============================
Sort:
Oldest First

For all those in doubt please read on of the many articles out there about the claims made by CriticNYC

http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art52090.html
Report
BY NETSURFER on 12/03/2009 at 9:48am

Those in doubt please read the actual science in science journals, which is not beyond the average mortal. Please realize that almost all media coverage is written with mauve spectacles on, from the New York Times on down.

The press have no business taking sides in a difficult scientific dispute in their reporting, which should be objective and report both sides without assuming that the critics are wrong, especially given the remarkably high credentials of Peter Duesberg, the leading critic for 22 years and an important researcher whose own research has never been questioned, unlike that of Robert Gallo, whose claim to have discovered HIV was rejected by the Nobel committee last year.

It is important to go to the science journals and make up your own mind, and not blindly credit the journalism of mainstream reporters, who are not permitted by the editors or by the politics of the situation even to mention the peer reviewed rejection of HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Creditably New York magazine and David France do not include a put down of critics of HIV/AIDS, as most pieces on AIDS issues do. A legitimate concern is presented in an informative manner which raises some serious questions faced by the HIV theory for 22 years, and never answered except with politics and personal attacks.

Not only has HIV has never been proved as the cause of AIDS, but the science continually provides this kind of evidence that the theory is wrong. But the issue is buried by very antagonistic politics, extremely one sided media coverage, official ignorance (officials do not read the science journals for themselves), charity hoopla and patient trust based on the assumption that the established science must be right, and the critics must be Web wackos.

Please read the science, and think for yourself, and not simply trust the cacophony in the media all of it filtered through mauve spectacles.
Report
BY CRITICNYC on 12/04/2009 at 9:50am

Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0YjQyXeGM======================================

Newest First

It is clear what you believe, Netsurfer, and it is a sad thing that what you believe is not backed up by all the science of AIDS that we know to date, if we read the journals and the studies they report in peer reviewed articles. Granted we have to examine even peer reviewed articles carefully for errors, because in AIDS all of them rest on the same unquestioned belief that you have that HIV causes AIDS, of which there has been no proof in 25 years, not even any good suggestion as to how it could possibly happen, and a number of expert reviews of the evidence say it is absolutely inconceivable, and all the drugs you suffer and want pregnant mothers and children to suffer under this supposition are misdirected, and all the suffering is for nothing.

When you look at the world through mauve spectacles, the world will appear mauve. If you want to take off your spectacles and have another objective look this time, you will, according to the best science, find it is a different color. The best science says you are misled in your firm faith and that you mislead others by trying to sell them on it, rather than conventional approaches to their ailments.

This appears very very unlikely to you because almost the entire medical and scientific community also take it for granted that HIV causes AIDS. But you underestimate the enormous grip an accepted wisdom has on people’s minds. It is very hard in a large group even in science to go against the shared premise on which all work is done. But you are probably unaware of how strongly internal politics distorts science, and how much many people depend on the status quo for their careers and funding.

This is not cynicism, it is just a reality which is not widely appreciated.
Report
BY CRITICNYC on 11/30/2009 at 7:31pm

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-30-sa-faces-major-crisis-over...

If you gave a choice to these parents of the poor orphans of dying sooner without ARVs as opposed to later on ARVs what do you think would their answers be irrespective of the toxicity of the drugs offered and that they will eventually cause their deaths but will also lengthen their lifespan and see their children grow up ?

I can tell you that every parent would take the ARVs, suffer the bad side effects but still appreciate the extra 20, 30 40 years of life with their children instead of 0 leaving them orphaned.

Is my testimony in your eyes an anecdote. I suppose so but to others who are newly infected and need advice it can be encouraging, hopeful that their future may not be all too bleak after all. That there are people out there doing OK at the moment on ARVs.

I am not just one individual who is doing well on ARVs. There are many, many of us out there.

As for what I am taking and what dosage, why is that so important to you anyway ? In your eyes every ARV out there is poison so it doesn’t matter. So I won’t tell.

As I said previously, get on a plane and visit us here and see for yourself firsthand what HIV does. And if taking poison lets us live a few years longer than dying tomorrow, so be it.

BY NETSURFER on 11/30/2009 at 4:46pm

So we should ignore all of journal science and statistics for the testimony of one man who claims that he is doing very well on drugs, without specifying which, or what dose, contrary also to the article we are discussing here by David France showing how some people have their faces health and lives effectively destroyed by this regime?

People vary in their reactions to any substance, so we can be delighted by your unusual story, and happy for you, but still point out that the general experience with ARVs has been that health does not survive, and nor does the patient in the end, if the CDC is telling us the truth and the deaths remain at 17,000 a year, despite these wonder pills.

In science your story is known as an anecdote and though as people we are always very impressed with the anecdotes of individual experience we go to the peer reviewed journals and their studies to find out what is happening in general.

The story of AIDS drugs is plain to any outside reader. They are toxic to most people, in varying degrees, and eventually fatal to many.

By criticnyc on 11/30/2009 at 2:31pm

Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#comment_list_top#ixzz0YNBe3gTg

“Started ARVs in July 2005. No side effects. Health completely back to normal. Never looked back. Don’t want to go back to sleeping on towels again ((he suffered from night sweats and wasted away to a skeleton of his previous self, he says)). If I had not started my ARVs I probably would have been dead by now.”

Here is the thread again, on which his post now sits atop to counter any of the science in journals that might say otherwise:
============================
MOST RECENT POST FIRST:

To all those so called “experts” who believe HIV does not exist. Please come and visit us in South Africa.

Come join the non-stop funerals to the rapidly filling cemetaries where the young people are being buried every weekend. Come see the homes where only children live because their parents have died. People who have never used ARVs because they have no access to them.

Come see a nation who cannot have the finger pointed at for malnutrition, drugs, being gay etc, that is dying before your eyes. A nation who is far better off now than before the days that HIV arrived here. Where the successful up and coming generation who is meant to be building this country are dying instead.

I myself am a white, heterosexual man from an upper middle class background. Never did drugs. Always looked after my health. Never malnourished in my life. No gay contact whatsoever. Everything the denialists claim, I did not do. Was diagnosed HIV+ in 2003. Did my best to stay healthy through good nutrition, excercise etc. everything that should have defeated the HIV according to our Nobel winner in his interview. However by Febuary 2005 I had wasted away 67 pounds (30kgs) to a skeleton of my previous self. My CD4 was 96 because I was in denial that I would be OK. My night sweats were so bad I had to sleep on towels every night and wash them the following to avoid soaking my mattress.

Started ARVs in July 2005. No side effects. Health is completely back to normal. Never looked back. Will I stop taking my meds ? Never. Don’t want to go back to sleeping on towels again. If I had not started my ARVs I probably would have been dead by 2006.

Do I worry about long term side effects as in the article above ? Yes of course. But at least I will have a relatively normal life with my beautiful wife who BTW is also HIV+

By Netsurfer on 11/29/2009 at 2:19pm
————–

That’s not all, it continues:

….a cell killing disease that also causes cell multiplying cancer, with no trace of the virus in the cancer; and a disease said to be a killer epidemic in Haiti and South Africa, with no significant change in overall mortality, and long endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, where a population explosion has nonetheless added 250 million people in two decades.

Lets pause for a breath before we complete the list, for that is hardly all. We also have to believe in an epidemic mapped in Africa by the World Health Organization almost entirely without the benefit of AIDS tests, which themselves are problematic; a viral epidemic uniquely without initial exponential growth or bellshaped rise and fall; a viral epidemic which has not found immunity anywhere; a killer disease where no doctor, nurse or researcher working with it has caught the disease; a disease with risk group, lifestyle, and malnutrition specific symptoms; a disease whose every symptom is shared with other diseases–in fact, a disease which would in every case be counted as those other diseases except for the supposed presence of antibodies to the virus that causes AIDS; a viral epidemic without a sign of a promising vaccine despite the best funded army of researchers in history; a viral disease which quickly achieves the antibodies of vaccination of its own accord; and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic among children.

None of these factors has significantly changed in the eight years since, believe it or not, and together they show that only people whose minds are halted by social and career conformity, intake of drugs especially AIDS drugs, or sheer terror in the face of what they have been told, can believe in HIV. No one with an education has any excuse for following this blatantly silly conventional scientific wisdom.

All they have to do is change their belief to HIV does not cause AIDS, and see that AIDS is other threats to health mislabeled and mistreated, and all these paradoxes vanish.

By criticnyc on 11/26/2009 at 11:16pm
—————————

Popping up like a jack in the box to repeat the same uninformed insults, DeShong has the right to believe what he wishes, but we have a right to examine what it is. Evidently he thinks the drugs are the elixir of life, despite David France’s finding so much evidence that they do serious damage to patients including cognitive malfunction, which DeShong may or may not be suffering from, since he has taken drugs for some time, though his doctor lightened the intake to try to save him from side effects, his blog aimed at Dumbees tells us.

But since he enthuses for the drugs based on his faith in the current global belief that HIV is the cause of serious and eventually fatal immune system problems, let’s list what he has to believe in to go along with this view, according to a 2001 conference talk, The Scorn of Heretics easily found with Google:

As Duesberg has pointed out again and again, to believe in AIDS, we have to believe in a infectious viral disease where the virus’s rate of infection (1 in 500 sexual contacts) is outdone by the rate of human impregnation (1 in 10); a cell killing retrovirus, when otherwise retroviruses never kill cells; indeed, a virus provided to labs in immortal cultures of the same T cells it is said to kill off; a fatal virus that cannot easily be found in most patients, even dying ones, only antibodies
to it; a disease where patients merely with antibodies can nevertheless die of the disease; a disease whose nature varies from place to place, being almost exclusively a homosexual and drug user ailment in North America and Europe, but heterosexual elsewhere; a disease that correlates with drug use in North America and Europe, yet is alleviated or prevented by a bowl full of other damaging and lethal drugs, never proved to be directly helpful; a disease whose mechanism, including an up-to-twenty year delay in onset, is as yet quite unexplained; cont.

By criticnyc on 11/26/2009 at 10:34pm
————————–

Last time for critic. You are a major hypocrite and liar. You are the one pushing an agenda full of ad hominem attacks as I pointed out time and again. Also, just stop with the crazy “people are dying from the meds” when in FACT as this article AGAIN points out, people are LIVING BECAUSE of the meds 20+ extra years. The side effects are a direct result of these LIFE SAVING medications.
Also, nice deflection by NOT stating ANY personal experiences of your own. My personal experiences go DIRECTLY to the tone and facts of this very article that proves these drugs save lives! You just make yourself look more petty and stupid by trying every denialist tactic in the denialist play book. Why is that? Why do you insist on pushing your agenda which is self serving in the short run and killing others in the long run?
Any one wanting to read more about the major denialists and their tactics of fact manipulation and flat out lies, as well as their lack of integrity and humanity, need only go to my blog, dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com. I spell it all out in a no non~sense, take no prisoners style of gorilla warfare!
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/21/2009 at 8:04pm
——————————–

DeShong deserves to be called an “amateur” if as readers here can easily check almost all of what he writes is not scientific argument and information but an endless series of ad hominem insults to HIV/AIDS critics as “denialists”. etc etc. as below, and if what little he offers as counter argument derives its authority only from his own personal experience of HIV drugs much less toxic than the ones we are discussing.

Professional scientists do not display their prejudice in every line they write, they review the reasoning and the evidence for their belief. If they have bias (many do) they at least have the sense to conceal it. Of course, the sad thing about HIV/AIDS is some of the leading scientists in this tortured sphere do insult their critics by calling them “denialists” rather than respect their objections, perhaps because they have no genuine answers.

With so many lives at stake in this realm it is irresponsible to dismiss doubts about the validity of the belief on which toxic regimens are based as “denialist” etc etc as if critics were denying the Holocaust. Mainstream scientific beliefs have often proved to be wrong, especially in medicine and biology – Nobels are constantly being won by people who rejected the majority view and pointed to a better understanding.

To muddy discussions with incessant ad hominem smearing of the critics’ judgment without seriously examining what they say and write is an insult to all who take seriously critical questioning of HIV/AIDS that has appeared in the leading peer reviewed scientific journals, and the very distinguished scientist who risked his career stating what he and many others believe is the truth, Peter Duesberg.

It is also an insult to those who suffer much worse side effects than DeShong, 17,000 of whom die each year in the US.

By criticnyc on 11/20/2009 at 6:25pm
————————-

For Geosanfran if you want to read about people, such as myself who have been on meds for10, 15, 20+ years without the side effects mentioned in this article, go to POZ magazine (on line and hard print) as well as The Body.com.
The sites criticnyc points to above are other AIDS Denialists who have a set agenda and are not scientists nor healthcare providers and in most cases are not even HIV+ and cannot speak directly to any side effects as they are not even in the position to have to decide to take meds or not.
One should ask themselves why these people who are not poz and by their own admission do not even know poz people, “why are you so involved in this issue?”
They are usually cranks and malcontents who believe in all manner of conspiracies or are just anti~establishment in any sense and feel the need to be involved in areas they have no knowledge, no experience and no expertise.
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/19/2009 at 10:30am
—————————————-

Criticnyc, says that I am an “amateur” and yet he does not know anything about. Well, except that I have been on HIV Meds for 15 years with zero side effects. Critic is a hypocrite because he dismisses my first hand personal experience, all the while directing others to stories of people living without HIV Meds. Why? Because critic has an agenda and cannot see his/her own lack of logic.
Also, I would argue further that I am not an amatuer in that I have two degrees in Science. I have worked in research, both in~vivo and in~vitro. I have also worked in research with immuno~assay machines. I am also a health care provider working in a laboratory performing every diagnostic test a major hospital offers.
I wonder about critic. He/She is not even HIV+. Now who is the amateur?
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/19/2009 at 10:20am
—————————————

“But, such a study will never take place. Big Pharma is who funds studies. They have no interest in the excellent health of non-med takers.”

Indeed, there have never been any placebo control groups in AIDS drug studies since the early AZT studies, the first of which was called to a halt when it was decided that the drug must do some good, even though the study was a mess with some people giving the placebo group the AZT.

To quote from scienceguardian.com:

“With placebo control groups this venomous drug nonsense would have halted years ago. Instead it continues with an annual death rate of 17-22,000 in the US.

Ever since this abdication of scientific integrity began gays have clamored for drugs before they have been assessed by science and proved anything but harmful, and the NIAID-drug company complex has been delighted to follow their lead over the cliff. All involved suffer from the most elementary misapprehension, that their supposition that the drugs are beneficial justifies researchers not bothering to check if that is true or not.

Exit science, exit sense, exit all normal protections of the medicated patient from charlatans, liars and exploiters of other human beings for personal and professional gain.

In other words, a new Church in science, which administers the communion of deadly Kool-Aid to its flock. We write Kool-Aid because all the evidence is that HIV is harmless, inert, and provides zero justification for any treatment of any kind, and that the drugs have a damaging and eventually lethal effect on the patients, starting with the disruption of their normal thinking processes, so that they more easily swallow this kind of guff, officially peddled by NIAID and all its fellow travelers in the press, none of whom seem willing or capable of reading the science for themselves.”

With the notable exception of David France, that is.

By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 4:09pm
———————————

I don’t doubt that meds lower viral load… but at what cost? Someone who starts meds very late probably DOES have a worse prognosis, but that is simply comparing one faulty group to a more faulty one.

If you want really useful numbers, compare the prognosis of med takers (at any CD4 count) to people who NEVER take meds. I’ll argue the med takers have a worse prognosis, and undoubtedly will be wrack with a myriad of ailments for the rest of their days, while the non-med takers simply live normal healthy lives. But, such a study will never take place. Big Pharma is who funds studies. They have no interest in the excellent health of non-med takers.

By tyrexden on 11/18/2009 at 2:53pm
—————————————

Incidentally it should be stated that AZT is not the only cause of the fat redistribution among HIV/AIDS drug takers, that is, the unwitting patients uselessly fed these damaging and eventually lethal medications. The literature tells us are common accompaniments to another NRTI, d4T (stavudine), as well as protease inhibitors.

It is time for all the patients who plead so movingly for mercy yet whose minds are occupied by the “of course I will take the drugs” to reassess, read and try to think for themselves, however vulnerable they feel and thus emotionally obliged to trust their doctors and the standard regimen based on the standard science.

In this case the doctors are being misled by the scientists who are misled by their leaders, and the peer reviewed literature of the science would tell them so very clearly if they trouble to read it. All the problems and impossibilities of the current belief are acknowledged in the journals and books written by the leaders of the field, which they do not make clear in their public statements.

Instead they rely on amateurs such as Mr Deshong to make their spurious case that HIV/AIDS is soundly based scientific thinking and the critics are lying.

By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 2:19pm
——————————————

“those who try to get others to either stop taking their HIV Meds or not take them at all by spreading lies and misinformation and those who downplay the benefits of these meds” says Mr DeShong, while the patient GEOSANFRAN pleads for mercy with “I try — and want — to stay informed. But articles this confusing — and which leave me feeling depressed — make me want to (of course) keep taking my meds, but quit reading articles about my condition.”

“Of course” he must take his medications, and believe that the critics who say they are useless, misdirected and dangerous are merely spreading “lies and misinformation”? Really?

All who have an interest here, especially patients on the drugs should go read the journal literature and that of the critics for themselves before joining in this easy dismissal of complaints in this realm, which have been going on for 22 years now without cease.

There is a reason for their longevity, which is that the evidence is overwhelming that they are right. Read duesberg.com, scienceguardian.com, virusmyth.com and the other sites of this criticism and at least look at the original papers, it is not so impossible for any educated person to see that this is not another 9/11 horde of irrational crackpots but a collection of intelligent and informed people who rely on good science in their rejection of the conventional wisdom.

By criticnyc on 11/18/2009 at 2:18pm
—————————————

“Do I REALLY have a 64% to 94% chance of dying early”

No, you most certainly do not. The article misleadingly does not discuss the difference between RELATIVE risk and ABSOLUTE risk. In the cohort study being cited, the risk of dying was VERY LOW FOR EVERYONE (sorry for shouting, but this problem of articles muddling relative and absolute risks is very common and very annoying). Among the people who started treatment with a CD4 count 351-500 it was 1.6 deaths per 100 person-years, those who started at a count over 500 it was 1.3 deaths per 100 person-years. The supposed 64% increase in the risk of death associated with deferred treatment in the 351-500 group was RELATIVE to 1.6 deaths per 100 person-years, which comes out to an increase to 2.6 deaths per 100 person-years. The supposed 94% increase in risk of death associated with deferred treatment in the over 500 group was relative to the 1.3 figure, which comes out to an increase in risk to 2.5 deaths per 100 person years.

I think in simpler terms it’s the difference between roughly 98-99 out of 100 people being fine versus 97 out of a 100 people being fine over a year of follow up. It’s not irrelevant, as it suggests that in large cohorts of people earlier treatment would prevent a significant number of deaths. But the vast majority of people in the study did fine whether they initiated therapy early or not. And the risk of death is not randomly distributed, there are other risk factors such as older age, hepatitis C coinfection and a history of injection drug use.

By TeeD on 11/17/2009 at 7:45pm
———————————————

I’m SO CONFUSED when I read this article. My doctor did not put me on meds until I was at CD4 200 (actually just under). That was two years ago, and my immune system has been steadily rebuilding since. I’ve tolerated the meds perfectly, and seem to be way healthier then any of my non HIV+ friends. They get colds and flu, I don’t. But when I read this article, I am wondering A.) Do I REALLY have a 64% to 94% chance of dying early because I DIDN’T start the meds earlier, or B.) Do I now stand a better chance of avoiding dementia, bone deterioration, or organ failure because I DIDN’T start the meds earlier? HIV/AIDS is undoubtedly a conundrum, and living with it is a conundrum.

I try — and want — to stay informed. But articles this confusing — and which leave me feeling depressed — make me want to (of course) keep taking my meds, but quit reading articles about my condition. It would be nice if these articles could be written — presenting the issues — without reiterating the consequences in the most alarming and dire manner. Because it becomes very hard for people living with HIV and AIDS to keep a positive and forward-thinking attitude when constantly faced with articles written in this manner. Even the photos accompanying this article were taken in a purposefully artistic style to make the subjects look older, more gaunt, almost mono-chromatic, super sharp focus showing every wrinkle. If Brad Pitt were photographed with that lighting and style, he’d look bad. I don’t want to bury my head in the sand about my condition and prognosis, but by the same token, I don’t want to have my head hit by a 2×4 every time I come out of the sand to seek more information. It would be nice to see an article — more articles — that also show people with HIV/AIDS succeeding on their meds, living normal life, not succumbing to side effects.

By geoSanFran on 11/17/2009 at 3:38pm
—————————————

Without stating it implicitly, the article is pretty clear that all these symptoms are due to the meds and depression.

“liver disease? kidney disease? heart disease”? The article cites those very things as the main killers of poz people. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that those diseases have nothing to do with immune suppression and everything to do with taking the toxic meds.

Bone loss? Article cites the meds as the culprit.
Dementia? no Hiv found in the brain. Article cites depression the culprit.

Hey… if you want to take the meds… if they do something for you that makes you feel better… Have at it. Swallow the whole bottle for all i care. I’m just sick of hearing of people dying of these very specific maladies, and blaming the death on “hiv/aids-related” disease. It ridiculous.

People on meds are bothered by denialists because it makes them question their own course of action. Well guess what… I have a right NOT to take the meds, and i have the right to continue to be in picture perfect health without them, and if that bothers you, …well, actually i’m sorta glad.

By tyrexden on 11/16/2009 at 4:47pm
—————————————–

I only despise those who actively and agressively perpetuate the lies that HIV is either harmless or does not exist at all! As well as those, such as stormtrooper, who make such ad hominem attacks. Baseless attacks.
OR those who try to get others to either stop taking their HIV Meds or not take them at all by spreading lies and misinformation and those who downplay the benefits of these meds.
This article points out that these people would be dead if not for these meds, but there are those here who gloss over this fact and scream that the meds made them sick. That is the case, but they were given an extra 15, 20 plus years of life first.
Let’s not forget that there are also those, such as myself, who have been on meds for 15 years straight and do not experience these side effects.
This disease is not black and white.
We can only improve the medications when these Denialists come to terms with the truth and stop lying and spreading misinformation.
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/15/2009 at 10:18am
——————————————-

I tell people that I need help and they say “but you seem fine to me”. I don’t even know what fine means. There is no help and I am afraid and alone. Even my therapist says he does not know how to help.

It is hard to smile when you don’t have any teeth or when you feel like you’re literally walking on broken glass. Hope is a luxury I cannot afford much like food.

Just reading these comments is the ultimate example of people talking instead of listening. Lots of comments that say absolutely nothing. I am so tired of people and their free advice.

I’m not going to join “Facebook” either I’m not interested in social scenes.

Thank you for the article these things are not the typical magazine fare.

By shade on 11/15/2009 at 8:01am
————————————-

I do not understand why people do not give up HIV drugs. The hiv drugs not only deformed hiv+ people’s body but also make them disable and very ill !!!! How virus which destroying our immune system can be related to dementia? You don’t need a degree to see something is wrong with this theory!

The drugs are changing our body and make us disable and Drugs Company have massive profits!!!!

I know someone who give up drugs and now have a good quality life all what hiv+ people should do is improve diet and try to boost immune system by healthy lifestyle.

The hiv drugs should be the last option- how you can stay healthy by putting toxins and poisons twice a day to your body?

By krisc on 11/14/2009 at 8:00pm
——————————————-

Is it my imagination, or does Mr/Ms (?) shong despise everyone who opposes his own personal viewpoint?

By stormtrooper14 on 11/14/2009 at 4:19pm
———————————————–

Please notice how critic tries to claim that I am twisting this article, as I have already accused him of doing. However, please also notice that critic does not provide any proof. Just ad hominem accusatons of my “dementia”.

I, on the other hand, point to the proof of this very article in which David France describes people on the brink of death and regain their lives and live many years. These people get to experience years of life that they would never have been afforded without these meds. The point of the article is that we need meds that are not as toxic with 20 years of daily use. Criticny would have us believe that HIV Meds kill, they have zero benefit and all HIV Scientists are only in this for the money. Come on, criticny, just stop your one sided lies and try and be part of the solution.

JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/14/2009 at 3:51pm
—————————————–

“It clearly demonstrates that HIV Meds have brought millions of people back from the brink of death and enabled them to live 10, 15 and 20 years longer than they would have! This article demonstrates that these meds have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions as well.”

J Todd DeShong here clearly demonstrates the effects of the drugs on the mind, since he “twists” the obvious lesson of the carefully written piece by David France until it still has its feet planted facing south, as it were, but now its head (in Mr Deshong’s mind) facing north.

The drugs certainly seem to have this effect quite often, given the fact that so many people continue to take them, suffer the side effects described by France and Stokely, yet swear by them as if they were the elixir of health.

This extraordinary psychology reminds one of the Reverend Jones, and his distribution of poisonous Kool Aid to his flock. In his case, there were also some who tried to escape, though few made it.

What difference is there between Dr Fauci, the widely respected and followed leader of NIAID AIDS drug advice, and the misguided Mr Jones? Is it possible that this dedicated public servant has been taken in by bad science, as much as the patients who follow his advice through their personal physicians?

When all this is sorted out, the friends and families of those who have died under the current NIAID regime will be asking these kind of questions, will they not? And will they not be asking why it is that the major media, led by the New York Times, have not covered a scientific debate even handedly, but have taken sides, in a matter in which almost all reporters and editors have not studied objectively for themselves?

The media have no business showing bias in their coverage of an internal scientific debate as long as it involves respectable scientists on both sides.

By criticnyc on 11/14/2009 at 2:43am
——————————————-

Stromtrooper14 you are just as disingenuous as Stokely. The fact that she claims to have tolerated the meds very well and then to do a 180 shows that she has no integrity and a clear agenda.
You, Stokely and critic are all trying to divert attention away from the facts of this article. It clearly demonstrates that HIV Meds have brought millions of people back from the brink of death and enabled them to live 10, 15 and 20 years longer than they would have! This article demonstrates that these meds have dramatically improved the quality of life for millions as well.

It is ALSO about needing newer, less toxic drugs because these meds have extended life! Also, stop glossing over the fact that there are many meds out there which are much, much less toxic than AZT and the initial nucleoside analogues. We now have medications that utilize four completely different modes of action from enzymes to aspects of the virus itself. There are also other meds currently being developed that utilize other aspects such as Nef protein of the T~Cell itself and using dendritic cells as super APC’s (Antigen Presenting Cells).

So please stop diverting attention from the life saving aspects of these medications by telling your re~tooled stories in your twisted agenda. There are medications out there that are less toxic. When I myself started on Reyataz and Truvada I did not experience one single day of adjustment side effects and yet my TCells continued to increase and my Viral Load continued at undetectable levels.

My advice is if a person is experiencing terrible side effects is to change regimines until you find what works for you. Do not believe that these few exceptions are the rule because they are not.
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/13/2009 at 8:53pm
—————————————-

Listening to Mrs Stokely’s interview with Mr Null, I did not find her to ASK or TELL anyone to stop taking their drugs. I also did not find her to be giving out any sort of “advice”.
She is just relating her own experiences with them. As far as I know, we still live in a free country, with freedom of speech.

As far as her saying that she “tolerated them pretty well”, as per another interview I heard her on, she made that statement very clear.
By “tolerating them well”, they didn’t KILL her after 11 yrs. I’d say that’s “tolerating them” extremely well. She went on to clarify this by describing the other HIV positives that she spoke with on her local speaker’s panel. She stated that these people were on oxygen, in wheelchairs, and going blind.

Most of my friends died after less than two years on the drugs, including AZT. I’ve been HIV positive since 1988 and have never taken these drugs. I just intuitively knew early on that this was not a good idea.

The bottom line here is that her pictures speak for themselves. Volumes!
As one of my favorite performers used to sing…..”every picture tells a story don’t it”.

Keep sharing your story Mrs Stokely! People need to realize that there is another side to this debate, and we need to have freedom of choice and access to all the information.

By stormtrooper14 on 11/13/2009 at 7:36pm
——————————————-
Ms. Stokely, What “jig” is up? Why are you pushing people to stop or NOT take HIV meds when you, at one time claimed in your own words, that you “tolerated the meds very well”?
Why have you changed your story?
Are you really so sure that HIV is harmless that you feel it is OK to give such advice? Especially when you NOR ANY of the Denialist “scientists” have ever done research with HIV?
It would seem to me that to give such potentially deadly advice you would have bit more to go on than just your so called experience which has changed per your very own words.
JTD

By jtdeshong on 11/13/2009 at 3:27pm
—————————————–

Regrettably it appears that a software glitch has interfered with my last two posts. Perhaps the Webmaster could remove them.

The correct post to be added is this one:

It should be added that AZT was removed from two of the four drug regimens recommended by the NIH in 2006, and the page has been updated since December 2008 so that of the six HAART regimens now advised, none contain AZT.

So AZT is no longer included in the drugs advised for HIV/AIDS patients by the NIH.

No doubt this will result in a temporary improvement in the health of HIV/AIDS patients on AIDS drugs, and the NIH will claim that this shows that the most recent additions to the drug lineup are a great advance on the older ones.

As David France’s excellent article suggests, however, what is needed however is a study of HIV positive people who do not take any of the drugs, and this is precisely what NYU has now initiated. The study will try to establish what distinguishes these long term non progressives from the rest.

Dare one suggest that it may be because they do not accept the reigning belief that HIV is a dangerous virus that causes the immune deterioration of AIDS, and that their skepticism is vindicated by their continued good health?

Not if one wants to avoid being called a “denialist” by Mr Deshong. But this would otherwise appear to be the sensible conclusion, would it not?

By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:20pm
—————————————–

But Mr Deshong’s point (that he looks good after years on AIDS drugs) was answered by my reply below. He is not on AZT. There is no AZT at all in his medications, by his own assertion.

Those on AZT are the ones to suffer “buffalo humps” etc sometimes in weeks. Then the doctors allow them to go on drug “holidays” or less obnoxious drugs. In this, they acknowledge what David France suggests – the drugs cause the symptoms, and perhaps not HIV at all, which has never been demonstrated to do anything in any controlled study.

It may be hard for respectable members of this society to believe that scientists have their own agenda, and can mislead the public by sweeping fatal critiques of their well funded wisdom under the carpet, but a moment’s thought will tell you that there is no difference between ambitious scientists and the leaders of any other academic field, in all of which this behavior is notorious.

No one likes to be displaced in their successful career, when their authority has been recognized by promotion to high position, generous funding, important prizes, the sycophantic attention of the media, appearance on Charlie Rose, contributions to standard textbooks, and the like.

Scientists are no different. Their wives, children, dogs, graduate students and flights to pleasant retreats in holiday resorts are all supported by their shared wisdom, whatever it is. Anyone who contradicts it is a threat to their reputation and livelihood.

By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:17pm
————————————

But Mr Deshong’s point (that he looks good after years on AIDS drugs) was answered by my reply below. He is not on AZT. There is no AZT at all in his medications, by his own assertion.

Those on AZT are the ones to suffer “buffalo humps” etc sometimes in weeks. Then the doctors allow them to go on drug “holidays” or less obnoxious drugs. In this, they acknowledge what David France suggests – the drugs cause the symptoms, and perhaps not HIV at all, which has never been demonstrated to do anything in any controlled study.

It may be hard for respectable members of this society to believe that scientists have their own agenda, and can mislead the public by sweeping fatal critiques of their well funded wisdom under the carpet, but a moment’s thought will tell you that there is no difference between ambitious scientists and the leaders of any other academic field, in all of which this behavior is notorious.

No one likes to be displaced in the mature years of their career, when their authority has been recognized by promotion to high position, generous funding, important prizes, the sycophantic attention of the media, appearance on Charlie Rose, contributions to standard textbooks, and the like.

Scientists are no different. Their wives, children, dogs, graduate students and flights to pleasant retreats in holiday resorts are all supported by their shared wisdom, whatever it is. Anyone who contradicts it is a threat to their reputation and livelihood.

This is precisely what has happened in HIV/AIDS, now the Worldcom of science.

As explained for 4 years on scienceguardian.com, the whole scheme of HIV/AIDS ideology cannot stand up to the briefest inspection. For one example, the world believes that a test for HIV _antibodies_ indicates vulnerability to HIV, when it would signal a cure with any other disease?

By criticnyc on 11/13/2009 at 3:14pm
————————————

For those of you that missed the big “Rethinking AIDS” conference that was held last weekend in Oakland, California, there were many testimonies from people that either have never taken the drugs, even after diagnosis in the ’80’s, OR
people that have successfully quit these drugs after nearly being poisoned (slowly) to death.

Plus, to see people like Lindsey Nagel, diagnosed with a positive “HIV” test as a baby, parents gave her the drugs for almost 2 yrs until she was so ill from the effects of the toxins, they decided to take her off all the prescribed poisons.
Guess what, she made a full recovery! She is now a beautiful, well-spoken almost 20 yr old lady.

It was an educational, informative, and thought-provoking weekend, filled with doctors, scientists, journalists, authors, media, and lay people from all over the world.
The evidence provided was outstandingly shocking.
Please check the Rethinking AIDS (dot com) website for follow ups.

Guess what?
The jig is up!

By kstokely2 on 11/13/2009 at 12:30pm
———————————-

Read more: Why a Number of HIV Patients Are Aging Faster — New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/comments.html#ixzz0YHjZ03Jx
=====================================================

So who can argue with this man’s story of the blessings of anti-HIV ARV’s? To heck with science, and with those who say they suffer under the regimen, and David France’s article. These marvels are the elixir of life to those who waste away after a diagnosis of lethal HIV antibodies. They bring them back from the dead.