|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > December 2006 > The Failure of Viral Load Tests
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Failure of Viral Load Tests
|
|
|
| From the Alive And Well mailing list:
The Failure of Viral Load Tests
JAMA Study Shakes AIDS Science, Angers HIV Advocates
A nationwide team of orthodox AIDS researchers led by doctors Benigno Rodriguez
and Michael Lederman of Case Western Reserve university in Cleveland are
disputing the value of viral load testsa standard used since 1996 to assess
health, predict progression to disease, and grant approval to new AIDS
drugsafter their study of 2,800 HIV positives concluded viral load measures
failed in more than 90% of cases to predict or explain immune status.
Published in the September 27, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA), the findings by Rodriguez et al shake the foundation of the
past decade of AIDS science to its core, inciting skepticism and anger among
many HIV adherents.
Belief in viral load spread quickly following the 1996 publication of a paper in
the journal Science authored by Dr John Mellors and colleagues at the University
of Pittsburgh. Mellor et al claimed that numbers produced by the viral load test
could accurately predict progression to disease in HIV positives. Soon, use of
this new technology extended far beyond conclusions drawn by the study and its
approval by the FDA as a prognostic tool.
Claiming viral load numbers corresponded to actual amounts of infectious virus,
scientists used the test as a glib response to unanswered questions about how
HIV could cause AIDS (Its the virus, stupid!). Pharmaceutical companies jumped
on the bandwagon, using changes in viral load numbers in place of actual health
or survival benefits to gain FDA approval of highly toxic protease inhibitors, a
primary ingredient of todays HAART. Treatment advocates began using viral load
to encourage healthy HIV positives with unhealthy numbers to hit early and hard
with the newly approved drugs, while AIDS doctors throughout the world started
using viral load for everything from diagnosing illness to confirming HIV
infection.
The new uses for viral load emerged and gained popular acceptance despite the
fact that, according to manufacturers literature, the viral load test is not
intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic to confirm
the presence of HIV infection.
In a September 29th news article regarding the Rodriguez study, Mellors
announced he doesn't agree with the paper at all, insisting that viral load is
the most powerful predictor of time to AIDS and death." Some AIDS rethinkers
note that in defending his opinion, Mellors describes viral load as powerful, an
adjective frequently found in the headlines of AIDS drug ads--drugs approved for
use based on their ability to affect viral load numbers rather than to produce
clinical health benefits or increase survival.
While Mellors and others protest or down play the significance of the JAMA
article, Rodriguez's group stands by its conclusion that viral load is only able
to predict progression to disease in 4% to 6% of HIV-positives studied,
challenging much of the basis for current AIDS science and treatment policy.
For further information see: Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't predict
immune decline. Science 313(5795):1868, 2006; Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK,
et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in
untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006
===
| |
| monty1945@lycos.com 2006-12-06, 9:27 pm |
|
When blood or tissue taken from someone said to be "HIV infected" or
"dying of AIDS" is examined and found to be teeming with particles that
correspond to the textbook descriptions of "HIV" (in an infectious
form), then one can at least stop laughing at the "HIV/AIDS" nonsense.
The scientific reality is that "retroviruses" are responses to extreme
cellular stressors, and can be generated in labs, but only occur in
very small amounts in people who are otherwise healthy for years.
"Retroviruses" are effects, not causes, and in any natural situation
will not cause damage beyond what has already been done by other causes
(the real causes of the "disease," assuming that there are any symptoms
at all).
It takes time for knowledge to "filter down," and here we have powerful
interests who want to keep things the way they are, but they can't
change the scientific reality, even if they can change the social one,
and so we get promises and predictions that never pan out, but most
people never even consider how this could be possible, considering how
simple viruses are, and how much is known about how real viruses cause
real problems.
|
| |
|
|