PDA

View Full Version : St. Louis Story



jophus
June 2nd, 2009, 01:47 AM
Not sure what to think of this. (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/62343A1C994E1D80862575C600174546?OpenDocument)

Brian Carter
June 2nd, 2009, 02:24 AM
IT'S ANOTHER
http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_430xN.38762630.jpg
STORY
"Today, Jackson's daily medication consists of five pills twice a day and three others once a day. His anti-retroviral "cocktail" has reduced the amount of HIV in his bloodstream to undetectable levels. Jackson has a normal life expectancy as long as the medication continues to be effective."

Quite remarkable. Why they just didn't put a few drug companies ads in this piece , I'll never know. But what makes someone retain health for such a long time is in this case is being young, although we really don't know what his surrogate markers are now do we?

John Bleau
June 2nd, 2009, 02:54 AM
"When he developed full-blown AIDS at age 5 and was not expected to survive, he took 23 oral medications each day, as well as two different kinds of shots and three intravenous antibiotics, and used a stomach tube. One of the medications deadened the nerve endings in his ears, damaging his hearing."

This statement is vague. Was he taking the medication at the time he developed "full-blown AIDS" or is that when he started them? He would have been injected in 1991 with "HIV-tainted blood", during AZT's heyday, and children were given AZT before developing their so-called full-blown AIDS. Even now, there was a recent case of some kid pricking 17 classmates with a syringe, and all 17 were given AZT as a precautionary measure. So I suspect this poor individual has been on medicine from the age of 11 months.

Note, by the way, that this story is in St. Louis, where testing in some high school turned up a large number of HIV positives. What's the matter, are many of them balking at taking the meds? Do they need this feel-good story to convince them to take them?

lolo
June 2nd, 2009, 02:57 AM
sounds like a con story, pharma advert for sheeples, this guy probably does not even exist, what about those 'father worldwide headlines'?

all crap must be invented, google wont find anything

"Bryan Jackson" aids hiv - Google Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enGB323GB324&q=%22Bryan+Jackson%22+aids+hiv&meta=)

fukerz

SadunKal
June 2nd, 2009, 09:36 AM
The guy certainly exists, Brryan is his name, with "rr":
As Seen On News 4 | KMOV.com | St. Louis, MO (http://www.kmov.com/news/asseenonnews4/stories/kmov_localnews_061114_.3a3b7631.html)

If the story is true the father was indeed a psychopath. It seems that he wasn't caught while doing anything though. The police "believes" that he did it. It may be the case that because the child tested positive they couldn't find any other explanation but a psycho father, since there is no such thing as a "false positive". Just a guess...

StarZ
June 3rd, 2009, 02:42 AM
The boy is deaf guitar player and deaf cheerleader. Who knows, maybe the daddy did infect him with blood that had failed the Gallo/Abbott HIV Inducing Test. lol. People are that twisted, the fact being that the seed was planted in the hospital vampire already when they declared the probable cause. ..

T.rex
June 5th, 2009, 06:31 PM
i feel it a tragic story for how that young man had to grow up, irregardless of whether or not hiv is what he and doctors think it is.

he is a victim, not just by what his dad was attempting, but how the perception of him affected how others treated him his whole life. That is true, whether or not you believe his condition is legitimate.

i met a girl who was told that she was infected as a baby, thru a blood transfusion. She lived her whole childhood as a loner, not really allowing herself to get close to others... going to hiv kids camps as a kid was her only social interaction with others, and they were all sick, and most died.

she didn't know how to apply makeup or hair spray until college age, because she was robbed of those normal childhood peer interaction where you learn that from friends.

the saddest part was that she doesn't comprehend the degree of abnormality of such a situation. Thats just the life she lives. And since this was all she's ever known, she's never really had a choice in the matter. It was a belief imparted unto her... much like a religion. A young person will believe what their parents believe, and parents will believe the doctors.

StephenW
February 21st, 2011, 12:53 PM
I know this is a bit old but I figured I would update it with a little bit of research ive been doing on Bryyan. Wiki States that "The incident occurred on February 6, 1992 in St Joseph's Hospital West, which is located in Lake St. Louis, Missouri. Stewart's son, who was 11 months old at the time, was being treated in hospital for asthma and pneumonia when he was infected with the virus.The boy was diagnosed with AIDS in 1996." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Stewart_(phlebotomist)#cite_note-New_York_Times_1-0

MSNBC States "In 1992, Brryan was 11 months old when he was hospitalized with asthma. After leaving the hospital, he was constantly sick. Doctors ruled out one illness after another. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31129553/ns/health-aids/ So, basically, he was having health problems before the infection. Poor guy :(

Gos
February 22nd, 2011, 05:59 AM
MSNBC States "In 1992, Brryan was 11 months old when he was hospitalized with asthma. After leaving the hospital, he was constantly sick. Doctors ruled out one illness after another. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31129553/ns/health-aids/ So, basically, he was having health problems before the infection. Poor guy :(


Stephen,

This is not nearly so uncommon as you might think. Many people who test positive on an HIV antibody test have pre-existing health conditions.

I myself had asthma, Crohn's disease, arthritis, multiple allergies of unusual severity, and a history dating back to infancy of recurrent fungal and staph infections. Jonathan Barnett has had two cysts on his parotid gland. The first time it happened, his doctor told him, "You have a cyst on your parotid gland." The second time it happened, he was told, "You have AIDS." The difference between the first and second time: In the meantime, he'd tested positive for HIV.

For fifteen years prior to testing positive in 1992, Christine Maggiore had been taking a drug for a thyroid condition that she later turned out not to have. At the time she tested positive, her doctor told her that this drug had "devastated" (his word) her immune system. She'd had all sorts of symptoms of illness that cleared up when she stopped taking the drug.

I could probably line people up around the block from within this very forum who had pre-existing health issues before they tested positive.

The only difference being, when the disease strikes before you test positive, they call it whatever it really is: Allergies, lymphadenopathy, Crohn's disease, lupus, lymphoma, a cyst on your parotid gland, whatever. But after you test positive, the symptoms of these same diseases are called "AIDS".

The day I tested positive, I was instantly "cured" of Crohn's disease, asthma, multiple allergies, and multiple autoimmune diseases that I'd had since birth. Since testing positive, if I have diarrhea, abscesses in my colon, rectum, or anus, pulmonary issues, staph infections, fungal infections, or recurrent pneumonia (ALL things that I had for 30 years before testing positive), these diseases are no longer called what they really are, they're called "AIDS".

In my case (and I'm sure in many other cases) I am convinced that these pre-existing health issues caused me to test false positive. That's a long story for another conversation that you and I will have, but the short version is this:




There have been over 60 factors which have been shown to cause false-positives on HIV tests. If you'll look at the list (http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm) (yes, it's at virusmyth, get over it already...lol), you'll notice something very important. The factors which have been shown to cause false-positives break down pretty neatly into three basic groups:
Infectious diseases which might be considered to be AIDS-indicators. (e.g. Tuberculosis, mycobacterium avium, respiratory tract infection, etc.)
Non-infectious autoimmune diseases, many of which can be mistaken for AIDS. (e.g. Lupus, scleroderma, dermatomyositis, etc.)
Factors related to "risk behavior" or "risk factors". (e.g. Pregnancy, receptive anal sex, receipt of blood/tissue transfusion, etc.)
There are only one or two items on the entire list (e.g. Proteins on the filter paper,) that don't fall into one of those three categories.

So basically what you've got is a test that is more likely to return a false-positive if the patient has a history of illness and/or "risk behavior". Bear in mind, as I say this, that a false-positive means, by definition, that they do not actually have HIV.

Let's say you're a doctor. You've got a pregnant woman with a yeast infection who tests positive for HIV. You know she's been having unprotected sex because she's pregnant. But how do you know whether she has a yeast infection because she's actually infected with HIV, or she tests false-positive because she's pregnant and has a yeast infection?

The difference between one interpretation and another of the same set of facts means the difference between whether this woman will be told she's a healthy pregnant woman with a yeast infection, or whether she'll be told she's an AIDS patient.

Standard procedure is to re-test if the patient is considered low-risk (let's say she's monogamous with the father of her child,) and if she's considered low-risk enough, she'll be re-tested and re-tested until the test comes back negative, and all the previous positive tests will be considered a false-positives.

But if the patient is considered "high-risk", (gay male, promiscuous woman, IV drug user, immigrant/non-white) then they are not re-tested, and they are told that the test is highly accurate and that there's a better than 99% certainty that they have HIV and will eventually die of AIDS.

But even a re-test is no guarantee that a false-positive will be eliminated. If you test false-positive once on an antibody test, typically there's a reason for it, which means that if that reason has not been eliminated before the re-test, chances are you'll test false-positive again.

So basically these tests are not reacting at all to "HIV antibodies", they're just reacting to higher levels of antibodies that might be found in people just like me, Jon, Christine, and Brryan, who have health histories that have resulted in elevated levels of generic antibodies that cross-react with HIV tests and cause false-positive results.

In Brryan's case, his father was convicted on the basis of process of elimination. No one else could have given the child HIV, so therefore the phlebotomist father must have done it (and after all he'd threatened to do it before, which is exactly what I would do if I intended to actually do it -- I'd shout it from the rooftops, "Hey, everybody, I'm going to give my kid AIDS!" -- I mean, c'mon, really?)

But if Brryan had a history of asthma and pneumonia and was currently suffering from one disease after another when he was tested, what if the test were false-positive, specifically because Brryan had undiagnosed autoimmune or other issues that fouled the tests? Is it possible that his father was wrongly convicted on purely circumstantial evidence?

...Just some food for thought...
----

Gos
February 22nd, 2011, 06:17 AM
OOOH!-----And while you're chewing on that food for thought, here's some more:

Lindsey Nagel (http://wearelivingproof.org/lindsey.html) was also diagnosed HIV-positive in infancy. Her parents put her on AZT as recommended by their doctor, and she got sick. Eventually, they were persuaded by Peter Duesberg to take Lindsey off of AZT. Her doctors swore to the parents that she'd be dead within months.

The same doctor who prescribed AZT for Lindsey Nagel also treated a dozen or so other HIV-positive children in his practice. Of all of these patients, Lindsey was the only one whose parents took her off AZT and she's the only one who survived. Today she is a healthy, beautiful young woman of 21 years old, with no sign of AIDS.

cbwheel
February 22nd, 2011, 06:40 AM
While it is important to question the role of HIV in any disease process, I dont think we should be making assumptions or concrete statements about this young mans health. Only he knows what he has been through in his life. Only he knows the true story of exactly what happened to him in his struggles throughout the years. Lets be respectful of all of that.

John Bleau
February 22nd, 2011, 06:47 AM
The same doctor who prescribed AZT for Lindsey Nagel also treated a dozen or so other HIV-positive children in his practice.

T'was a she. She received a pediatrician of the year or some such honor at TheBody. An anecdote she gave as one of the strangest that happened to her was that due to Duesberg's influence, one of her patients was taken from her care. She added that she doesn't know what happened to the patient (Lindsay). This goddam quack loses all her early patients other than the one taken from her care and she doesn't bother to find out what happened with that one - - - and she wins a pediatrician of the year award???

Gos
February 22nd, 2011, 08:39 AM
Aaah, thanks for the correction.

----