The slippery slope of AIDS drugs

December 18, 2009

pills and more pillsA review of this week’s list of research into current treatments for so-called HIV infection shows how patients seeking care in their doctor’s office can end up being on a long list of pharmaceutical drugs, mostly to treat the effects of ARVs (antiretroviral drugs).

There is a push to get more and more people on these drugs, regardless of whether they are actually presenting with any symptoms of illness. Some AIDS proponents even want healthy people with no positive test results to start taking the drugs, in the name of “prevention”.

The dangerous effects (there really is nothing “side” about them) of these drugs is downplayed.  We are told the new drugs are safe and effective, yet the research indicates otherwise.

One recently published study questioned which statin drug is best for treating dyslipidemia, the lipid disorder associated with disfiguring body changes known as lipodystrophy.  The answer was:  Crestor (rosuvastatin).

Fine.  Obviously AIDS drug researchers are admitting ARVs have serious unwanted effects.  Their answer to this problem?  More drugs, of course.

Unfortunately, the fix is also well known for having a long list of side effects.  Crestor is associated with so many damaging effects that I will only list the categories mentioned here:  musculoskeletal, renal, hepatic, respiratory, nervous system, psychiatric, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular,  endocrine, hematologic, dermatologic, genitourinary, hypersensitivity and “other”, which includes “flu syndrome”, infections, and a host of lab abnormalities!

Once a patient presents to his or her doctor with complaints from one of these drug-related effects, they are then prescribed additional drugs, which only adds to the momentum of ultimate drug abuse.

This is precisely how I ended up being on more than two dozen pharmaceutical drugs simultaneously, before quitting all of them in 2007.

Lipo is only one of the many complications poz people on HAART experience, and it may not be the worst one, but because its effects are so visible and disfiguring, patients will go to extremes to try to treat it.  Collagen implants for sunken cheeks and buttocks is a popular topic on the popular website aidsmeds.com, for example.

We have moved past the time when people were so ill from infections resulting from immune dysfunction that ARVs may have actually helped–the so-called “Lazurus effect”.  There may, in fact, be a role for such drastic intervention, but only in extreme cases.  To recommend lifelong chemotherapy to healthy people is beyond problematic, it is unethical.  AIDS proponents hate to hear it said, but those who benefit the most from this strategy are pharmaceutical companies and their investors.

Anyone facing the choice of taking AIDS drugs deserve access to all the information they need to make an informed choice.  No one should be pressured to do so when the evidence supporting their use is contradictory and the effects are so drastic.

More and more of us who are “poz” and have health problems are discovering we can extend our lives and improve the quality of our lives more effectively by consciously improving our health with lifestyle choices, rather than relying on drugs that ultimately create more new symptoms than they cure.

~

~

~

wordpress com stats


Rabid fox no match for AIDS dissident

December 16, 2009

KC Star cutlineKeep reading to find out why I just could not resist the headline.  But first, there is a little discussion about AIDS vaccine research I need to get out of the way.

I did a double take when I saw this report promising “further progress” in the search for an AIDS vaccine.  Don’t worry, I will explain in a second what this has to do with rabid foxes.

AIDS vaccine research: FAIL

We’ve been hearing these types of “promising reports” for more than a decade now, but for some reason, an effective “AIDS vaccine” continues to elude researchers.

Their excuses for failure mutate as rapidly as the virus allegedly does.

What does rabies have to do with AIDS?

What caught my attention about this particular study report was that researchers are using the rabies virus to create their vaccine.

Why use the rabies virus?  Why use any virus other than the HI virus?  After all, we are told that HIV has been isolated, analyzed and decoded in its many various strains.  Why would AIDS be so different from other vaccine research, which uses the suspect virus in an inactivated, or weakened form, as in the rabies vaccine itself, for example?

Simple questions do not require complex answers

I am sure They have an answer.  They always do.  Sometimes They just don’t make sense. To add insult to injury, They tell us that this kind of research involves such complexity that the average person is simply incapable of understanding the “science” behind it.

Hey… I’m no rocket scientist, but I can grasp the concepts that propel a space shuttle into orbit.  I grok the physics that keep an airplane suspended. I even understand the basic concept of how electronic switches are set to “on” or “off” (represented by 0’s and 1’s), to generate this digital page you are reading.

Give us a break.  A shell game artist also relies on “complexity”, as well as quickly moving the target to confuse onlookers. It is a really lame excuse for explaining failure, if you ask me.

Time to redefine “progress”

How can AIDS vaccine researchers claim “progress” when the study authors themselves admit “the long-term benefits were minimal?”

And finally, please explain to me the significance of this finding:

“Although we can’t yet block the infection, we showed that we can protect against disease,” said Dr. Schnell. “We also saw significant antibody activity against the virus, which is promising. In addition, this is a very simple approach that only took two immunizations.”

I thought antibodies to HIV indicated infection, which this vaccine cannot block.  Yet these researchers note “significant antibody activity against the virus”.  Say what?  Either antibodies are effective or they are not.  You can’t have it both ways, fellas.

Studies like this one only cast even more doubt on the very existence of the so-called HI virus, or the value of continuing to follow inane theories that are based on a crumbling foundation of flawed and fraudulent findings.  It is long past time to spend some of those big bucks on re-evaluating the very foundation of AIDS “science”.

If the HI virus does not even exist–and I grow increasingly skeptical that it does with every study like this I read–why is it so difficult to imagine that the human body is quite often capable of mounting an adequate response to the other probable cause(s) of immune dysfunction, provided measures are taken to restore overall health?

You promised a story about rabid foxes!

Yes, I digressed.  The other reason this report caught my attention is because I am one of those rare people to have actually been exposed to that other  “fatal disease”: rabies.

That’s right.  I had a personal encounter with rabies in upstate New York in 1990, when I was bit by a rabid red fox while building a deck for some friends.  I’ve recently scanned copies of the newspaper reports of that event and have been waiting for just the right opportunity to share this little tale from my past.

Now, thanks to AIDS vaccine research, I have the perfect opportunity.

Read here:

Rabies Suspected:  Red Fox Terrorizes Hankins Residents
(Sullivan County Democrat, August 31, 1990)

Or read the more humorous version from the Kansas City Star:

A furry ball of fury turns man’s getaway into battle for survival
(Kansas City Star, September 3, 1990)

~

~

~

wordpress blog stats


Questioners not allowed at “HIV Controllers” forum

December 5, 2009

I have probably spent at least ten thousand hours online the last ten years or so and I am still stumbling onto new blogs and websites that deal with HIV and AIDS issues from various perspectives, so I’m pretty familiar with the most common inconsistencies, aka “mysteries”, of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.  Still, I was taken aback recently when I was told I would not be allowed to participate in, or even monitor a forum for long term survivors like myself, solely because I consider myself an open-minded questioner of the AIDS orthodoxy.

You see,  I recently read a press release at thebody.com about a new forum for “HIV Controllers”, those people who test positive on the antibody test developed by Robert Gallo, the now discredited one-time “discoverer” of the HI virus, but who do not get sick, or perhaps do not even test for a “viral load”, despite not taking any so-called antiretroviral drugs. The press release was from the Zephyr Foundation, founded by 16-year-survivor Loreen Willenberg.

I wanted to know if I fit the category of a HIV controller. I have never had one of the “AIDS-defining” opportunistic infections, though I do have a detectable viral load that bounces around erratically. I have also technically met the definition of “AIDS” by having had a cd4 count of less than 200, three times in 2002, which was the last year I took antiretroviral drugs (ARVs). Lately that count has been averaging about 400, though like the VL, it is also a moving target.
When I first contacted Willenberg about joining the newly announced forum, I shared this same basic history and background to find out if I met the forum’s definition of a HIV Controller. This was her initial response: Read the rest of this entry »


LOTTI: Take a vacation from AIDS drugs

July 13, 2009
Basket full of AIDS meds

Wastebasket full of meds

Start memorizing this acronym: LOTTI. It could change your life if you are on one of the AIDS drug cocktails, also known as HAART (highly active anti-retroviral therapy).

LOTTI stands for the LOng Term Treatment Interruption study, which recently reported that those of us who have had success with “treatment interruption” might not be all that unusual.

Although some results from the LOTTI study were first reported back in November, 2008, the complete report wasn’t published in the journal AIDS until April and didn’t hit my radar screen until this month, when it was finally published on Medscape.  In an industry that often falls over itself rushing to trumpet breaking news to the media, this sluggishness to report good news (for people on HAART, if not the pharmaceutical industry) is certainly suspect.

Good News! Drug vacations DO work!

The randomized, controlled, prospective  LOTTI study concludes that those patients who took vacations from their HAART drugs fared as well clinically as those who took their drug cocktail continuously. “The two strategies may be considered clinically equivalent,” stated the study’s authors. Even more importantly (though not emphasized in the report): more than a fourth of those who quit their cocktail of drugs never had to restart them, even though the mean length of time in the study was more than four years!

What is so exciting about this scientifically controlled study is that it offers hope to those who are currently taking anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs, but are concerned about long term effects, or are already experiencing illness because of toxicity. Based on the study’s results, there are not only no good reasons for HAART patients to stay on the drugs continuously and indefinitely, there are several advantages to stopping them: Read the rest of this entry »


Marketing AID$ is big bucks (updated)

March 6, 2009

It is not just about saving lives or finding a cure. It’s very much about making money, and AIDS treatments have long been considered a global marketing opportunity.

$700 AIDS Marketing Report from aarkresearch

$700 AIDS marketing report from aarkresearch

Mainstream AIDS proponents hate to have this issue brought up and would like to pretend that no one is getting rich from the current test-everyone-and-give-them-drugs public health strategy.

Yet virus co-discoverers Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier have become millionaires thanks to Read the rest of this entry »


More cause for questioning

January 15, 2009

Marcia AngellAfter writing yesterday’s post, I came across  this article in the New York Review of Books, written by Marcia Angell, former editor of no less than the New England Journal of Medicine, currently  Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

In this must read, entitled “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”, Angell states:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.

When a whistle-blower with credentials like Angell’s condemns the current state of affairs in medical research, it deserves special attention.


Cause(s) for questioning

January 14, 2009

There may be some points of disagreement among us dissidents, and that’s fine. One thing I think most of us would agree on is that the current guidelines for treatment of scratch-head4“HIV-disease” (or “AIDS” or “HIV-positive” or “HIV/AIDS”, or whatever they start calling it next month) is toxic, harmful and dangerously unsustainable in the long run. ARVs (Anti-Retrovirals) are even starting to be used illicitly for their “hallucinogenic and relaxing effect” in some quarters of the world.

Likewise, the AIDS mainstream is certainly less than monolithic in their views. There is a lack of agreement among them about how HIV causes immune suppression, or even how HIV came into existence for that matter. **CLICK HERE to read more!**