Disease Treat

Know About Ulcers Blog

My experience with the HIV drug Truvada and its side effect

So just to remind everyone, because of a lab
accident involving blood, I have been on a prophylactic HIV anti-retroviral drug called
truvada. I figured I would use this time to discuss the side effects, and some of the
coping methods I used on it especially if someone else has to go or live on them. So
the side effects of the drugs have been wide a varied. First off is the lack of energy.
Secondly is feverish. And the first is quite probably caused by the second. When you become
feverish your brain makes you feel tired so that you stop using energy and will rest and
recover. I had to take alieve on top of alieve to break my fever. The immune system actually
works like an alarm system, and will more often than not work overboard, but its good
that it does so you know when something is wrong. Often breaking the fever is actually
better for you if it helps you get to sleep easier which is what the body is really wanting.
I knew exactly why my immune system was going overboard so to make it through the day I
had to take alieve 2 or 3 times a day. I used alieve because all the other pain killers
to break your fever interfere with liver function. So why do we feel like crap when we have fever?
Well a carrier called interleukin-1 is a communication chemical that works with the immune system.
It has multiple functions but on to of that it also goes to the brain and does something
strange. It makes you drowsy and it also makes you feel pain and achy. Oddly the ache you
feel is signal information you feel all the time your brain just doesn’t register it
because its so low. It cranks up your sensativity and now you feel awful. Why would the body
do this? The exact same reason why why you feel tired. Remember, we evolved from animals
that would just keep going until they went beyond the breaking point and dropped dead
from exhaustion. Hell humans work themselves to death too and don’t listen to their bodies
for that matter. So the body goes, ok you wont rest voluntarily, I’ll make you rest,
even if its inconvenient or dangerous for the animal or person to be sick and in pain.
Sadly the chance of microscopic animals killing you is just as high as large animals killing
you in terms of evolution. So on top of fever and tiredness my mental
capacities were lowered. I was literally dumber. You gave me an IQ test I would have scored
much lower. Processing anything took longer, I had to scale back my expectations of myself
because I was more likely to make a mistake, and going back and double checking was near
impossible. Fact checking, cite sourcing thinking of how people may criticize my videos all
went out the window. It was just impossible to do, just doing something drained me enough,
now ask me to go back and check it again, forget it. Its like it regressed me back to
7 years ago or so when I didn’t actually understand how evidence works and how much
effort was involved. Maybe since that area of the brain wasn’t as enforced it was the
first to shut off. Lucky I had banked a few scripts prior to taking the pills, but there
is one in particular discussing IQ and epigenetics that is just full of wrongness.
It felt like different parts of my brain shut down and I had to cobble together the remaining
parts to come up with a functional brain. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s kind
of what a teenager has to go through when the hormones kick in. It has taken yet another
month after being off the pills to reconnect the dormant parts to the cobbled parts and
figure out the most efficient process of thinking. Also something people probably spend their
twenties trying to do. It wasn’t until a month after being off the drugs that I was
even able to write a good script, until then it was just like I threw words up on the screen
and was kind of proud of what i did considering the effort.
My brain functioned but no where near what I had been capable off of the drugs. I also
became much more animistic in my thinking. I had a chair from college I was planning
on getting rid of, I just didn’t get around to printing up the advertisement signs for
the apartment complex until after I started the drugs. But when I finally did, I felt
serious emotional loss when I thought about losing the chair. We had no use for it, it
was getting in the way, but I had such an emotional attachment to the chair that I couldn’t
bear to get rid of it. The morning after I stopped taking the pills I put up the signs
and didn’t even feel a touch of remorse yet about getting rid of the chair. I discussed
this with michaelpayton67 at the rally who is a PhD in neurology, how it would be interesting
to do an experiment on people who had no problems getting rid of useless items and in fact relished
it, then put them on truvada and see if they had some of the same areas light up as that
of a hoarder. He said that sounded like a really interesting
study, but finding the funding might be difficult. He said sadly being a doctor was a bit discouraging
because you basically get to ask nature one specific question, and you get 5 years of
grants to work solely on it. So in your lifetime as a PhD you get to ask nature around 7 questions
that you may or may not find the answer to. But its the only way we find new things and
with more nations becoming more educated there are even more PhD’s accelerating the speed
of science. Something I HAD to do was get 8 hours of sleep,
if I did not, I would be basically sick in bed with flu symptoms for a day. I was sick
all day the second week and sick 2 days the third week. If you have a choice between anything,
even sex, sleep comes first. Which really didn’t matter because by the final week
my libido was at zero. I think the last time I felt that uninterested in sex was when I
was 10. I find the most interesting thing about taking
the drugs is how easily the body can adapt to change. It might not be at its most optimal,
but it lessens in intensity. The first day I took the drug I felt like I was dying, I
was so sick. Over the next few days my body adjusted to it, as the body detects change
not sensation itself. The anti-inflammatory helped, but much of it was just the body adjusting
to the new normal. I also discovered that drinking lots of water like I do normally
seems to eat away the time release layers faster giving you a large dose all at once
in a day. So I had to drink saturated liquids like vitamin water to hydrate myself. Learning
little tricks like this and following a sleep routine helped out so much.
The day after I stopped taking them i spent the morning feeling violated like some clumsey
idiot had bumbled through my deepest personal details and broke things. My brain on the
drug was like a different person in my mind and I had to get over it. I even ended up
bouncing a rent check which I never do costing me $130. Once I was able to get over it, partitioned
that month away from who I am, I was able to slowly restore brain connections to where
I was before. As I said before, I’ve just now reached near if not 100% of my pre-pill
capabilities, and I’m remembering the enjoyment of writing again. I’ve got a lot of new
scripts and Ideas to write, many times a long break from writing can break some great results
and give you a fresh perspective on everything. Take care everyone!

100 thoughts on “My experience with the HIV drug Truvada and its side effect

  1. I have not taken a side by choosing which theory I liked best. I made my own choice and later discovered there is more truth to the side I believed to be the best to follow for my own health. We are only trying to help people understand this, yet they attack us for it. It does not really bother me, but there is something not right here. It is impossible not to see it if you wish to do so…

  2. You're talking about a clinic definition, not the test itself. We could see similar differences in clinical standards for, say, autism, where the diagnostic result depends on where the line is drawn. Or if you like, drunk driving differs between states based on BAL.

    On the Western blot itself, we can set clinical policies to catch slightly more or slightly fewer false positives, but the test results, chemically, are what they are.

  3. One of Sagan's rules of skepticism is do not go beyond your own level of competence. And you have done so. Conspiracy theorists are people who have the same doubt of a skeptic but with the same understanding of how evidence works of the sheep they claim to hate.

  4. Yes, of course, in the case of tests for seroconversion (antibodies against the virus) anyone challenged with virus can test positive.

    What you might consider is a sort of test concordance. People who test seropositive for antibodies against virus also have viral proteins in their blood, and about a year later start to have virus RNA replication detectable in plasma and DNA provirus in their cells. Then they get sick a few years later, absent any intervention, and progress to AIDS.

  5. Really? Well, I respect Sagan. But remember, sometimes it is the little people who make the difference. No, I do not have a phd, md or whatever. I use my own brain, I do not follow any rules. I decide for myself what I choose to believe in. If you notice, many others are doing the same and this hiv thing is getting bigger and bigger by the day. I am not the scientist, there are others who can do that work for us and they are. I am a thinker and if you want, yes, conspiracy theorist.

  6. I think this is really important, schedir: there is no HIV test. There are testing systems, but the include more than just an ELISA or RIA. There's an assessment of your risk behavior, confirmation by second methods, then monitoring to see if you every develop viremia (virus in the blood). There are a lot of people who test false positive on the ELISA (let's say 1 in 5,000), but they score negative on the secondary test.

  7. Exactly, and I have stories to tell regarding that risk behavior assessment, how I filled it out, things that happened at the clinic..well, it seemed like stuff out of the twilight zone. I am only a soldier in this war, because it is a war. There are people taking these pills or having their life destroyed for no reason, this is a fact the other side does not want to report. I actually thank you for being civil instead of attacking me with insults like everyone else.

  8. What I would ask of you and anyone else who have doubts about whether the current scientific model is valid: Represent your level of knowledge accurately. There's a difference between having doubts about the evidence and, to quote you "Hiv does not cause aids, period! "

    You don't have enough data to be certain, and if you manage to spread this message around widely and loudly, you run the risk of hurting people.

  9. I am tired of people telling me I am responsible for deaths etc etc just because I try to wake people up to this. We need a serious talk about what is going on here and reevaluate the situation, for everyone. The diagnosis never affected me, I was like, if there are pills good, big deal. I took them and got angry when I discovered what I did. Stopped the pills risking possibly my life, now I am doing great along with many others…things need to change for the good, for everyone.

  10. How about Kary Mullis? He won the Nobel for discovering PCR. There are many others but it simply isn't true to say " the only dissenting voices are from contrarians outside of virology". Search for "Why I Quit Hiv with Kary Mullis" and watch the first 6 minutes to hear him explain why, and before you decide he is no longer functioning properly as a scientist watch him get a standing ovation at a 2009 TED talk by searching for "Kary Mullis' next-gen cure for killer infections".

  11. Knowledge takes time and is gained slowly. I wouldn't even try to fly a 747, defuse a bomb or perform open-heart surgery. Will you trust me that molecular biology, diagnostic test development and virology are at least as hard as the other three?

    What may seem un-intuitive to you may have an explanation that you can grasp with more knowledge and experience in a topic. Reassess your own level of expertise, and change your claims into questions. Ask, don't assert.

  12. Sure. I've met Kary Mullis. He was invited speaker at our university. His talk was meant to be about his research institute, but he went off on his multiple alien abductions and the scientific truth about astrology. His credibility with me is low.

    Again, it's fine if you want to cite individual scientists, but why do you think that someone with the name recognition of Mullis has failed to convince the rest of the scientific community? Why hasn't he published any research on this topic?

  13. True, you are correct. I am just the angry activist. How can I trust the same government entities who have been exploiting the people for so long? They have been aware of a cure for cancer for decades. Cannabis oil for example cures cancer, yet the FDA continues to lie when there are countless people cured with this oil! There are many other examples, but with hiv, along with cannabis and cancer, here is another one I have seen with my own eyes. I have had enough…things must change.

  14. It's okay to yell "Fire" if you actually see a fire. It's quite another thing to faintly smell smoke and yell "Fire"; there are other explanations for the smoke.

    I think it's fine if you tell your story to other people, but you have to have the self-restraint not to go beyond what you can actually prove. That's the difference between a role as a responsible skeptic and harming people without good cause.

  15. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Padian, 175 couples, Northern California so likely well-off, not using IV drugs, most not using condoms during much of the study, no seroconversions. Africa, lots of people, largely poor, deemed 'HIV positive' from heterosexual sex. IV drug users challenging their immune systems with lots of contaminants in street drugs, fast track gay lifestyle 70s, 80s, stressing immune system; can you see a correlation? Could 'AIDS' cause 'HIV positive'?

  16. This is exactly why I study naturopathic medicine more than allopathic medicine. My naturopathic protocol for immune health seems to be helping people, including myself. Sometimes it is easier to understand nature and have a personal connection with earth instead of human science. I have no problems with people choosing ARVs if that is their personal choice, I just point out that there might be an alternative for them.

  17. Everyone knows what the HAART drugs do and they are being prescribed to people who do not need them, or at least discover this later after severe side effects including the psychological trauma of the diagnosis. Most scientist will not speak of the dissident point of view…if they do not do it, who else is left except people like us. We are for the good, yet everyone marks us as evil.

  18. You said "the only dissenting voices are from contrarians outside of virology", when Mullis has a Nobel for discovering PCR which doesn't do much for your credibility. I haven't met Kary Mullis but I have attended two conferences where Dr. Etienne de Harven, MD was present. He has authored of over 100 peer-reviewed medical papers on virology, cancer, immunology and electron microscopy and his significant academic postings are too numerous to list here. There are many more, also.

  19. “HIV cannot be responsible for AIDS. After three years of intensive critical studies of the relevant scientific literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion — there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once has such a retrovirus been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology.”

    Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000

    — Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, PhD (tbc.)

  20. (ctd. from previous reply) Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology and a former director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Germany; Recipient of the international Robert Koch award for medical research, 1978

    And there are more.

  21. HIV does not cause AIDS — I'm living proof, tested positive in 1998, zero symptoms. Research, just a little, shows the papers that "prove" HIV causes AIDS prove the opposite: 36% of AIDS patients were HIV positive. The announcement was a classic case of "ipse dixit". The tests are flawed and discriminate against gay men and others singled out for "meds" that kill. Do the homework rather than trust the collaboration between pharma and media. Stop the tests, they are the disease.

  22. There haven't been are clinical trials that show that naturopathic actually works better than placebo. I spend years in the naturopathic realm and it was just a lot of expensive placebos. Plecebo does have an effect but anything I believed would have worked would have had the same effect. Science is set up to prevent biaswe all have biases wired into our brains through evolution. Look up "List of cognitive biases" on wikipedia. If something "seems" to work that is hardly evidence of it working

  23. Well, do you think Feline AIDS causes FIV? Does equine infectious anemia cause EIAV? Does non-human primate AIDS cause SIV?

    We can do with animals what we cannot, ethically, do with humans: infect health animals and see what the effect is. I've done these experiments. A group of perfectly healthy animals, split in half. Identical lifestyles, but one half get the virus injection, the other do not. 90%+ of the injected animals get the disease, 0% of control animals.

  24. If anyone has low CD4 counts it's not considered an illness per se, but if the person is rogue-antibody-positive then immediately has "AIDS" and qualifies for emergency cytotoxic chemotherapy regardless of her well being, just in case. You might just as well amputate both legs to prevent gangrene.

  25. Big pharma will never allow clinical trials for natural products. It is for the same reason they continue to say cannabis has no medical benefits when it is proven to be otherwise, just not through FDA studies. Naturopathic medicine does work, the pharmaceutical industry just hates it for obvious reasons. Chemical medicine is not the only way to go. It was Hippocrates who said "let food be your medicine and medicine be your food". Naturopathic just takes more time and effort on the patients end.

  26. Between all the dirt the pharmaceutical industry has been up to throughout the years, failing to accept cannabis as a valid medicine and being blind to the fact that the oil from this plant is curing people left and right of terminal cancer and other illnesses, you can imagine why I do not trust these people. It is difficult for me to regain trust in an industry which obviously cares more about money than it does helping patients.

  27. Oh and btw, just to clarify. When I speak of naturopathic medicine, I do not mean suppliments and the likes. I agree with you that many "natural" products are a waste of time and useless. I mean real medicine from the earth. When science fails us, where do we turn for our medicine and healing?

  28. "We can do with animals what we cannot, ethically, do with humans" – but what's the point? One hundred and seventy five 'HIV negative' people had sex with one hundred and seventy five 'HIV positive' people for several years, much, perhaps most of this sex without condoms. Zero seroconversions. We were told huge percentages of some African populations were infected by heterosexual transmission; this doesn't fit. Nor does the fact that death rates decreased through the 70s and 80s into the 90s.

  29. Well, let's do some math and see how it comes out. I'll have to make some guesses at numbers. 175 people x 10 years x 50 sexual contacts per year = 87,500 sexual contacts in the whole study. The rates of transmission per contact in heterosexual, stable couples are about 0.001% (Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Sep;8(9):553-63.), so we would expect 0.875 of an infection during the Padian study. In other words, given current estimates for infectivity, it's not surprising the couples remained discordant

  30. Let's now repeat that for South Africa.

    ~32 million adults (65% of 55 million people) x 50 sexual contacts per year = 1.6 billion sexual contacts.

    If all those contacts were hetero and stable, applying the same statistics as before: 0.001% = 16,000 new stable hetero people infected every year. The actual number is a little more than 10 times that. That, of course, is because of the lack of prevention, education, prophylaxis and other high risk behaviors.

  31. You do realise the huge hole in what you have just calculated don't you? How would the number of 'infected' people have ever grown to 65% at the growth rate you propose? 'HIV' would have had to be around for thousands of years. How come nobody noticed it before? I'm sorry but you are simply helping point out quite how ridiculous the orthodox 'HIV'/'AIDS' hypothesis is.

  32. There's so much more wrong with this too. How could these 32 million 'positive' people find 32 million 'negative' people to have these 50 contacts a year with? Does each person have sex with only 'positive' people then switch to only 'negative' people once infected? Or is everyone supposedly orders of magnitude more promiscuous in Africa than anywhere else? Please, wake up, see that this has been a huge cock-up, and join us at Rethinking Aids in trying to do something to correct things.

  33. So what would be the probability of the zero seroconversions observed in Padian's study, then, if your "between 0.04% and 0.38%" figures were correct, then? You'll find it impossibly small. Note Padian was thorough in rooting out drug use which may explain the higher figures found elsewhere. Face it, you apologists for this bankrupt paradigm are the ones in denial, in denial of the fact that none of the empirical data fits the 'HIV'/'AIDS' hypothesis. Wake up!

  34. About two thirds not using condoms at the start, about a third not using condoms at the end; that's enough for anyone without their heads stuck in the sand to see that something is wrong with the idea that being 'HIV positive' is sexually transmittable given zero seroconversions with 175 'HIV positive' people having sex with 175 'HIV negative' people "for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up" (quote from the study itself – not sure where you get 6 or 12 months from).

  35. I am reminded of the following quote from Bill Hicks:

    What happened was Oswald's gun went off, causing an echo to echo through the buildings of Dealey Plaza and the echo went by the limo on the left up into the grassy knoll hitting some leaves causing dust to fly out which 56 witnesses testified was a gun shot, cos immediately… Kennedy's head went over. But the reason his head went over is cause the echo went by the motorcade on the left and he went "What was that?"

    Clutching at straws.

  36. If anyone is reading through these comments wondering what we are going on about here I recommend doing either, or preferably both, of these two things. If you like documentaries search for "House of Numbers"; you'll find this award-wining film on YouTube easily. Some may jump in and try to tell you it quotes people out of context; I have watched the uncut footage, which you can also find on YouTube, and it doesn't. If you prefer text search for ca/aidsquotes and read through that.

  37. Oh Christ, are you trying to claim that questioning the 'HIV' theory of 'AIDS' is a conspiracy theory now? Who are you suggesting I think has conspired with whom? I have always stated that I think this is a cock-up. Even Gallo may be innocent of acting maliciously, and I don't even suspect anyone else of deliberately doing anything ill-intentioned. But it's clear from the empirical data that none of it fits. Look at population growth in Africa increasing through the 70s, 80s and 90s for example.

  38. How did I guess you'd try the old 'quoted out of context' ploy (see the detail of my post)? OK folks, if you have the patience, find the houseofnumbers channel and you'll find all the interviews from people who claimed to be quoted out of context there uncut, if you want to check for yourselves.

  39. Oh, and as for the film being funded "by Simon's internet based AIDS denialist group", “The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis” dates back to before the web existed. They did makle a donation if I recall correctly but neither conceived nor funded the film. At least I use my real name here; I wonder who you are 'eSnout' and who is funding you?

  40. I made a slip thinking eSnout was trying to explain millions of people being infected in Africa with a transmission rate higher than the one he was claiming. I have deleted those posts. If eSnout wants to achieve clarity, rather than just point scoring, I suggest he delete his posts correcting my mistake, then I'll delete this.

  41. Thousands of scientists have seen through the bankrupt 'HIV' theory of 'AIDS'. People will have to do their own research and think for themselves. House of Numbers is a good summary where you can see mainly people from the mainstream, but also dissidents, state their viewpoints and then you can use that as a basis for further research. The aras aidsquotes page I mentioned is good if you prefer to read text. If you look at all that and still think everything is OK here so be it.

  42. You can slip up too. Confusing 0.21% with a probability of 0.21, which is what I did, is a hundredfold error, not a thousandfold error. I acknowledged the slip and deleted my comments. I suggested we delete all this as it doesn't aid the debate but you seem to be gleefully trying to score points. Well I hope it makes you feel great. When you realise, which you will, that you've been hindering this nightmare from ending with all your childishness I expect you will feel less great about it.

  43. The people in denial are those that keep defending this pseudoscience in the face of all the evidence. Gallo's papers have been shown to be fraudulent, everything else is predicated on the pathogenic, exogenous retrovirus myth, the tests have no standards, none of the predictions came to pass e.g. Africa's population growth rates *increasing* right through the 70s, 80s and 90s when 'AIDS' was supposed to be decimating populations, et cetera. God help you when you realise what you have done, sir.

  44. It's really simple. If 282 couple-years of sex produced zero seroconversions in Padian's study, and if fatal 'AIDS' were inevitably caused by 'HIV infection', then each 'positive' person would be expected to die well before they had been likely to have infected anyone so there is no way millions could have been infected in Africa through heterosexual transmission. It's that simple. Try to complicate it if you like to obfuscate the plain truth that the 'HIV'/'AIDS' paradigm is bankrupt.

  45. I don't know, I wasn't in all their bedrooms, and if *you* had read the study you'd know those numbers are not reported there. But we do know many of the couples were not using condoms consistently. It still doesn't add up that there could have been such low transmission rates in this study and yet we are supposed to believe millions of people became 'HIV positive' in Africa through heterosexual sex. And with so many 'infected', why did the rate of population growth increase 70s, 80s, 90s?

  46. There is no evidence for the pathogenic, exogenous retroviral theory, and plenty that people with challenged immune systems, i.e. fast track early 80s gays doing lots of drugs, people in Africa with poor sanitation, intravenous drug users shooting up junk cut with Christ knows what what, et cetera, may be more likely to trigger a so called 'HIV positive' test result. That this indicates infection with a virus which causes immune deficiency is a case of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

  47. "No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up."

    Still plenty of couple-years of condom-free sex without transmission. If you think that fits the idea this is a sexually transmitted disease infecting millions worldwide then so be it. Others, including myself, have a different view.

  48. I'm not trying to doge anything, just broaden the debate. We have Padian showing all this sex and no transmission, which doesn't fit with millions being 'infected' with 'HIV' from heterosexual sex in Africa, which in turn makes little sense when you look how population growth rates continued to increase there through the 70s, 80s and 90s when, if the propaganda had been correct, populations would have been decimated. You are the one in denial, in denial of the fact that the data doesn't fit.

  49. I described it as "the largest study of its kind ever performed into heterosexual transmission of this 'HIV positive' status" – "of its kind" partly refers to the vigour with which she ruled out causes other than sexual 'transmission' of the supposed killer virus, such as by using questionnaires as well as blood tests to eliminate drug users from the study.

  50. Quoting the study itself, "To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of the heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States". Of course there may have been other studies since, and in other countries, but to the best of my knowledge none have been so rigorous in attempting to limit the possibility of infection to sexual, which is why I said "of its kind". In the end it doesn't make a great difference; it was a large enough study for the results to be significant.

  51. With respect, you are telling me there are larger studies. I have already stated that it seems likely to me that, for example in Africa, people will test positive because they have challenged immune systems due to malnutrition. Similarly, in a study in the US where people receive compensation for being involved and are not tested for drugs some junkies may enroll and their self-inflicted immune system bashing injecting cut street drugs would skew the results.

  52. The study is large enough to be statistically significant. I make no claims about it, I just quote its results. And I posit those results are not consistent with millions becoming 'infected' through heterosexual transmission in e.g. Africa, and certainly do not justify the fear of sex drummed into people about this phantom killer virus.

  53. "No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up."

    I am not surprised that you are still denying what is clear to see here. If 'HIV' caused immune deficiency, people would usually die before passing it on sexually at these rates. I posit its more likely that immune deficiency leads to 'HIV positive' test results.

  54. It is you, Sir, saying things like "your knowledge is pathetically inadequate". I quote a large study with statistically significant results and point out that its findings do not fit the hypothesis that this so-called killer virus is spread sexually. That is a reasonable thing to do. I have established to my own satisfaction that other studies do not appear to have been so rigorous in filtering out e.g. drug use so have looked no further into them. Why the ad hominem?

  55. Detected by what? PCR? As you will know, but others may not, the man with a Nobel prize for discovering PCR claims this is a misuse of the technology; if anyone reading wants to know how he came to reject the 'HIV' hypothesis search for "Why I Quit Hiv with Kary Mullis" and watch the first six minutes.

  56. 'nuts', 'ignorance', et cetera; why all the ad hominem? Would it not be more valuable for you to try to explain how *you* think millions could have become 'infected' with this killer virus through heterosexual sex in Africa when none did in Nancy Padian's study? Perhaps because that is very difficult to do, so you get frustrated and decide to type insults instead?

  57. Funny, Creationists also make the same claim about how many scientists have seen through the bullshit that is evolution. Do you hove actual numbers with actual names of denialists & what kind of scientists are these? or is it just a claim made by the internet as an appeal to authority? Its funny I have done my own research and I do think for myself & all of the evidence not cherry picked shows that HIV causes AIDs. Implying people don't do their own research is a fallcy meant to guilt and shame

  58. And while you're at it explain how the populations of many of the countries in Africa said to be most affected have more than doubled since we were told this killer virus was going to decimate populations there. Easier to throw fancy sounding insults around but does it really achieve anything?

  59. As I have explained the term 'denialist' better fits the behaviour of those who seem to refuse to acknowledge that the empirical data does not fit the 'HIV' hypothesis. Search for "IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW” SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?" for quotes with names and qualifications.

  60. The results speak for themselves. I simply posit they are not consistent with 'HIV' being spread sexually and causing 'AIDS', but are more consistent with immune system suppressed people being more likely to test so-called 'HIV positive' given the numbers supposedly infected in Africa. I am not sure what accusations you think I have levelled at anubis2814; would you please quote one to enlighten me? Thank you.

  61. Search for "Fireside Chat w/ Dr. Kary Mullis"; listen to the last five minutes. He does not think it's useful to think in terms of a single retrovirus causing AIDS which is what I meant by suggesting that he considers using PCR to detect HIV1 or any other particular retrovirus is misleading.

  62. You have defined it with undue authority but that hardly makes it true. The internet is the greatest source of incorrect knowledge for an amature who isn't aware of vast volumes of research out there in the scientific community because journals are run on a heafty subscription basis and you can't even grasp the number of scientific papers out there unless you go to an actual university library and search for info. Why the government needs to pay for all science publishing and make it free

  63. I agree with your final point there 🙂 As for the rest, let's get to the crux of the matter. Can you tell me which scientific paper or papers you think show that 'HIV' is the probable cause of 'AIDS'? If more than one give a brief explanation of how they fit together. If you do that we can discuss them. Otherwise it all seems rather Russell's teapot to me I am afraid…

  64. You're right, of course, snout. I was quoting Powers, Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Sep;8(9):553-63.
    "single value for the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 fails to reflect the variation associated with important cofactors. The commonly cited value of 0.001 was estimated among stable couples with low prevalences of high-risk cofactors, and represents a lower bound."

    I should have clarified that this is essentially the "best case" scenario, which is what Padian would have been targeting.

  65. "Pooled" is a problem, though, when talking about risk factors. The risk isn't spread evenly. People in early stage disease, without comorbidities, with education and counseling; and I'm describing the inclusion criteria from Padian et al, are tens of times less likely to transmit, or hundreds of times less in the case of effective use of prophylaxis.

    I think that's the most useful way to view the discordance between an intervention study and African epidemiology. Thoughts?

  66. We say you are the ones in denial. Even if you were right and this thing was infectious enough to infect millions of people in Africa through heterosexual transmission, how do you explain the fact that not only did the population keep increasing in those countries most affected, the rate of increase of the population was also increasing through the 70s, 80s and into the 90s. The empirical data simply does not fit the pathogenic, exogenous retroviral hypothesis.

  67. Um because HIV is a very efficient long term propogator. Ebola virus whipes out a village but it kills all of its hoasts. HIV is difficult to spread (1 in 200 sexual encounters) but has a long time to propogate. It plays cat and mouse with the immune system until the immune system becomes too weak but it has years and many many encounters to spread itself. You are your healthist during your child bearing years when the immune system can attack, so of course the population will keep rising.

  68. Wow thats amazing! The creationists have a similar list, of completely unqualified people who are outside of the actual field. One of the red flags to spot a pseudo-scientist is that they aren't in the actual field they are criticizing, as they don't have a lot of the foundational understanding of the field that someone trained in it would find just obvious, but an outsider training in something else would not. But hey anyone trained in the field is just a corporate schill right?

  69. I expect what you would recognise as research into 'HIV' or 'AIDS' would be research from the perspective of believing in the killer virus mumbo jumbo. Clearly many of us, including myself, have been researching 'HIV' and 'AIDS'; I have certainly put more time and effort into this topic than I ever did into getting my mathematics degree from Cambridge. What you are asking for would seem to be a bit like expecting those doubting the infallibility of the Pope to be Catholic priests.

  70. There isn't enough space in these comments to explain fully; I suggest you read through the Wikipedia page on "statistically significant". An example is used there that "tossing 3 coins and obtaining 3 heads would not be considered an extreme result. However, tossing 10 coins and finding that all 10 land the same way up would be considered an extreme result [and] therefore be considered statistically significant evidence that the coins are not fair" cf. the number of couples in Padian's study.

  71. I visited South Africa many times during the first few years of the 2000s and saw for myself a rapid deterioration of basics such as electricity and water supply. Outages were increasing; something was clearly going wrong with the infrastructure. OK for people like me in the best hotels drinking bottled water but not good for the heath of those struggling in the shanty towns. Decreases in life expectancy can be caused by many things; to imply this proves your phantom sex virus exists is absurd.

  72. Question to you. How long do you estimate you would have survived on Truvada if you had been prescribed it for the rest of you life?

  73. Padian demolished? ZERO hiv transmissions is a number very hard to spin, but it doesn't mean the establishment won't keep trying. ZERO as in ZIP, NADA, NULL.

  74. I've never heard of anyone having these side effects. This whole video sounds totally bogus. These side effects you claimed you had aren't even known side effects of Truvada. You must be a total hypochondriac

  75. You do realize that not all people are equal, there is a reason many drugs stay off the market, because not everyone can use them. Genetic testing will increase our understanding and variability. I'm super-sensative to medication in general. I'm very glad you didn't have to experience what I did. I had anti-anxiety meds at one point and had to chop the pill in 8ths and take 3/8ths a day otherwise I got stomach and muscle cramps. Otherwise I'm normally super healthy just not with drugs.

  76. That is true. I just feel that your video portrays a valuable and usually well-tolerated medication as basically a poison. One has to be careful when posting videos on youtube. You could frighten someone from taking a medication that could very well save their life.

  77. Hence why I told them coping mechanisms I used to deal with it as well as why it was so important to take it even though it sucked horribly for me.

  78. It's interesting how these drugs make the patient feel feverish and sluggish when they want to be cure of these symptoms.

  79. Hi, I'm writing a blog about my experience taking PEP Post-exposure prophylaxis https://takingpostexposureprophylaxis.wordpress.com

  80. The window of therapeutic efficacy will close down on truvada and once again the gay community will reel from the destructive force of the ever changing and morphing HIV.

  81. The reason hiv and aids is increasing in Africa is because those infected infect others without mercy. am from uganda and have seen this going on from beginning of 90s.

  82. I am starting to wonder, if these symptoms are the just sign that the body immune systems is fighting the virus, what about these meds? would they not weaken the immune systems over the time? I mean we know medications of any kind are harmful to our body over an extended period of prolonged use,liver,kidneys and heart. so what makes these doctors or people taking the meds so sure that the immune system could not fight itself against the virus if these HIV patients use the natural way to strengthen their immune systems instead? all we heard from these medical doctors is " if you got sick/ or HIV, you must take meds to get well. but why don't we heard from these doctors about eating right, plenty of good nutrients with vitamins and working out helps instead. it's strange no one heard of such disease during our great grand parents time. And how accurate is the HIV test? How much do we know what kills these HIV patients? the meds or the virus itself?

  83. I am currently on pep for 30 days. I am NOT experiencing any side affects. Just be sure to take it with food

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *