Supplemental autopsy for Gos Blank: PCP detected

 Posted by on 2014-02-25 at 9:44 am
Feb 252014
 

gos-blankNearly four months after his death, and a couple of months after the “final” autopsy report was released, Gos Blank’s wife, Lisa, receive additional information in the form of a letter with the subject: “Supplemental Final Diagnoses”.  According to this update, dated February 11, 2014, a stain revealed the “presence of multiple cup and/or boat shaped fungal cysts located within foamy amorphous matériai within the alveolar spaces which were characteristic of Pneumocystis jirovecii microorganisms. These microorganisms were formerly known as Pneumocystis carinii.”

The supplement has been appended to the original “final autopsy” here.

In my previous report on Gos, based on his hospital records and the original “final” autopsy report, I asserted that Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center had been presumptively treating Gos for the wrong infection—pneumocystis jirovecii (PCP)—while failing to identify and treat cytomegalovirus (CMV). I would not have done that had this additional information been a part of the original autopsy report. However… the way this information is being presented now raises even more questions. The medical records are unambiguous about the fact that tests performed at Cy-Fair came back negative for PCP. Granted, these tests were performed on sputum samples, which are not as accurate as tests performed on biopsied lung tissue.

That it took four months to perform and report the finding of PCP-like particles is discomfiting, at best. If the autopsy findings of CMV—a virus—were visibly obvious, why was a fungal (co)- infection not apparent, or at the very least, warrant some mention of a “possible” fungal infection?

The supplemental report cites “multiple” fungal cysts. How many? A few? Dozens? Millions? The report does not quantify the findings. Like CMV, PCP is considered to be ubiquitous; it is commonly found in most people. If this is true, then is it really any surprise that PCP was (finally) found in Gos, given sufficient effort?

I do not want to be guilty of what I see so many AIDS dissidents doing: stretching until it hurts to make excuses for what is going to seem to be obvious to those who embrace the orthodox AIDS model. Still, if this was a classic case of “AIDS-related PCP”, it begs the question: why the heck did it take four months to isolate and identify the pathogen in Gos’ tissues?

It is also worth noting that the pathologists made no changes to their determination of the proximate cause of death, which specified solely CMV infection.

The response from AIDS “rethinkers”

Since I do not intend to write further on the matter of Gos’ death, barring even more “new” information, I feel compelled to share some other observations about some of the reactions to Gos’ passing. For starters, the typical sources of “grave dancing” have been notably quiet, which is nice. Not so much the case for some in the AIDS dissident community.

Following a nearly complete lack of meaningful discussion about his passing on the Rethinking AIDS Facebook page, where Gos volunteered as a moderator, RA president David Crowe and Elizabeth Ely contacted Gos’ wife Lisa for her blessing on, or perhaps participation in a podcast that was intended to “prove Gos did not die of AIDS” on David Crowe’s site How Positive Are You. The proposed show was to be based on an analysis of the autopsy that had been made public by Dr. Andy Maniotis.

The sheer depravity of this approach can only be appreciated when given a bit more background and context. When it became clear that Gos was dying, I reached out to Crowe, Ely and others, seeking advice and assistance, specifically about the opportunity to examine Gos’ tissue for actual HI-virus using electron micrography. If HIV does not exist, Gos was a perfect candidate to prove or disprove that, and I do not doubt that the money for an examination could have been raised. I was urged by Ely to contact Maniotis immediately. Despite some misgivings on my part (I’ve seen enough of Maniotis’ exhortations on various news feeds to be wary), I called him October 12, the Saturday night before Gos expired. It was one of the most unpleasant conversations I’ve ever had.

Maniotis was barely coherent. He did not recognize me at first, and he had never heard of Gos, despite having been sent a heads up email from Crowe. His first suggestion was that Gos be put on intravenous vitamin C immediately and to call him in the morning (I kid you not). I tried to explain that I needed no coaching about the benefit of high dose IVC, and that Gos was already beyond that point; I wanted to discuss EM and autopsy.

”Who is Gos?” Maniotis asked me. “I don’t know your friend, but he is no Tommy Morrison… he is no Arthur Ashe…”  The unspoken, but clear message was: only famous people warrant Maniotis’ attention.

My face fell to the floor as I realized that Dr. Maniotis was not only living up to his reputation as a lush, but that he is apparently a bit of a starfucker to boot. And now Crowe and Ely had the gall to ask Lisa to approve of this man analyzing Gos’ cause of death after the fact? Needless to say, they received a deservedly brusque notice of rejection from Lisa.

I will not subject Lisa to further stress by raising questions that cannot be answered. She is not following my reports or any other online discussions about Gos because it is all she can manage to deal with her own grief. The only reason I have written this update is because—whether I like the news or not—additional information has been presented from the company that performed the autopsy. In the interest of full disclosure, I am sharing that here and now. Gos will not let me rest in peace without doing so.  “Tell the truth,” he told me. “Hold nothing back.” I had no idea when I made that pledge just how difficult it would prove to do.

I can’t help but wonder what Gos would say today. He always insisted that he was willing to keep his mind open to any possibility, including the existence of a “mythical retrovirus” with supernatural abilities. Nothing in this new information supports that assertion, but rather than contorting into uncomfortable positions to deny that AIDS exists, or to continue to try to prove a negative, AIDS dissidents could serve a far greater good by acknowledging that too many of our own have died—with and without the use of ARVs. It’s time to put limited (at this point, more like non-existent) resources towards proactively moving our understanding of chronic immune illness forward, as well as testing and developing non-toxic alternative treatments to help people with…. dare I say it… AIDS.

  5 Responses to “Supplemental autopsy for Gos Blank: PCP detected”

  1.  

    Dear Jonathan what can I say….such a terrible story, especially the part related to the words of Maniotis. I had two FB “friends” who opened up a FB page “HIV does’t cause AIDS” and where spreading info left and right about what all we adults dealing with this “problem” already know. Well, the other day I private messaged each one of them and I have asked them one simple question: since you are so adamant about this issue have you perhaps been diagnosed poz ? The answers, a cold answer to me, was NO. One of them, after I kindly invited him to be careful on this matter since it affects people’s life, and after I had asked him on what basis was he involved in dealing and posting on such a delicate “problem”…he went on offending me crudely, with no reasons, and while we were chatting on what I thought to be a “civil” manner, I found myself “banned” from his friends and all conversation ended abruptly. I was extremely touched by this behaviour like the time I posted in the FB R.A. group asking for serious help ( I was in the hospital caring for my partner) and noticed little or no sympathy, except for one girl who tagged me to someone who was most helpful in dealing with several issued post ARV. I just wish people who are not affected will stay off this “problem” and if they want to help, that they will do it with scientific knowledge and human compassion. May all the energy of the universe and the divine be with us all.

  2.  

    I sympathise with Ross on getting such a curt and unfriendly response from those ‘friends’ on FB. But once again, I fear naivete is blinding him to the obvious. It doesn’t require anyone to be personally ‘affected’ by having a ‘HIV+’ diagnosis, let alone ill health, to have an opinion on the ‘HIV’ theory of causation of ill-health. Since we already know there has been no sufficient evidence to show the existence of a retrovirus, let alone a pathogenic one, it is rather silly, and frankly an utter waste of time to try and brow beat those who wish to take that position on FB. It is totally irrelevant whether they are themselves saddled with a ‘HIV’ diagnosis or not. If one takes that attitude, then we should ignore *anyone* who expresses *any* opinion on the ‘HIV’ theory of ill-health if they have *not* received a reactive ‘HIV’ test result. Ludicrous.
    As for reaching out to people like Crowe, Ely or Maniotis, it is, frankly, equally ludicrous and I cannot for the life of me understand why Jonathan would do so, given those individuals’ very long documented grossly dishonest history on the subject. Maniotis simply can’t be trusted and his own inability to avoid contradicting himself scientifically and clinically on a regular basis is a big warning sign.
    How many lessons do people need, to learn how seriously unwise it is to seek help from [name-calling deleted – J].

    •  

      You are correct that one does not need a HIV-positive diagnosis to hold an opinion. The point is that those who are living with the diagnosis, as well as symptoms of a dysfunctional immune system, have a personal stake in the debates. It’s not just an intellectual exercise for us.

      As for Crowe and Ely, they are the most accessible and responsive people in the U.S. In hindsight,my efforts were a waste of time, as you point out. In the event I find myself in a similar situation in the future I shall most certainly contact you for advise.

      BTW, please refrain from name-calling if you want your comments posted here in the future.

  3.  

    My experience is that you are quite happy to call a spade a spade, and on this blog and elsewhere you have been very caustic in your characterisations of these same people, such that you imply far worse than the nouns I used that you call ‘name calling’, a practice that is something of a penchant of yours.
    Given your past criticisms of Crowe especially, and recently your loaded comments about the RA finances, your objection to my characterisation of him is bizarre to say the least even hypocritical, and even more that you would be so, let’s say, ‘unwise’ to seek his help.
    The more you attempt to divert discussion down a road of rather facetious ‘morals’ the less, I suspect, anyone see any relevance in it, and for the life of me it I can’t see how it helps the post mortem subject person, and even less so the issue of ‘HIV/AIDS’.
    And that is my whole problem with your withering attacks on the opinions of people not ‘affected’ (itself a rather affected construction), it doesn’t move the debate on. It halts it. And not only does it not advance the general issue of ‘HIV’ but it’s absolute bollocks even for most people ‘affected’ – yes you probably do have a little mail list of ill people you can exchange potions and lotions and test results with but to suggest for one second it has any generalised bearing is arrogant as well as unscientific. So long as the orthodox theory remains 100% in tact all those people will still suffer the consequences, including the ones who do or don’t take the poison and do or don’t try a 100 potions.

    •  

      Steve, all comments here are supposed to be held for moderation, yet your comment posted without my approval. That won’t happen again. Thinking it had not yet be publicized, I sent you the following message, which I am now posted here as my response:

      Are you sure you want this published, Steve?

      I don’t mind you calling me hypocritical, as I no doubt am. It’s a fairly common human trait.

      Otherwise the comment is off-topic; a strictly personal rant against me; makes no sense; and furthers no point of view. Neither I nor other readers will know what “withering attacks on the opinions of people not ‘affected'” you are talking about, for example.

      If you insist, I will publish it unedited, but it will be the last comment I will publish from you, and I will make that clear, too.

      [personal details deleted] I respect the privacy of our correspondences and will not publicize what has transpired between us without your permission. I will, however, feel free to take these exchanges into consideration when making a decision to prevent further disruptive comments from being published on my personal blog.

      You know there are other places online where you can say anything you’d like about me and it will be published. Surely those would be more appropriate venues for you to express your frustration, disgust and loathing of me.

      Steve responded: “Of course I want it published,” and so it is.

      I guess it takes a hypocrite to know one.

Leave a Reply