PDA

View Full Version : Tv: Hiv/aids on chris matthews msnbc with ashley judd ...



Mike_Stewart
April 11th, 2011, 10:02 PM
Watched Chris Matthews interview Ashley Judd about the "cause of AIDS in Africa." Matthews began spouting the usual claptrap theories about HIV medication and why "ARV's are saving lives in South Africa." Judd says that "there is a lot of wrong information about AIDS, but the UN and our group, PSI are changing that to help deliver cheaper anti-retrovirals."

Matthews then made the incredible statement that Republicans are now going to kill Africans, people with HIV/AIDS due to the new Ryan Budget, once more making the debate political unstead of challenging the HIV cartel. He tried to get Judd to comment but she didn't.

Matthews and Judd both spouted the same tired UN data about "those suffering from AIDS in Africa" and why ARV's are "changing peoples lives" (they die). Matthews then made a truly incredible statement: The Clinton Global Initiative went into Rwanda and distributed "free anti-retrovirals to everyone" (like candy, no doubt) and "now everyone is alive." If this is true, Mr. Clinton's group is helping kill tribal Africans in depressed areas. I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton (even though I voted for Bush) but has anyone been able to educate the former President about ARV's and why they kill diseased, starving Africans? Clinton is very open minded about many things; CGI does great work distributing malaria drugs in West Africa, fast-tracking food shipments into depressed areas and bringing warring factions (especially in Rwanda and the Congo) to the peace table. I was very impressed that Clinton kept Saddam Hussein bottled up for years, keeping the U.S. out of war in the Middle East.

If Bill Clinton stood behind his podium and delivered a speech with the very words, "HIV does not cause AIDS", it would be the tsunami effect we need to get the ball rolling.

StephenW
April 11th, 2011, 11:09 PM
Something about the ARV debate has always confused me on this site because theres plenty of evidence that shows that people who take the ARV's tend to live longer than those who dont. Some members on this forum actually take them because they find themselves getting sick when they dont. I have no doubt in my mind that ARV cause health problems with long, or even short term use, but no one claimed they cure HIV, they just prolong lives.

Im also aware that plenty of people have died because of them, that doesnt mean they dont work for others.

Is there anything that you can show me that proves the ARVs do more harm than good? Like an actual study?

computergeek
April 11th, 2011, 11:15 PM
The results of this collaborative study, which involved…over 20 000 patients with HIV-1 from Europe and North America, show that the virological response after starting HAART has improved steadily since 1996. However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up to 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period.

May MT et al. HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis. Lancet. 2006 Aug 5;368(9534):451-8

This is the largest collaborative study of its kind looking at HAART's efficacy. It is not a particularly compelling case. Sure, SOME people get better, but then again, the placebo effect can cure you as well. That's why we have to look at the performance over a large group.

Mike_Stewart
April 12th, 2011, 01:16 AM
Im also aware that plenty of people have died because of them, that doesnt mean they dont work for others. Is there anything that you can show me that proves the ARVs do more harm than good? Like an actual study?
Stephen,

The movie HOUSE OF NUMBERS is a great place to start for a strategic debate on the ARVs. To find out about the toxicity of the ARVs, simply ask someone who is on them, or has been on them, rather than a study. If that study has been coerced by a university, has not fulfilled the proper guidelines for method or is connected in some way with a pharmaceutical company, in all likelihood, that study is compromised.

As a personal trainer, several of my clients are on ARVs and this is what I have detected over a five year period:

major skin rashes on the face, hands and legs;
lymphodystrophical wasting (face and back);
lethargy (esp during workout sessions);
decreased sexual drive;
discoloration of hair;
loss of appetite
weight loss


I noticed that some clients will actually add more weight in their mid-sections after *starting* AFVs (I attribute this to the fat re-distrubtion around the body. Remember that the body has its own mechanism to tolerate the toxicity of these drugs, one, as one physician told me was for the body to "Bonnie and Clyde the drug" in the fat cells. Others will maintain weight loss, even if their appetite's are healthy and vibrant. Clients who go on doctor-assisted drug holidays end up putting weight back on almost instantaneously (the ability for muscle synthesis in muscle tissue, esp if heavy weight and a high-protein diet are introduced), skin and hair return back to its normal hue. I usually keep clients on a HIGH-FAT diet during this period due to the toxicity of the medication.

Ask yourself a question: WHAT university will sponsor such a major, dedicated study that will call HAART, ARVs and side effect toxicity into question? Would the NIH support such a study? President Bush allocated $50b to the "AIDS fight in Africa"; the majority of those taxpayer dollars are earmarked to Big Pharma for drugs. No university would dare step out of line (and away from research dollars) if they undertook such a study. This is why have a free press. Try looking at ARVs in another light: would you take them? Would you place ddI in your mouth and swallow? Would you take AZT? If the answer is 'no' (remember these are "life saving medications") then you have answered your question.

moonchild493
April 12th, 2011, 01:31 AM
Mike, may I correct one of your terms? I feel I must for clarification. There is no such thing as lymphodystrophy -- it's lipodystrophy, which makes sense since it involves fat. :) There is a lymphadenopathy, but that, as you might imagine, involves the lymph glands.

BTW, I do not now nor have I ever suffered from any of the conditions you mention with the possible exception of a slight rash after having been on Trizivir and Sustiva for four years. I can't state categorically that this was the cause, but it felt likely to me at the time.

jonathan barnett
April 12th, 2011, 01:34 AM
Your question seems reasonable, Stephen, but it isn't so simple. Too often, in the AIDS debate, people want yes or no answers when they don't exist.

ARVs most often seem to 'do good' with people in extremely desperate states of health, i.e. PCP or other debilitating conditions. Hence the term "Lazarus Effect", named after the Biblical figure who Jesus raised from the dead.

Unfortunately, the AIDS industry has taken those (somewhat rare, I'm afraid) examples and held them up as evidence that otherwise healthy people will also benefit from them.

As Mike pointed out, some of us who have had bad experiences with HAART have a different point of view about the benefits for healthy people. Others, including one of our own here, tolerates Atripla quite well. However, she decided to take it again only because she was getting very sick, and she is concerned about her ability to continue to tolerate it long term.

So, it's not so much whether they are "good" or "bad", imo, but when and how they should be used. If I had a case of PCP or KS or other serious and life-threatening health concern that wasn't responding to conventional treatment, I'd sure keep my options open.

I don't think the suggestion that taking them upon 'seroconversion', or even before testing poz, will result in a longer and healthier life is supported by the evidence. I base that opinion on my own personal experience and what I've seen in others.





Is there anything that you can show me that proves the ARVs do more harm than good? Like an actual study?

Mike_Stewart
April 12th, 2011, 01:43 AM
Mike, may I correct one of your terms? I feel I must for clarification. There is no such thing as lymphodystrophy -- it's lipodystrophy, which makes sense since it involves fat. :) There is a lymphadenopathy, but that, as you might imagine, involves the lymph glands. BTW, I do not now nor have I ever suffered from any of the conditions you mention with the possible exception of a slight rash after having been on Trizivir and Sustiva for four years. I can't state categorically that this was the cause, but it felt likely to me at the time.


Linda,

I have to blame myself and my crappy 12th grade education! Ahhhhhhhrrrgh! Your correct about the term - I did mangle it pretty good though! :)

I have had clients on Sustiva and they have had bouts of depression and two had suicidal ideation; this drug has bad rep associated with it. Other trainers who have HIV poz clients have mentioned it to me. This is not the same with everyone of course, but for my 'cohort' the drug was incredibly toxic. I recently had a client on three psychotropic's and had to release him. Some people tolerate drugs better than others; I beleive its based upon a person's immune system, their bodies ability to adapt to the toxicity and hide it in the fat cells. But, I could always tell when clients changed medications due to skin color, rashes, lack of sex drive (lack of anything, really) and a simple, w a s t i n g away that I watched from the bench press. Made me angry as hell as I cant do a godamn thing to stop it; its a decision between a client and his doctor.

cleverfool
April 12th, 2011, 09:02 AM
Something about the ARV debate has always confused me on this site because theres plenty of evidence that shows that people who take the ARV's tend to live longer than those who dont. Some members on this forum actually take them because they find themselves getting sick when they dont. I have no doubt in my mind that ARV cause health problems with long, or even short term use, but no one claimed they cure HIV, they just prolong lives.

Im also aware that plenty of people have died because of them, that doesnt mean they dont work for others.

Is there anything that you can show me that proves the ARVs do more harm than good? Like an actual study?
Read lancet and u see there haart does not prolong life or prevent death my friend!,,, are u kidding?....even orthodox publish such a data and with haart 25 percent more chance to die.....and even the arv medicines packages says that clearly that their med does not prolong life!,,

Of course there are ppl who take it longer and no side effects....but have you ever scene a study which says how many of them? I never scene a study which analysis certain number of ppl over five years and analysis the result. I don't think the orthodox will do it....bc they don't want to frighten ppl about the side effects....of course the profit. Not convinced? Read David Graham interview...you see that the pharma is never interested to cure or promote the cheaper unpatentable meds. That explains yamamotto work neglected and others like ldn etc.
They even hire their scientist to copy cate others research and try to make theirs...use ghost writers, hide data etc....there was a trial of norafine or something out of 20 only 7 stayed...sone of them are eliminated because of the side effects....not reported..such is the state of arc meds my friend.....

It's sad sad truth and those ppl in America don't care about it and do nothing about it....I mean this guy David was a 20 years in FDA as safety officer cum scientist he says there are 60.000 ppl killed only by vioxx alone, it is the same amount of ppl killed invietnam, and there are three other meds that kills ppl. Yet no change in America or in FDA. Forgive me for the bad words...you fucking american or the president don't give a damn...nothing personal though.
The pharma pays earns by wrong doing billion dollar and pays fine 500 million, then they have still have 500 million profits. Some cases after paying fine they had one and half billion profit from wrong doing...so the govt is not even has the common sense to seize all the profits or income even though they have right to fine three times of the income.....like the former vice president of pfzer peter rost said it was the case 25 years ago ( read the book Roche and Adams) and it is the case now....so you can imagine the case of arv med. It's all about money...nobody cares about the deaths...whether it Is from viol or arvs....because it is not that graphic like war violence and death..but all over the country and world ppl dying individually....and there are no graphic images for the media to sensationalize.....


By the way US is The only country who don't trust their drs , how else can u explain the direct to consumer ads of medicines.....what happened to the great American ppl how come that they accept this atrocity on and on....
Everybody says arv. Prolongs life but they r not decent enough to give a single research over view of the benefits and deadly side effects...even NIH lies.they say side effects are rare...without any referene....