Re: The non-existent knobs on "HIV" particles 20 July 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Christopher Tyler,
n/a
84043

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The non-existent knobs on "HIV" particles

Christopher Noble may want to take up his objection to the 'pet' oxidation theory of AIDS with Stanford University Medical School for publishing, "Glutathione deficiency is associated with impaired survival in HIV disease" (1) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The abstract from their 'pet' findings says:

"In vitro studies showing that low GSH levels both promote HIV expression and impair T cell function suggested a link between GSH depletion and HIV disease progression. Clinical studies presented here directly demonstrate that low GSH levels predict poor survival in otherwise indistinguishable HIV- infected subjects. Specifically, we show that GSH deficiency in CD4 T cells from such subjects is associated with markedly decreased survival 2-3 years after baseline data collection (Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses, P < 0.0001 for both analyses). This finding, supported by evidence demonstrating that oral administration of the GSH prodrug N-acetylcysteine replenishes GSH in these subjects and suggesting that N-acetylcysteine administration can improve their survival, establishes GSH deficiency as a key determinant of survival in HIV disease. Further, it argues strongly that the unnecessary or excessive use of acetaminophen, alcohol, or other drugs known to deplete GSH should be avoided by HIV-infected individuals.

In the discussion section, they state:

"At a more immediate level, the demonstration here that prognosis worsens as GSH levels decrease suggests that certain precautions be taken to minimize GSH deficiency in HIV-infected individuals. In general, it may be prudent for these individuals to avoid excessive exposure to UV irradiation and unnecessary use of drugs that can deplete GSHe.g., alcohol and prescription or over-the-counter formulations containing acetaminophen."

Given that
a) low GSH levels predict decreased survival
b) GSH levels are lower in subjects with CD4 T cell counts bellow 200/l
c) a person with a positive antibody test and a CD4 T cell count of or bellow 200/l is said to have AIDS
d) these individuals are counseled to avoid substances and conditions that deplete GSH

it is difficult to understand how nucleoside analogues such as AZT can be used as 'therapies' when it's known these are potent oxidizing agents.

In their paper, 'A Critical Analysis of the Pharmacology of AZT and its Use in AIDS'(2) the Perth Group wrote:

"At present, evidence also exists which shows that AZT is rapidly reduced by compounds containing sulphydryl (SH); that is, AZT oxidises the SH groups (59). Ample evidence also exists which shows that oxidation in general (and of SH in particular) and decreased levels of ATP may lead to many laboratory and clinical abnormalities, including wasting, muscular atrophy, anaemia, damage to the liver and kidney, decreased cellular proliferation, cancer and immunodeficiency (8,19). Since patients who are at risk of AIDS are exposed to many oxidising agents (8) and are known to have low SH levels (60,61) one would expect AZT to have particularly toxic effects in these individuals and the sicker the patient the more toxic the drug. That this is the case was accepted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute, Wellcome Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories as far back as 1988: 'Azidothymidine, however, is associated with toxicities that can limit its use.... These toxicities are particularly troublesome in patients with established AIDS; the use of azidothymidine is often limited in this population' (62)."

It is especially inconceivable that, in particular, AZT has been used to 'treat' 'HIV infected' people considering it
a) depletes GSH levels
b) is not triphosphorylated into its active metabolic, AZTTP, and therefore cannot have any antiretroviral properties.(2)

Given this information, have doctors and 'HIV specialists' who have prescribed these drugs not in some way been responsible for hastening the illness they have sought to prevent?

Given this information, why are infants and children from orphanages being used in studies using these drugs at "higher than usual doses"?(3)

If Christopher Noble feels the Oxidative Stress theory is a 'pet' theory with no basis in reality he is grossly and empirically mistaken.

Chris Tyler


1) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/5/1967? ijkey=HxeTCINtOutYs#abs
2) http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/cmroazt.html
3) http://nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10614

Competing interests: None declared