I am not associated with ACT UP and never have been, but I am a PWA.  On
their tenth anniversary, I would like to express my thanks and
appreciation to ACT UP.  I realize that I may get flamed by some readers
in this newsgroup for making such a statement.  

I have not always agreed with some of their actions and methods, but do
admire their tenacity and spirit.  No one can argue that this group of
people is on the side of all persons with HIV/AIDS and they fight for us.
Throughout the years they have shown that they have some pretty big balls.
 They have certainly raised the attention of the public in respect to
AIDS.

I for one say thank you.  To those of you who want to do nothing but
criticize, I ask you, what have YOU done for us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In Your Face"
Advocate (03/18/97) No. 729, P. 41; Meers, Erik
     As the activist organization known as ACT-UP, or AIDS
Coalition to Unleash Power, celebrates its 10-year anniversary
this year, its members can look back at a history of successful
demonstrations and positive results.  ACT UP has demanded more
rapid FDA approvals, the inclusion of AIDS patients in drug
advisory panels, large increases in federal spending on AIDS, and
greater attention to the AIDS epidemic across the country.  ACT
UP has achieved many of its goals, along with assistance from
less militant activist groups.  However, as it looks to the
future, ACT UP faces decreasing membership and declining
enthusiasm.  The group’s members became somewhat divided after
treatment activists successfully became involved in AIDS clinical
trials in 1990.  Some members favored working with the government
and pharmaceutical industry, while others wanted to rely on
direct action to voice their demands.  "There was a lot of debate
over the so-called ‘inside’ versus ‘outside’ strategies, whether
we should go to meetings or demos–which was purer?" says Mark
Harrington, who left ACT UP in 1992 to create the Treatment
Action Group, a New York City research and advocacy group.  ACT
UP chapters continue to fight for wider access to new AIDS drugs,
but with the assistance of activists on the streets, in
government, and in industry.  According to ACT UP’s Mark Hannay,
"folks on the inside… need some people pushing on the outside.  
For people on the outside, nothing is going to happen unless
there’s someone on the inside that’s eventually going to
negotiate the deal."

"ACT UP: Like Old Times"
New York Times (03/25/97) P. A25
     Marking the 10th anniversary of its first demonstration, the
AIDS activist group ACT UP returned to the New York Stock
Exchange Monday to protest what they claimed was the greed of
drug companies.  Hundreds of protesters streamed into the streets
of downtown Manhattan just before 8 A.M, scattering empty pill
bottles, carrying cardboard coffins, and wearing paper masks to
depict the "drug company fat cat."  Seventy-two of the protesters
were arrested.

"ACT UP’s Proud Legacy"
New York Times (03/25/97) P. A32; Goldfeder, Jerry H.
     In response to a New York Times article about the AIDS group
ACT UP, former ACT-UP lawyer Jerry H. Goldfeder writes in a letter
to the editor that the organization should be proud of its
accomplishments.  He notes that the group, like other protest
movements, successfully called attention to a problem that was
being ignored and forced public officials to respond to the
epidemic.

Declining AIDS Deaths: Will the Bubble Burst?
Author: Jay F. Dobkin, MD, Columbia University College of Physicians &
Surgeons Manuscript received March 6, 1997
[Infect Med 14(3):181, 1997. © 1997 SCP Communications, Inc.]

In a stunning indication of the dramatic changes in the course of AIDS,
death rates from HIV have dropped precipitously in the past year. At the
4th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (January
22-26, 1997, Washington, D.C.), New York City public health officials
reported an abrupt decline of nearly 50% in AIDS deaths per day between
January and July 1996. In February 1997, the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention reported a similar trend on a nationwide basis
(MMWR 46:165-173, 1997). The reports are perhaps the culmination of 2
years of increasingly positive news about the prospects for treating and
conceivably eradicating HIV infection. But the message contained in this
news is neither simple nor entirely free of dilemmas.

On a superficial but perhaps important note, the news that deaths are
declining–like the discussion about viral eradication–is subject to
misinterpretation. Some patients have concluded that they may be cured and
can discontinue treatment. Others may decide that prevention isn’t so
important if HIV infection is now "treatable." And insurers, donors, and
others funding research and treatment may lose motivation to maintain
support for AIDS programs.

In New York City, the declining death rate has been paralleled by a steep
drop in the number of AIDS patients hospitalized in the specialized units
developed for their care. This decline began in 1993 and averaged about 7%
a year over the next 3 years. During 1996 the decline was nearly 4 times
greater. As positive as this may appear, there is great concern that the
financial savings realized by funding programs like Medicaid may be
reallocated to other areas rather than continuing to support the
increasingly vital and expensive outpatient care of AIDS patients. This
could be particularly problematic since much ambulatory AIDS care in New
York is based in these same hospitals and is subsidized by the enhanced
inpatient reimbursement rates New York State established for AIDS centers.

The explanation for the abrupt decline in AIDS deaths is of more than
academic interest. The New York investigators listed a number of potential
factors, including earlier diagnosis, improved prophylactic strategies
directed at opportunistic complications, and better access to care,
especially related to a large increase in Ryan White Act funding for
patient care programs in 1994 (M Chiasson et al; op. cit. Abstract 376).

The other factor they cited, of course, was use of the new antiretroviral
regimens. To many participants at the meeting it seemed probable that this
was the key factor, especially since the decline was so abrupt and
coincided with the rapid adoption of combination nucleoside analogue
therapy in 1995 and the newly available protease inhibitor drugs during
the first 6 months of 1996.

On an anecdotal basis, every AIDS provider I know can cite many examples
of patients who were in the late stages of HIV disease and might have
sustained a fatal complication if aggressive antiretrovirals had not been
initiated during this time period. In addition, we know from the pivotal
trial of ritonavir in a far advanced population with an average CD4+ count
of 21/mm3 that the death rate was cut by 50% over the 16-week course of
the study. But what we don’t know is how durable the immunologic effects
and consequent clinical benefit will be.

Certainly, patients with the most advanced disease, the highest viral
loads, and the greatest prior treatment are most likely to be the first to
fail to respond to treatment. It seems probable, therefore, that we are in
something of a bubble with respect to the impact of the new treatments.
Since the new drug regimens became widely available over a very short time
period, we may see a dramatic impact if the effectiveness wanes at a
uniform rate.

On the contrary, if the new antiretroviral regimens are not the major
factor accounting for lower death rates, the pattern is likely to be
sustained. Much of this uncertainty is likely to be resolved soon through
additional epidemiologic analysis, but mostly by observing how many
patients experience durable treatment effects and how many have their
bubbles burst.

About the Author
Dr. Dobkin is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Columbia
University College of Physicians & Surgeons, and Medical Director,
Presbyterian Hospital AIDS Center, New York City.

http://www.medscape.com
Medscape is produced by Medscape, Inc.
All material on this server Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 by the
publishers involved.

Simple plans that will allow you to make your own high quality Colloidal
Silver for pennies a gallon.
http://www.maui.net/~enelson/Colloidal.htm

——————-==== Posted via Deja News ====———————–
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Dear Friends,

The issue of labelling genetically manipulated foods is of EXTREME
importance for all people suffering from allergies.

The Codex Alimentarius meeting, April 14, will say if and how genetically
manipulated foods (also called bioengineered foods) will be labelled.
It’s time to urge your national representatives at this meeting to act for
mandatory labelling.
For more info about this VERY SERIOUS issue:
http://www.lisco.com/mothersfornaturallaw/

Here is USA Today,  March 6, 1997:

Genetically altered food:  Buyer beware

By John Fagan

There’s a war on in Europe, and most Americans have hardly heard about it.  It
concerns the safety of something very basic to human life:  our food.  Why are
we so uninformed while European consumers are up in arms and their governments
are taking swift action against the uncontrolled introduction of genetically
modified foods?

Mention genetically altered foods to most Americans, and you will get a blank
stare.  A genetically cloned sheep has stolen the headlines.  Yet with each
passing day, we are filling our grocery carts with these foods in
ever-increasing percentages without our knowledge or consent.

In Europe, shiploads of these products have been halted at borders.
Supermarket chains and food producers have banned these products from their
shelves or promised consumers that they will label these foods conspicuously.
In fact, several nations are enacting stringent labeling requirements.

What is at the core of the fear about these new foods?  And should this
concern
derail work some claim will increase agricultural efficiency and reduce world
hunger?  Scientific journals and leading scientists have joined in the chorus
to urge definitive research into the possible risks in advance of mass use by
humans.

Scientists have altered foods by inserting into them genes from bacteria and
viruses.  Many more such products containing foreign DNA from insects, fish
and
even humans are in the R&D pipeline and soon will be headed for our dinner
plates.  

Foods altered through genetic engineering often contain proteins and other
components that have never before been part of the human diet:  proteins from
bacteria and viruses and, in the future, proteins from insects, scorpions and
people.  There is no way to predict whether those foods are safe to eat.  The
only way to tell is to test them rigorously.  Yet our government does not
require such testing.

The risks are not hypothetical.  Any unbiased scientist familiar with the
technology will admit that genetic engineering can give rise to unanticipated
allergens and toxins.  Already we have seen this scenario in action.  In 1989,
a dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, caused 37 U.S. deaths and 1,511 nonfatal
cases of a disease called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS).  The Centers
for
Disease Control linked these cases to tryptophan manufactured using
genetically
engineered bacteria.  A study published in Science in 1990 confirmed that the
tryptophan was contaminated with a toxic "novel amino acid" not present in
tryptophan produced by other methods.

How could this problem have been prevented?  Routine food-safety tests could
not have done the job.  They can only detect the presence of toxins or
allergens known to be present in common foods such as shellfish and peanuts.
Such tests on the genetically altered tryptophan would not have registered a
blip.  Only biological and clinical tests on humans would have revealed the
truth.  Unfortunately, these tests were not done.  Moreover, they are still
not
required for other genetically engineered foods.  Advocates maintain that the
risk from any given genetically engineered food is small and argue, therefore,
that it is unnecessary to carry out stringent safety testing.

This view is not scientifically responsible.  Thousands of these foods
products
will be brought to market over the next several years.  When we do the math,
the small risk that any given product will produce unanticipated effects
translates into virtual certainty of harm when many new genetically engineered
foods have become part of the diet of large populations over extended periods
of time.

What is the solution?  Given that billions of dollars have been invested in
developing these products, we cannot exclude them from the market.
Nonetheless, consumer safety must be protected.  Here are three suggestions to
address both issues:
#176#   Safety testing must be made more stringent. (Bold)  The only
scientifically
valid approach is to feed these foods to human volunteers and see how they
respond.  Such testing is required by the FDA before new foods or additives
produced by other methods can be marketed.  Why should genetically altered
foods be an exception?
#176#   All genetically engineered foods must be labeled as such. (Bold)  Safety
testing can never give us a guarantee with 100% certainty.  For example, tests
extending over three years may fail to detect harmful effects that require
five
years to emerge.  Mandatory labeling gives the consumer choice in whether to
accept that risk.  Health officials can also better trace the source of any
problems if the products are labeled.
#176#   The public must be properly informed about the benefits and risks.
(Bold)
Informed choice by consumers will protect the integrity of the biotechnology
and food industries and maintain confidence in the American food supply.

- ————–
Sidebar

Coming Soon…

Genetically modified foods that have been approved, are awaiting approval or
are under development in the USA:

Apples                Rice        
Barley                Soybeans
Beans                  Squash
Chestnuts           Stawberries        
Corn                   Sugar cane  
Cucumbers        Sunflowers
Lettuce              Tomatoes
Melons              Tobacco
Peppers            Walnuts
Papayas            Watermelons
Potatoes            Wheat

Source:  U.S. Agriculture Dept.

Dr. John B. Fagan is a molecular biologist who has conducted research using
recombinant DNA techniques.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Tim Williams wrote:

> I have copied the following article from the Times – I thought it might
> be of interest:

>       March 25 1997

>        Aids nurse died 12 years after prick from
>                              needle

>                          BY A STAFF REPORTER

>   A NAVAL nurse died of an Aids-related disease 12 years after pricking
> herself with a used needle at work, an inquest was told yesterday.

> Kathryn McCarthy was taking a routine blood sample from a woman
> patient at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar in Gosport, Hampshire, when

Thanks for this sensitive post, Tim.

Having been trained in the Army Medical Service Corps, I relate to this
case on many different levels…

God bless this brave nurse and her family.  I believe nothing will be
lost in this pandemic.  Every instance of human bravery and suffering
will inspire a step towards the cure.

There is nothing new under the sun…  just new people who are seeing
for the first time.

God loves us more than we are want to imagine.

Pandoc

Does anyone know where to find more on European Studies or references to
Sloan Kettering:

http://members.aol.com/TIMforTIM/index.html

Thanks….Heath

Am I missing something, or is word still out on the possible eradication
of the virus?

Is Ho about to convince a few to stop taking meds?

And are there other studies out there about to "ripen" also?

The "world" is waiting, I think.  And if eradication is possible, do that
mean the end of this nightmare for many, perhaps most?

DISTRIBUTORS WANTED

Have you heard:

About the latest Health Nutritional Product?
About  the greatest Natural Health Discovery in Decades?
About the most product driven opportunity of all times?
About a product destined to be a  household name?
About a product that has unparalleled sales growth?

About a product called: TAHITIAN NONI

Morinda’s Tahitian Noni Juice is a breakthrough natural nutritional product
that is truly destined to become a household name.  A product that fosters
and promotes cell regeneration.  A product with numerous testimonials.
Testimonials that continue to pour in every day.  Testimonials that talk
about remedies of afflictions including: Tumors, Diabetes, Ulcers, Sinus
problems, Arthritis, High Blood Pressure, Eye disorders, Flu, Allergies and
the like.  

The benefits of Tahitian Noni Juice are not only health related, but the
optional business opportunity is unmatched.  As an entrepreneur you owe it
to yourself to check this one out.  Get in on the excitement as the
momentum continues to build.  The program is exploding, yet it is still a
great time to get on board.  

Call toll free: 800-733-0335 for recorded information and testimonials.
For written information call the Fax On Demand number at: 801-235-0500  
Then call the toll free hotline at: 888-267-NONI (6664) to find out more.  
Mention code BT.

I am the chairperson of a community service organization (Bruce House in
Ottawa) that provides housing, support and care to people with HIV/AIDS. We
are currently undertaking a review of our services and programs with a view to
identifying what changes, if any, we ought to be making to meet the needs of
PWA’s in light of progress (for some) in managing the disease.

Given the circumstances, I suspect that other similar service providers must
have undertaken, or be in the process of undertaking, similar reviews.
Accordingly, and so we might happily benefit from the work of others in this
area, I would appreciate any relevant information that anyone might be able to
offer.

In particular, I would be interested in any online studies or reports on this
subject. Likewise, if anyone has a report that may have been undertaken for
another AIDS service organization, I’d be pleased to receive it by email. If
you know where one might exist, I’d appreciate information on how I might get
a copy.

Any replies would be appreciated.

Best regards, Peter O’Malley

P.S. This message has been cross-posted to several HIV/AIDS related
newsgroups.

Announcing the SCIENCE GUIDE.
http://www.scienceguide.com

A New Internet Directory and Information Service run by Scientists and
Physicians for Scientists and Physicians.  After visiting the Guide, If
you have any suggestion for making the Guide better please let us know.
webmas…@scienceguide.com

The Science Guide consists of a number of different sections designed to
help the scientist and physician find information on the internet:

NEWS SECTION

Every day the Science Guide compiles medical and research news from
national news sources around the net.  Most of the news articles are
concerned with medicine, bioscience, and physics, but all other sciences
from agriculture to zoology are commonly included. News sources
currently listed include: CNN, EurekAlert, HMS Beagle, MSNBC Sci-Tech,
Science Magazine’s ScienceNow, CBS Space News, USA Today, The
Albuquerque Journal, Scientific American Web Weekly, The Why Files,
Discover Magazine, Scientific American, Smithsonian Magazine, and the
Technology Review.  The news pages also lists links to news sources not
compiled within the News site.

To make getting science news even easier, we send out a DAILY NEWS
EMAILER listing the articles which have been compiled on our site.
Anyone can subscribe to the Emailer by sending an email to
n…@scienceguide.com with the message “Subscribe”

DIRECTORY OF SCIENTIFIC SITES, USENET NEWS and DISCUSSION GROUPS

The directory portion of the Science Guide lists scientific,
engineering, and medical Internet sites divided by the major scientific
disciplines.  The directory resembles the directories currently seen on
the Internet with a few noticeable differences.  Many of the listings
within the directory contain extensive Abstracts similar to those seen
in scientific journals.  Abstracts allow a the user to get a feel for
the information provided the target Internet site, that a simple short
description does not allow.

ON-LINE JOURNAL HYPERLINK SECTION

The Journals Section contains links to peer reviewed scientific journals
on the Internet.  Each listing clearly indicates whether the journal
provides only the table of contents, TOC with abstracts, or the full
text of the journal

EMPLOYMENT SECTION

The Jobs and Positions section contains an advanced database which
allows organizations to add detailed postings for every type of science
or medical related employment offering.  The search engine associated
with the database makes it very easy for a job seeker to find listings
in which they are interested.  A user can search by position type,
scientific category, and geographic location.  The Employment section
also contains links to other jobs databases and to “The Directory of US
Residency Programs.”

GRANTS and FUNDING SECTION

The funding section contains links to the best funding and grant
databases on the Internet, making it very easy for scientists to quickly
find funding opportunities.  The featured site of the section is “The
Community of Science,” a Johns Hopkins service designed to help
scientists find and continue funding.

SCIENTIFIC COMPANY and PRODUCTS SEARCH ENGINE

One of the most promising aspects of Internet use for the scientist is
the ability to find companies which sell and information about
scientific products in which they are interested.  The Science Guide’s
search engine consists of a web spider that indexes the web sites of our
corporate sponsors and a search interface that allows a scientist to
enter simple keywords to find companies offering products in which they
are interested.  This is a unique service in that the search results
will take the user directly to the page selling the product in which
they are interested.