Proponents Lie About Needle Exchange Programs

Susan Martiniuk is being criticized for pointing out that Insite might being exaggerating (or imagining) reductions in overdose deaths but Insite is also imagining something else -- a reduction in drug addicts turning up positive on HIV tests.

A 2010 study by two SFU criminologists published in the International Journal of Drug Policy was a mathematical model that made this claim  based on a single 1996 paper (des Jarlais), that lumped together data from three studies, only one of which contained both clean needle users and non-users. The three studies had significant differences which were ignored (age, race, frequency of injection etc.). What was pointedly ignored by the SFU criminologists was a well-designed study from 1997, based on IV drug users in Montreal. Published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, it showed that consistent clean needle users were 10.2 to 21.8 times MORE likely to become HIV-positive between 1988 and 1995 than IV drug users who never used the clean needle facility. Intermediate users of clean needles were intermediate in risk.

One factor that is rarely considered is the toxicity of street drugs, something that would be solved only by decriminalizing the drugs themselves, not merely the injection of them. A recent study showed, for example, that cocaine (specifically in Vancouver) is usually cut with a drug that causes severe immune suppression (levamisole).

- David Crowe

P.S. Four referenced papers available on request

Submitted to the Calgary Herald, but not published.

Why AIDS Drugs are so toxic

I never thought I would saw the day when a major newspaper would admit that AIDS drugs are "quite toxic", let alone on the front page of the Globe and Mail. Perhaps now people can consider why "nucleoside analog" drugs are so terribly toxic. Hint: review your high school biology where  DNA was illustrated as a chain of four colours of beads - those are the four nucleosides. It is interesting that just this week a woman in Graz, Austria, was sentenced to several months in jail for refusing to give these "quite toxic" drugs to her infant (who has not tested HIV-positive).

1976 Swine Flu Fiasco

It is important that people have finally been reminded of the 1976 Swine Flu fiasco, although what was not mentioned is that about 500 people were paralyzed by Guillain-Barre Syndrome shortly after vaccination, in addition to the 25 deaths.

There are two important questions not being asked about this current 'pandemic': would the people testing positive now have also tested positive a month or a year ago? And, are there other explanations for the deaths in Mexico?

All biological tests have false positives, and the fact that most people testing positive, in the US at least, have no connection with Mexico or other cases, indicates that they are probably false positives. The epidemic is of testing, not swine flu.

It is also notable that the severity of illness is much greater in Mexico than anywhere else. It would be out of character for germ-obsessed public health officials to look for alternative explanations for these illnesses, such as aerial spraying of pesticides to keep down the swarms of flies that are a problem on the manure ponds next to large pig processing plants.

The Afghan War (Letter censored by Globe and Mail Editors)

The Globe and Mail is one of Canada’s leading newspapers. I fairly often submit letters but, no matter how restrained I am in my language, they rarely get printed. January 3rd was an exception but my letter on the futility and immorality of the Afghan war was heavily censored. Below you can see the text the Globe’s editors deleted in struck-through red and the words they added in underlined teal. The black text is in common to what I submitted and what was published.

I think that what was deleted or modified is a good indication of the limits on public discourse imposed by the mass media in Canada.

---

Dear Editors;


Jules Guitard is certainly right to note that we are in Aghanistan because of 9/11.


But is it morally right to avenge 3,000 deaths on September 11th by starting with a war that has killed thousands more Afghan civilians killed more civilians than this in its first month? To capture suspects and send them to a medieval jail system where they are more likely to be tortured than receive justice? To assist an ally, the US, that is known to use waterboarding and other forms of torture and that refuses to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Is it effective to start a war in which the military has not achieved what should have been a police goal: arresting Bin Laden and his henchmen?

Is it right intelligent to always see those opposing us as the Taliban and not sometimes as just Afghanis fighting for the removal of the foreign invader from their land?


The war in Afghanistan has eroded Canada’s international reputation and has created more terrorism than it has eliminated. I would hope by now that more Canadians would be able to see that there are more effective international tools than war, despite the mad government of our southern neighbors being unable to focus on anything else.


- David Crowe

Letter to a Friend

In response a friend who forwarded me a letter supposedly from Michigan State Professor Indrek Wichman who protested all the sins of muslims, ending by asking them all to go home to their ancestral lands.

Dear Friend;
I'm surprised that your professor didn't mention the rape of a 14 year old girl by US soldiers in Iraq, preceded by the murder of her entire family (the Haditha massacre). Nor the killing of an estimated one million people due to the war in Iraq caused by a fundamentalist Christian president, nor the displacement of millions more, nor the unwillingness of America to take more than a handful of the people they have displaced as refugees. Nor the eviction of Palestinians (a mixture of christians and muslims) from their lands by zionists in the 1940s so that the good Christians of Europe could salve their conscience for the atrocities of the nazis without any impact to themselves. I'm surprised he didn't mention the torture of mostly muslim men by US authorities in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, men who appear to have been innocent, as they are gradually now being released without charges by the Americans (a country run by a ruling elite of fundamentalist christians). He didn't mention how American psychologists (probably mostly white christians) are helping break muslim prisoners down by exploiting their sexual modesty (and in many other ways). Forcing them to masturbate in front of a woman, stacking them naked and taking pictures of them in positions they consider shameful. He didn't mention that the president of the United States has mentioned the possible use of nuclear weapons against a mostly muslim country (Iran) for the temerity to proceed with the enrichment of plutonium, which has peaceful purposes and which could not, at they rate they are doing it, result in a bomb in less than a decade. He didn't mention that the mostly christian nation of the USA, in conjunction with the Russians, has torn up all nuclear disarmament treaties, destroying the legacy of Reagan and Gorbachev and endangering the whole world. He didn't mention that the US doesn't want nuclear weapons in the middle east unless they're held by Israel or the not very stable country of Pakistan, but will attack Iraq or Iran just because America says they want weapons, not because they really want them, and certainly not because they have them. Your professor protests suicide bombings, and I agree with him. But he didn't protest the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians casualties caused by white, christian, imperialistic wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't protest the refusal of the US government to sign the land mine treaty. Nor did he protest the continued use of cluster bombs (which are like landmines delivered from the air) by the US and Israel (in civilian areas of Lebanon, for example). Nor did he protest the use of depleted uranium weapons and armor in places safely away from America where the fine radioactive dust caused by explosions leaves a legacy of cancer.

Your professor also failed to mention how America supported Saddam Hussein in his early days, perhaps to increase their influence in the area, and even help provide the materials needed to gas the Kurds. He didn't mention how America supported the islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Russians. And how they supported the Taliban because they banned the cultivation of poppies. Your professor is, in a word, a complete hypocrite and, in a second word, racist to boot.

Christians should remember St. Matthew: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in they brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

What is most distasteful is Christians who only see sins committed against Christians, Muslims who only see sins committed against Muslims and Jews who only see sins committed against Jews.

Letter to Nancy Pelosi

Dear Rep. Pelosi;

As a Canadian I have been distressed by the United States' imperial ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq for quite some time, particularly the disaster in Iraq. Afghanistan called for a police action, not a war, and Iraq was completely illegal and criminal.

I have watched as my government stood silent as the American government slid into torture, illegal wars and surveillance of its own people, and nobody could do anything because of the out-of-touch Republican majority.

Then the Democracts got elected to a majority of congress and I thought the tables had turned finally. But now I realize that you are not willing to make the tough decision to turn off the funding taps until your out of control President is forced to come to heel and respect the wishes of the American people (and the desires of many other people around the world).

I would never want to interfere in the politics of another nation, but I just have to make my severe disappointment with you known.

Regards,
David Crowe
Calgary, Canada
(403) 289-6609

Another letter the Globe & Mail wouldn't print…

The fundamental question about Afghanistan is whether Canadians would have supported a war to bring democracy out of the barrel of a gun without the events of 9/11 happening. But, instead of launching a police operation against Osama bin Laden and government officials who harboured him we supported the US when they opted for invasion and occupation without ever getting Osama despite thousands of civilian deaths and massive human rights violations.

It is darkly ironic that some of the people who support our troops staying in Afghanistan until the country submits to NATO's civilization efforts are also writing to support the torturing of captured terrorist suspects before they are even convicted of a crime. They forget that many of these people are probably innocent. In Canada we would not support torture even of convicted terrorists. This is a double standard which must have racism at its root.

Canadians need to put themselves in the shoes of the Aghanis. Imagine a powerful dark-skinned muslim nation was to invade Canada and, focusing on all our flaws (such as prostitution, alcohol abuse, gambling and drug abuse), impose a religious state and go around killing all white, christian voters who resisted (along with many civilians). Would we see young people who resisted as terrorists or freedom fighters? Would we not claim that it is up to Canadians to deal with our social and governance problems, not outsiders?

The Toronto-based Globe & Mail doesn't post too many of the letters that I send. Too radical I suppose. I should take it as a compliment.

Here's the latest "too hot to handle", in response to a historian chastising the 'left' for not supporting the liberation of women in Afghanistan, liberation at the end of a NATO gun barrel...

Dear Editors

People opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may be naive and idealistic at times, but we're not naive enough to believe that the war in Afghanistan was started to eliminate a mysogynistic and theocratic regime by an American regime that itself has notable mysogynistic and theocratic tendencies.

I cannot believe that Afghanistan would have been invaded without 9/11 or a similar provocation. The war was started as punishment for harbouring Bin Laden. Morals and ethics just made a good cover.

Imagine that Canada was invaded by a foreign power because of one of our moral failings, perhaps our disgraceful treatment of the environment. After the invaders slaughtered our government (because they refused to reform overnight) does anyone really think that Canadians would then welcome the 'rebuilding' of their shattered country especially if it was focussed on hunting down and killing the remnants of the current government (elected by only a minority of the population)? Even the NDP and Greens would surely be aghast.

For all their many failings the Taliban at least brought some measure of stability to their country. It might be naive for me to have hoped that the regime would have moderated over time as the stability allowed Afghanis to focus on higher values than mere survival, but it is twice as naive to believe that democracy and gender equality can be imposed by tanks, bombs and guns on a country where now, once again, mere survival has become the number one priority and the foreign armies are increasingly seen as foot soldiers of the American empire.

- David Crowe

Nick Bennett has a blog which he uses to bash people like me who question the association between HIV and AIDS:
aidsmyth.blogspot.com

In it he claims that “I have never recieved [sic] funding from any pharmaceutical company that makes HIV antivirals.”

When I emailed and asked him about this he acknowledged that he had actually taken substantial sums of money from pharmaceutical companies, in the form of a subsidy covering his PhD studies. But this was from AstraZeneca, a company that does not make “HIV antivirals”.

People should know this. Does it bias his comments about the HIV/AIDS paradigm and the people who criticize it?

This blog will mainly discuss my interest in HIV/AIDS, other supposedly infectious diseases (that really aren't) and various aspects of modern 'industrial' medicine.

Websites created by me that discuss these issues are:

Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
David Crowe’s Personal Website
Justice for Eliza Jane Scovill (and her parents)
My book project - The Infectious Myth

AIDS Deaths in Africa

No, Parket Mitchell and George Roter, it is not universally agreed that 40,000 people in Africa die of AIDS every week! Even the estimates (not actual numbers) of WHO/UNAIDS are only about one-fifth of that. [from: WHO/UNAIDS - AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2004]

But the bigger question is: What is AIDS in Africa? Few people seem to know, or care, or realize the significance of it being a completely different condition than in richer countries. No HIV test is generally performed. Instead, three of these four symptoms -- persistent cough, fever, diarrhea, weight loss (>10% of weight) -- get you an AIDS diagnosis (according to WHO's 'Bangui' definition). Does this sound like malaria, TB or the effects of malnutrition to you?

But the nice thing, from the point of view of multinational drug companies, is that people are falling over themselves to spend money on antiretroviral drugs. These people not only don't know what AIDS really is, but they must have no clue about the serious, often fatal, side effects of these drugs. Only by concluding that everyone with fever, cough, diarrhea and weight loss is going to die could such toxic compounds be prescribed.

Many people taking AIDS drugs in North America become dependent on blood transfusions to live because severe anemia is a common side effect. Anemia is already a huge problem in Africa and transfusions or exotic drugs to counter it are not common.

So, send your money to the Tsunami victims, or to old-fashioned third world development, don't send it to AIDS charities unless you know what AIDS is and unless you're comfortable with the toxicity profile of the drugs.

Risk of AIDS From Needle Pricks

The risk of AIDS via needle prick injuries was exaggerated by Andre⁄ Picard ("A tiny pinprick, a deadly outcome" December 1, 2003, page A1,A6). According to Health Canada, there have only been 6 cases of AIDS due to occupational exposure in Canada over a time where there have probably been well over one million needle prick injuries.[1] Limited information has been published, but in the first case, an elderly woman, the conclusion was drawn not from positive evidence, but by the elimination of all other possible explanations. The possibility of false positive test results was not considered.

In the United States, with almost a million AIDS cases diagnosed, the CDC no longer bothers to report the number of health care workers with documented transmission of HIV (let alone AIDS).[2] Up to 1997, the last year this information was reported, only 25 cases of AIDS out of 633,000  had been blamed on documented occupational transmission. There was not a single case among paramedics and surgeons, two groups most likely to have uncontrolled exposures to HIV-positive blood.

Health care workers who are exposed to blood that is suspected to be HIV-positive are treated with drugs that have potentially fatal consequences. One US health care worker had a life-threatening allergic reaction,[4] and another required a liver transplant after post-exposure prophylaxis, for example.[5]

The case of Brenda Tippett, and others like it, are certainly unfortunate, but she may well be suffering from drug-induced injury, not from HIV and Hepatitis C.


References:
[1] HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance report to December 31, 2002. Health Canada. 2003 Apr.

[2] HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report; U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 2001. CDC. 2002; 13(2).

[3] HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report (through December 1997). CDC. 1998; 9(2).

[4] Johnson S et al. Adverse Effects Associated With Use of Nevirapine in HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis for 2 Health Care Workers [first case]. JAMA. 2000 Dec 6.

[5] Sha BE et al. Adverse Effects Associated With Use of Nevirapine in HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis for 2 Health Care Workers [second case]. JAMA. 2000 Dec 6; 284(21): 2723.

Questions that should have been asked (and answered) about SARS before we panicked…

(Unpublished letter to the Globe and Mail)

Questions that should  have been asked (and answered) about SARS before we panicked:

• Do relatively vague symptoms (high temperature, plus one of a number of respiratory symptoms, including cough) necessarily indicate a single pathogen?
• How were environmental causes or co-factors eliminated from consideration?
• Why do "SARS" symptoms in a person with no known direct or indirect contact with someone from Southeast Asia not result in a diagnosis of SARS?
• Have people recently arrived from the far east never come down with these symptoms shortly  after arriving in Canada before?
• Were extra 'potent' pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, prescribed once it was feared that a new pathogen was present?
• How can a test be known to be reliable when the pathogen that it is testing for is still unknown?
• Why have the media not asked these questions (or at least not published them, with corresponding answers, anywhere)?

Are we in fact witnessing an artificial phenomenon, where public health officials have realized that under-reacting to a potential threat is career suicide, yet over-reacting to a threat has minimal consequences, and might even make them look heroic?

Reference: SARS Case Definition

-- 

David Crowe