HIV Mutating (Super Strain Spreading)

The Independent UK ^ | 11-06-01 | Steve Conner

[Neuromancer]

New strain of HIV is resistant to main drug
By Steve Connor Science Editor
06 November 2001

A new type of Aids virus can quickly turn resistant to one of the most effective drugs used to treat the disease. Scientists discovered the new strain among 603 HIV-positive patients who were so recently infected they had not yet even been given drugs. Their findings suggest the much-feared increase in drug-resistant forms of HIV is beginning to take root with a strain that has an in-built capacity to resist treatment with AZT, the principal anti-Aids treatment.

Although drug-resistant strains of HIV were discovered in 1992 they were almost invariably found in patients having treatment with one or more anti-viral drugs. While drug resistance has been seen in HIV-infected patients before, it has seldom been seen in untreated patients.

The latest strain was evidently transmitted among people who have never been exposed to AZT, suggesting that drug resistance is spreading rapidly within HIV-positive people who may not even know they are infected.

The latest study, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found several genetic mutations in the new strain of HIV made the virus perfectly poised for further mutations that conferred full AZT-resistance. Dr Garcia-Lerma said doctors would test patients for this new strain and report its prevalence so the general rise in drug-resistance could be monitored.

If such strains become widespread, that will be a severe setback in Aids treatment.

[Hank Kerchief]

So hemophiliacs who were not drug users and gays who were not drug users, who died from AIDS were just imagining things??? This scientist wouldn't happen to be homosexual would he???

They were given AZT, however, and that may be what actually killed them. Those who test positive for HIV and refuse AZT to not develop aids.

Alive & Well

Check it out.

Hank

[GovernmentShrinker]

There are some very legitimate researchers who believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The basic theory is that it is just another common opportunistic infection which often takes hold in people who have AIDS. This would be consistent with its spreading from person to person along the same channels as AIDS. An important part of their thesis is that in the early stages of AIDS research, shortly after the HIV virus was discovered, the CDC defined AIDS as any of a cluster of symptoms and opportunistic infections ACCOMPANIED BY THE HIV VIRUS. This resulted in people who had all the other symptoms/infections consistent with AIDS, but lacked the HIV virus, being excluded from all mainstream research involving AIDS patients, with predictable effects on the results of the research. This was a serious methodological error, even if further research eventually does prove conclusively that HIV is the cause of AIDS. What you are being taught in med school is the mainstream view, but it is not without respected opponents.

[anniegetyourgun]

#35 is clear indication that you are the REAL doctor here!

[anniegetyourgun]

Can you be succinct?

Did someone call for me?

Annie"alwayssuccinct"getyourgun

[dubyagee]

I thought AZT was developed after the earlier cases of AIDS. Like towards the late eighties. Am I mistaken??

[Time Traveller]

One other extremely suspicious aspect of this whole "epidemic" has been the extreme reluctance by authorities to conduct systematic testing for HIV in the general population. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this has never been done, and you have to ask yourself, why? Was it because they knew from the beginning the test wasn't reliable, and if millions of people tested "positive" they'd have no choice but to administer the "cure" which they knew full well would kill everybody? Thus only "high-risk" people got tested and got the opportunuty to kill themselves with AZT. (Why isn't there a cure for overuse of quotation marks, BTW). Someone please do the research and give me the answer.

[okie_tech]

"Heck, I'm a PRE-med"

Let's follow that up with "and have never designed an experiment in my life and get all my knowledge spoon fed to me and never question orthodoxy." Hey Jude! Wake up sometime and smell the coffee. Orthodoxy is often wrong. Much of what you are being taught is wrong and won't be known for being wrong for years to come. It's the nature of science and medicine. Or do you still treat fevers with leaches to get rid of the bad blood?

[dubyagee]

Mr. Haigler's implication that his staff discovered" the antiretroviral potential of AZT in 1984 is noteworthy.

I got the above date from a google search. So I'm assuming they began treating with AZT in '84 or a little later. People died from this disease prior to that. What's the answer for those deaths?

[okie_tech]

If I remember correctly AZT was a drug looking for a disease.

Another thing to note is that in Africa they do not test for the virus (you're lucky if you get a cleaned needle at the doctor's, you've just won the lottery if you get a new one), if you have one of a list of diseases you are diagnosed with AIDS. I don't know one way or the other but I'm smart enough to become suspicious of dogma when it's proponents react so viruently to questions.

[sistergoldenhair]

Many of you have valid points but are sort of talking past each other.

The most commonly performed HIV test does test for antibody. There are very good tests available to test for the antigen (HIV virus coat proteins). The problem is that within two to three months after exposure it disappears from the blood stream. This is, actually, common for viruses. They continue to spread within the lymphatic glands "cell to cell". So, if a person tests positive for the antibody they virtually certainly have the virus itself in their body.

It is also true that infection with the HIV virus has not been shown to cause full-blown AIDS by itself. There is an undeniable connection but it is also known that virtually all AIDS patients also have been infected with EBV and HPV. People who test positive for HIV but not the others often show no symptoms. Recent efforts to understand the disease are focusing on the idea of multiple concomitant vectors

Many of you have pointed out that when a particular remedy, drug etc., is used against a given microorganism, sooner or later a resistant strain will emerge. This is particularly true in the case of the HIV as it is a "hypervariable" virus, i.e. it has a very high rate of spontaneous mutations as compared to other viruses. This is why the effort to make a vaccine has been so frustrating - as fast as a vaccine can be developed, the bug changes! Talk about always fighting the last war!

Once the immune system is compromised any number of adventitious organisms are free to invade. Thus the high numbers of patients with AIDS who have other diseases. Toxoplasmosis, Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumonia are commonly found in AIDS patients but none are believed to be caused in any way by HIV.

Hope this isn't too long winded but it's just a layman's view.

[Brian Allen]

The manufacturer's instructions explicitly state that the human body was NOT meant for multiple sex partners You cant abuse the machinery and expect it not to break down.

Or for even one-time abuse by those members of the deviant community who simulate "sex" by way of sodomy!

[gg188]

Hetero aids link 1

Hetero aids link 2

[Brian Allen]

I trust you are consulting a good supervising psychiatrist for what ails you.

[Time Traveller]

"So I'm assuming they began treating with AZT in '84 or a little later. People died from this disease prior to that. What's the answer for those deaths?"

Supposedly, the first cases of immune suppression were drug-related, gays going hog-wild with poppers (amyl nitrates?), which I believe Duesberg would claim have been shown to cause immune suppression. Plus, I believe that the general level of disease floating around the gay community in that era gave them something to be susceptible to if their immune system was shot. There's a ton of information accessable through the URL I provided earlier (and those provided by others) and some pretty compelling reading as well.

Doc Savage may be an actual doctor, and his first post was an admirable, if terse overview, so maybe he could contribute more info as well.

[Hank Kerchief]

AZT was used before the late eithties, but the issue is more complex than that. There are many things which can compromise the immune system, espeically many of the practices of homosexuals, such as their use of exotic drugs and others.

The political/medical establishment hypothesis on AIDS is highly questionable, and there is much good research that suggests it is just plain wrong. It is worth investigating if you are interested. You might start with these:

Aids Panel Report (Somewhat eclectic and sensationalist, but has links to legitimate resources.)

Peter Duesberg "Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, a pioneer in retrovirus research" who has been at the forefront advocating the view the HIV does not cause AIDS.

I do not advocate a position, but think everyone interested ought to do some homework on this issue.

Hank

[Amelia]

How many non-drug using /non-promiscuous people have died in the name of HIV tolerance?

Up to this point, almost zero.

I knew at least one: former honor student, hemophiliac. He was a great kid.

[Time Traveller]

Hank Kerchief may be an actual handkerchief and has provided some URL's as well.

[boris]

"A virus is a foreign protein."

I take it, "Doc", that your degree is not in Medicine.

--Boris