Currently viewing the category: "AIDS"

Listen up, cokeheads–we know when you said you’d give your left ear for another bump you didn’t mean it literally!  But junkies in New York and Los Angeles are doing just that: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reports that 82% of street cocaine is laced with the veterinary drug levamisole, which is used to deworm cattle, pigs, sheep…and now junkies.

Levamisole can can also rot the skin off noses, ears and cheeks, doctors says.  Multiple cases of rotted flesh have already been reported.  Eeeeww….

Dealers usually cut the coke with baking soda, but may have turned to the veterinary drug as a way to extend the coke high (studies in rats suggest the drug acts on the same brain receptors as cocaine).  More high, more sales.  But bad for the health: Reports of rotted flesh in the left and right coast’s two biggest cities abound.  Anything for another line…here take my nose.  One doctor reported seeing a man whose entire body was black with dying flesh.

Some users seem to be immune, but others no such luck.  some doctors are comparing the flesh eating effects, and the suppression of white blood cell formation eerily similar to AIDS (Hmmm, seems like somebody has said drugs/AIDS in the same breath before). 

“It’s a little bit like having HIV,” said Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist with Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in an ABC article. “About 10 percent of those patients will die from severe infections. They may be walking around like a time bomb.”

Dr. Craft believes the problem must be nationwide and we just aren’t seeing the full ramifications yet.

The good news: Once levamisole is cleared from the body, the wounds do heal, leaving behind a shiny scar.  Phew.  And on to another day. 

Just reminds me of one thing: Whether street powder or pharmaceutical crank (think Ritalin, Adderall), drug dealers don’t give F&*# about their customers.  Freakin’ weird.

Just to show you that today’s health care is all politics and money, let’s discuss the uproar over new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Thomas Frieden’s latest statement on the six priorities–or winnable battles–that the center should focus on: smoking, AIDS, obesity/nutrition, teen pregnancy, auto injuries and health care infections.

So what’s the uproar?  Think of all the other groups that want political backing and money: cancers, heart disease, eating disorders, mental health…SWINE FLU for crying out loud!  These left out groups just ain’t gonna see the money, baby.

Many advocates, legislators and others in public health have dedicated their lives to problems that did not make Frieden’s short list, so the complaints are rolling in…wah, wah, wah…and you thought health care was just about health.

Part of the problem for the groups left out is that most of Frieden’s “priorities” are long-standing, major challenges that get a lot of attention already.  Like, let somebody else in the club.  Corn nut allergies are grossly overlooked time and time again.

“So is hepatitis C,” cry pundits of this condition.  Heps B and C is are ticking time-bombs ready to explode, according to experts, so why not move smoking to the side for a decade or two?  Isn’t it enough that we’ve banned nearly all public smoking, and have reduced cigarette smokers to ostracized lepers?  


Frieden is known to somewhat shake the system.  As New York City’s health commissioner in 2002, he began by identifying the city’s most pressing health issues, leading campaigns to ban smoking in the workplace, tax soda, cut salt in processed foods, and ban artificial trans fats in restaurants.

Frieden calls his new short list “winnable battles” because, he says, proven programs can save lives and reduce harm from each of these health problems.  He believes government can make dramatic improvements if available money and manpower are focused.

I’ve personally got nothing against the CDC’s fight against “winnable battles.”  I might focus on six different priorities, but Frieden’s choices are certainly noble.   No doubt smoking and poor nutrition/obesity are the cause of numerous health problems.  Auto accidents kill many people unnecessarily, and with texting the new drinking for driving, we are going to have our hands full for quite awhile, I presume.

AIDS, frankly, doesn’t scare me as much as syphilis does, but…well, I’ll just say it…lots of money and politics there.  Reality is that many cases could be prevented through safe sex.  And nobody can convince me that there just aren’t enough free condoms to go around.  Uh huh…and infections continue to soar in certain populations, although we all know better…hmmm.

Health care infections?  Just a part of today’s overuse of medical care.  Got to change a whole paradigm to make a shift there, but the fact that the CDC considers it a priority is a move int he right direction.

I must say that I am pleased at the attention health and health care has been getting nationally.  Everybody is thinking about it these days–good, as it should be.  But I still can’t help but marvel at the bickering among health groups and organizations over which health malady is most important…especially since we all know that would be health maintenance.  But of course.

News Alert: Smoking marijuana can damage DNA and cause lung cancer. The solution: Eat more brownies.

Seriously folks, nobody in their right mind thinks that marijuana use is 100% risk free, do they? My regular readers know how I feel about the marijuana issue–I think it should be legalized. Marijuana as a mind-altering substance is relatively benign–that is, it causes little physical harm when compared to alcohol and tobacco.

But saying that, marijuana is still a foreign substance to the human body, and as such, it will have some negative physiological effects. It doesn’t surprise me that the link to DNA damage and lung cancer has finally been found. It has certainly been suspected for years. Duh! Think about it: smoke of any kind will be toxic to the lungs. Yeah, we can filter some and remain relatively healthy–the body is that strong (self-healing and self-regulating)–but high or long-term exposure will damage the nuclear genetic material.

Marijuana has its medicinal uses, and all joking aside, ingesting it as an additive to food is a less risky alternative. So if you are an AIDS or cancer patient, choose the brownie–it’ll save your breathing apparatus over time.


Just saw a piece on the news tonight about the amount of infectious microbes present on paper money. Apparently money is dirtier than a toilet seat. The microbiology expert that tested the money warned of the many illnesses we’re in danger of contracting from handling the dirty green.

First, why does everybody assume a toilet seat is the dirtiest thing we encounter? Aside from public toilet seats used by unsanitary vagrants, and which are never cleaned, they can’t possibly be dirtier than a sink, the floor of a twenty-five cent peep show, or the bedspread at a motel. But money?…that seems obviously filthy.

Second, why be afraid of the germs we encounter on a day to day? If people really knew how many potential pathogens we come across in our daily lives, they’d feel real queasy. Hundreds of thousands of microorganisms are all around us–in our beds, in the shower, in the air, on door handles, everywhere. That’s precisely why we’ve developed immune systems–to fight the multitude of microorganisms we come in contact with everyday. Our immune systems are working silently to contain and defeat invaders, to suppress mini-cancers that pop-up from time to time, and to do it all without our knowing it. That’s exactly why immune deficiencies–like AIDS or radiation therapies–are so dangerous. They leave people immunocompromised and susceptible to disease. People with advanced AIDS often die from infections like Pneumocystis carinii (PCP) and Kaposi’s Sarcoma, which are usually benign to the average person.

But if your immune system is working fine, it defends you from microorganisms constantly. So don’t worry about the dirty money, the dirty air, or the dirty toilet seat. I’d still avoid public bathrooms like the plague, and use toilet seat tissue covers on shared bathrooms; but I wouldn’t stop taking money when it’s handed to me, germs or no germs. My immune system won’t allow that idiosyncrasy.

AIDS researchers are baffled by the latest findings: The AIDS vaccine developed by pharmaceutical manufacturer, Merck Inc., has failed to prevent HIV infection in previously uninfected volunteers. To add to the mystery, those taking the vaccine actually had higher incidences of infection, leaving scientists and Merck officials scratching their heads in disbelief.

The study, a randomized double-blind trial, looked at two groups. The first was given a modified cold virus that was engineered to carry three synthetic HIV genes (genes native to the HIV virus but produced in the lab). The other group was given a placebo. Both groups received prevention counseling. All the volunteers in the study belonged to groups that were already high-risk for infection. The group receiving the vaccine were not only susceptible to infection, but they also contracted HIV at a rate of more than double the placebo group.

Huh? You mean, the group receiving the vaccine actually contracted HIV more than the non-vaccinated group? Quite the mystery, isn’t it? Here’s what makes this especially strange–it is not possible for the vaccine itself to have caused infection: It wasn’t HIV! Whoa. What happened then? Well, nobody knows. But you better bet I’ve got a theory.

Here it goes: HIV is not the sole factor causing AIDS. Before I take credit for this idea, just know I didn’t think of it. The first person I heard it from was a researcher at my alma mater, U.C. Berkeley Professor of Virology, Peter Duesberg. Let’s just say this controversial theory–this little bit of logic thrown in the face of scientific and political dogma–really grabbed my attention back in the early nineties when I first heard it. And now, here might be another piece of evidence hinting at its possibility. I won’t go into detail on his reasoning because it can get quite involved; and you can read it here on your own, anyway. Suffice it to say, however, that if you go against conventional wisdom, you will be ostracized and ridiculed by your peers, and also the public at large. Dr. Duesberg lost much of his funding in the form of research grants because of his controversial theory; and while I was still a student, he was forbidden from teaching–blacklisted if you will; censored; effin’ scary.

And so here we are with new research that makes no sense within the context of how we currently understand HIV and AIDS. But don’t expect the mainstream political and scientific machine to back off of their dogmatic position any time soon. When you have years and years, and billions and billions of dollars, invested in a paradigm, it’s pretty hard to give it up and look elsewhere.

This can be summed up beautifully by Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which co-sponsored the trials. The results are “both disappointing and puzzling,” he said. “Certainly, the failure of this HIV vaccine product was unexpected, but this setback should not and can not diminish our commitment to developing an effective HIV vaccine.” Stay tuned, but don’t expect me to win any research grants anytime soon, either.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.