarta Post, March 21, 1998 ).
This concept / hypothesis proved true in 2009, please see lbbsk.blogspot.com
Post a Comment