Clearly there is a lot of blame to go around here. But shame on the
doctors for not even considering P. carinii pneumonia as a differential
diagnosis in the child of an HIV+ mom who had acute respiratory
distress.

By the way, can any of the "dissidents" <snort> on this board produce a
single reference to P. carinii pneumonia in a child who did not have a
serious underlying immune dysfunction....such as those caused by HIV or
other immunodeficiency diseases?

See if you can produce a single one, and then tell me more about the
likelihood of the Ms. Maggiore's child dying of PCP if she were not
HIV-infected.

It's one thing for internet trolls/pundits (you know who you are) to
question the etiology of a deadly disease. But to the extent that they
influence real people with real children....who suffer and die....they
are criminal.

immanuelk@yahoo.com wrote:

Seems to me that would be a slam dunk, since they've been handing slam
dunks around like candy lately.

I'd be surprised if someone didn't lose a license.

B/

I didn't read anywhere in the article that an HIV antibody test was done
on the daughter. Was one done? If so, it most certainly was done post
mortum. Does anyone know how much this factor may affect (in)validity of
the test?

Jeff

Well, I may as well take up the mantle of being an internet troll/pundit,
for what it's worth. I would say that it is true that PCP does not occur
in children who are in peak health. PCP was quite common in children in
the pre-AIDS era in resource poor environments (I have read this some
where, would have to dig into articles to find references). In the
post-AIDS era, however, I am of the opinion that PCP is grossly
misdiagnosed, usually when the doc (in this case coroner) knows the
patient is/may be HIV "pos". The fact is that PCP is terribly difficult to
diagnose and even presence of the fungus is not proof that it caused the
disease. Remember the fungus is in everyone, only in healthy people it has
no chance to thrive. Also, PCP, as an AIDS indicator disease in resource
rich settings been mainly seen in homosexual men. I must admit that I
don't know if many HIV "pos" children die of PCP regularly.

PCP is a highly unusual disease in resource rich settings and considering
the fact that the child had not been ill before, it seems unlikely that
PCP would quickly set in (in a few weeks) and then kill the child. I'm not
a trained medical expert, but it sounds to me that a lot of supposition
was going on here and not enough searching for indisputable evidence.

Troll, yes......pundit, no.

Of course PCP does not occur in children who are in "peak health" as
you put it. But it does spontaneously develop in immunodeficient
individuals. Guess what - kids with HIV can appear perfectly healthy on
the outside, but immunologically can be like an accident waiting to
happen.
This is a common presentation in those who have never suspected they
were infected with HIV - first thing they know, something bad hits them
out of left field.

Just like EJ.

The rest of your ramble is full of admissions of ignorance, which at
least you have the grace to admit ("I have read this somewhere.....I
don't know....It sounds to me...")

Spare us all more examples of your ignorance

In article <72540eb1b22294d4b247d624dca21967@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
greg78 <gregory.benvenuti@emailwithheld> wrote:
Many difficult diagnoses become easy when there is no need to avoid
killing the patient. That's cold, but that's the nature of the
coroner's work.

You know nothing about the coroner's methods, and nothing about the
nature of the evidence that led him/her to diagnose "AIDS-related
pneumonia". Yet you have no trouble accusing a trained medical
professional with a sharp scalpel and direct access to a dead body of
making a diagnosis based on suppositions, oblivious to the fact that
your accusations are themselves suppositions by somebody who hasn't
been within smelling distance of any actual physical evidence.

--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

This forum is like an aching tooth: You should leave it alone but you just
can't stop touching it.
I'm more of a silent reader but this time it's too much and I feel I must
write something. The specialist humbug about existing or non-existing
viruses, well, I can't judge and although I must admit that sometimes the
so-called "denialists" do seem to make a point, I stick to my opinion that
it's highly unlikely regular science be wrong in it's overall approach.

But what's happening lately over the death of Mrs Maggiore's child, well,
I don't have words to describe my disgust and I am shocked by the postings
of some of the anti-denialists, if that's what you would call them.

If ever I come to a total review of my opinion about hiv and aids, then
the basics of my new approach will certainly be rooted in what I've been
reading the last couple of days. The contributions in which Mrs Maggiore
is accused seem to me just, what would you call it..... pieces of filth
filled with hatred.

I don't know who you are, you who dare to use the death of a child in your
crazy Don Quichotte mission to help people get on to their regular drugs,
but certainly you are very poor representatives of sciences.


C.H. Fortean

Well David, once again I think you missed the gist of my post. Once again,
I will admit that I am not a medical expert, so I have to rely on the
hopefully unbiased opinion of souls like yourself. You said: "This is a
common presentation in those who have never suspected they
were infected with HIV - first thing they know, SOMETHING bad hits them
out of left field." What I, in my extreme ignorance would like to know is,
if there is evidence that this happens with PCP in particular? Have their
been other cases, just like EJ, where PCP has struck an otherwise healthy
three year old (let's assume for the moment, HIV infected child) with the
same suddenness? Your learned application to this question would be most
appreciated.

Jean

First of all, I echo your sentiments about the crass way in which
"anti-denialists" have reacted to the EJ affair.

I would like to challenge you (in a friendly way, of course) regarding
your inclination that "I stick to my opinion that it's highly unlikely
regular science be wrong in it's overall approach." I put it to you that
there are a plethora of instances where organised medicine, in particular,
has gotten things HORRIBLY wrong. I would encourage you to do some
research into things like the SMON fiasco, the pellagra, scurvy and
beriberi stories. In these cases an infectious cause was ascribed to
conditions which were later found to be non-infectious and environment
related.

One of the main reasons that I am incredibly sceptical of the HIV/AIDS
paradigm is the stark similarities between the abovementioned conditions
and what is called AIDS. At the time, all these conditions were vehemently
defended by the medical establishment as having infectious aetiology.
Pellagra is particularly illuminating because it only happened in the
first part of last century. For years thousands of children in the US
South were ripped out of their homes and stuck in pellagrine hospitals.
All sorts of "treatments" were tried out on these children. After much
malignment, one doctor EVENTUALLY managed to convince the medical
dunderheads that the cause of the disease was a lack of a B vitamin. But
for years the docs insisted that that was bullshit theory.

The medical history is also a wrecking yard of abandoned treatments that
at the time of their use were considered to be "standards of care". Take
the treatment of syphilis with arsenic, for example (a treatment that was
only discontinued in the 1930's!). And what about the practice of lancing
to remove "bad blood" as a treatment for anaemia! Tellingly, one of the
establishment's most respected medical journals, The Lancet, is named
after the instrument that was used to lance blood out of people.

It is extremely arrogant of our current medical experts that after
centuries of medicine bunging it up royally, on a regular basis, to assume
that they are incapable of screwing up again. So, in conclusion, I would
say that you may want to re-examine your position regarding the likelihood
that the "scientists" have got it all wrong. They've got it wrong in the
past (lots), and there's no reason to believe they won't get it wrong
again.

Regards

Greg

Happy to oblige.
See Graham SM, Gibb DM. HIV disease and respiratory infection in
children.
Br Med Bull. 2002;61:133-50.

The review makes it clear PCP can be the first (but not only)
indication of unrecognised HIV infection in children.

Another very pertinent point - PCP in infants is often a primary
infection, rather than a reactivation as it is for adults with HIV.
Primary infections (cf herpes as a good example) are often much more
severe than reactivation.

"Happy to oblige."


Yes, David, I bet you *are* quite *happy*.

Anything to say about the artice, which explains how severe respiratory
illnesses can strike out of the blue?

No, I thought not. Just pretend the evidence does not exist, since it
does not conform to your preconceptions.

Even Iconoclaster seems not to be able to respond to this one.

You know, he was the chap who said he would hunt me down wherever I
posted so as to refute my statements.

Thank you David

I am more than willing to accept that if it is the case. Thank you for
sourcing the reference. However, even with that information in mind, I
still think that it is premature to subject Christine Maggiore to what
amounts to an online kangaroo court. I think there is plenty of reason to
believe that this was not a cut and dried AIDS death. And I think it is
irresponsible and unfair of you to convict and sentence the parents before
we have all the facts.

In any event, even if the mother and child are shown to be HIV positive,
it is true to say that the HIV orthodoxy cannot offer anything better than
a premature death of the disease. In these circumstances, I believe it is
still the prerogative of the parent to determine if their child gets the
"therapy" or not. In the light of its demonstrated a) toxicity and b)
acknowledged inability to "cure" this is only logical.

I realise that many feel strongly about "enforced" therapy of infants
just born to HIV-positive mothers. It is a very emotive area, and
involves child protection issues which are interpreted/regarded much
more harshly by the authorities in the USA than in other parts of the
world.

Perhaps. Just imagine now that we are talking about diabetes istead of
HIV.

If the infants who stood a 25% chance of developing and dying from
diabetes in later life could be identified and given a short course of
insulin after birth which could virtually guarantee to prevent this
happening, would this not be logical? (Especially if as adults they
posed a risk of passing on diabetes to others such as partners and
children?)

Or, alternatively, in the light of the therapy's (insulin's)
"demonstrated a) toxicity and b) acknowledged inability to "cure",
would you say it is logical to leave the decision up to the parents as
to whether insulin is given only for the neonatal period?

the past (lots), and there's no reason to believe they won't get it
wrong again.



A conversation between Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (both comedians)

Moore: "You're a bleeding nutcase!"
Cook: "Hah! They said that about Galileo."
Moore: "They also said it about a lot of nutcases."

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/0...eo-gambit.html