HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Antiretrovirals kill: Official data, peer-reviewed journal

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/08/10

(updated with full article)

HIV+ people in hospital who were on anti-retrovirals were more likely to die of non-AIDS conditions than HIV+ people NOT being treated with ARVs. The deaths were owing to known “side” effects of ARVs: cardiovascular, liver, various infections.

That is reported in the paper drawn to my attention by a comment from lukas. Note that the data covers a period of 16 years beginning with the introduction of “life-saving HAART cocktails” in the mid-1990s:

Cowell et al., TRENDS IN HOSPITAL DEATHS AMONG HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS-INFECTED PATIENTS DURING THE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY ERA, 1995 TO 2011,
Journal of Hospital Medicine, 30 June 2015 doi: 10.1002/jhm.2409. [Epub ahead of print]

Here is the full paper, courtesy of David Rasnick:

Cowell 2015 copy

And here is just the abstract:

RESULTS:
In-hospital deaths declined significantly from 1995 to 2011 (P < 0.0001); those attributable to non-AIDS increased (43% to 70.5%, P < 0.0001). Non-AIDS deaths were most commonly caused by non-AIDS infection (20.3%), cardiovascular (11.3%) and liver disease (8.5%), and non-AIDS malignancy (7.8%). Patients with non-AIDS compared to AIDS-related deaths were older (median age 48 vs 40 years, P < 0.0001), more likely to be on ART (74.1% vs 55.8%, P = 0.0001), less likely to have a CD4 count of <200 cells/mm3 (47.2% vs 97.1%, P < 0.0001), and more likely to have an HIV viral load of ≤400 copies/mL (38.1% vs 4.1%, P < 0.0001). Non-AIDS deaths were associated with 4.5 and 4.2 times greater likelihood of comorbid underlying liver and cardiovascular disease, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
Non-AIDS deaths increased significantly during the ART era and are now the most common cause of in-hospital deaths; non-AIDS infection, cardiovascular and liver disease, and malignancies were major contributors to mortality. Higher CD4 cell count, liver, and cardiovascular comorbidities were most strongly associated with non-AIDS deaths. Interventions targeting non-AIDS-associated conditions are needed to reduce inpatient mortality among HIV-infected patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.
© 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.

This journal is not held by our library, and I’m waiting for Interlibrary Loan to get me a copy. IN the meantime, the abstract’s details given above seem to tell the story clearly enough.

 

22 Responses to “Antiretrovirals kill: Official data, peer-reviewed journal”

  1. Henry, I hope you can make this paper available to us. To me the abstract is not at all clear, because no absolute numbers are given.

    At the very least, it is not at all clear that this paper will support our position (our position being the dissident position, that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that ART is bad for patients).

    Herewith my (devil’s advocate) interpretation of the three statements made:

    “In-hospital deaths declined significantly….” If deaths declined overall during the “ART” era, this shows that ART improved AIDS patient survival / longevity.

    “…those attributable to non-AIDS increased” This would follow if AIDS patients survived longer. As they became less likely to die from AIDS, they became more likely to die from “non-AIDS” causes. But how many died this way? More than in the general (outside the hospital) population?

    “Patients with non-AIDS compared to AIDS-related deaths were older, more likely to be on ART, …” This possibly supports the above interpretation, that surviving longer (i.e. being older) made you more likely to die of “non-AIDS” causes. But what is needed is information on the ages at which people were admitted to hospital. First, older people are more likely to die of heart disease or liver disease _in general_, so we need a comparison to the general population (age graded). Second, we need to know if these “older” patients were admitted as “younger” patients, or if the younger and older patients are two completely different classes of patient. We need to know if any younger patients also died of these “non-AIDS” causes, i.e. died of diseases they were unlikely to have had, had they not been on ART therapy.

    I hope the body of the paper can shed light on these questions.

    If we were to assume, as does the mainstream, that HIV causes AIDS, then the results in this abstract do not clearly show that ART is doing any excess harm. Viewed from the mainstream position, these statements seem to show that ART increased lifespans, whereupon other diseases then had the opportunity to kill the patient.

    Only if you already discount the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, then these results could be interpreted as ART contributing to mortality in hospital. Because then you would not distinguish between “AIDS” and “non-AIDS” diseases, which is a confusing and confounding distinction, when you want to look at mortality caused by the therapy. (I.e. the “AIDS” caused deaths would then also be deaths caused by the therapy, which I believe is a cornerstone of the dissident position).

    But perhaps if we can see some absolute numbers in the actual paper, a more useful analysis or argument can be made.

    Looking forward…

    • Henry Bauer said

      retroformat:
      Yes. The mainstream can interpret any set of data in line with their belief, though it sometimes takes quite a leap. For example, that exclusively breast-feeding mothers do not transmit “HIV” to their children whereas partly breast-feeding ones do is explained by postulating that the milk formula used for supplemental feeding predisposes to acquiring HIV.
      But I’ll await the full article and see whether I can find holes in the mainstream interpretation.

      • lukas said

        retroformat:I guess everyone should read “through the paper” and not only “read the paper” with his own interpretative lens .Was i expecting an hospital investigation would have confessed me,black on white,what i had always suspected that non aids deaths of hiv people were mostly imputable to antiretrovirals?No.The increment of non aids deaths in art era is enough for everyone to draw conclusion.For sure we can blame a virus to cause aids diseases,non aids diseases in order to encompass all medical ailments,but that is not believable.And i notice that you arrive to early conclusion without pondering.For exemple you state: “In-hospital deaths declined significantly….” If deaths declined overall during the “ART” era, this shows that ART improved AIDS patient survival / longevity.”
        I don’t see the strict correlation you suppose but a partial correlation and i think that that correlation is also part of the mainstream mith and has been inflated.There are too many variables not investigated that play as confounding factors.I quote only some:haart era coincide with a contraction of the use of certain drugs such as intravenuous drug and other substances,riduction of quota of drug users,that means having people in hospital with more robust immunity(dr.Duesberg theory confirmed),stop using of azt that incremented deaths by many folds.There’s no way to understand how deaths due the toxicity of arvs were registered in the past,i guess they were excluded from aids statistics…and some studies agree that the risk to die of their toxicity is higher than the risk to catch an opportunistic infection…Then there was no placebo control group…and arvs might have worked for reasons other than the purpose they were conceived (general antibiotic effect and not anti hiv effect) …if some look at the data will not see the clear evidence you suppose.

      • Henry Bauer said

        lukas, retroformat:
        Yes, exactly, too many variables and insufficient information make it possible to cherry-pick to interpret in a variety of ways.
        A huge unknown is how the numbers of “HIV+” people have varied over the years as a result of drives for increased testing. Even before the 1990s, increasingly large proportions of “HIV+” people were completely healthy, because of the way in which the definition of “AIDS” was changed, several times and most drastically in 1993.
        Fortunately, the central issues of HIV/AIDS were quite clear long ago. As the data on all published “HIV”-test results through the 1990s shows, “HIV+” is not infectious and does not correlate with “AIDS” numbers — see The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007. That does provide guidance in how to interpret the hospital deaths, although there remains detailed uncertainty since each individual patient ought to be considered independently for the specific reason for ever testing “HIV+”.

  2. Brother Strawberry said

    First friend lost to “AIDS” was August 1989. He was secretly taking AZT to fight HIV infection kept secret from his multiple lovers. Countless others have followed. The one thing they all have in common is that every one of them without fail knew their viral status and followed prescribed anti-HIV treatment. Thankfully education and truthful information allowed me to scoff at 1987 clinic recommendation of AZT as preventative against risk of possible exposure posed by cheating girlfriends “non-declaritive” antibody test. How many who started AZT in 1987 are alive today? What has their quality of life been?

    • april said

      Most are gone by now, brother Strawberry and I would be in that statistics. Was labelled in 1991 and soon that AZT was started. Followed it faithfully and couldn’t tolerate the side effects and finally decided to ditch it sometimes back under 10 years ago and am ok, and on no meds so far except for the common ailments that everyone else gets and gets treated. I was last on Stribild a cocktail combination of three, one known to cause liver failure.
      I have googled and educated and advocated for myself in regards to managing and combating issues that come as HIV package. I happened to request my medical records recently from MGH, Boston, a full 700 pages all full of lies here and there especially the HIV part and it has left me questioning why the docs are lieing on my medical record. The one thing that I remember kept me on taking those ARTs was the fear that was instilled in me, by the docs and that is: “You will die if you quit medication”. So under that fear I kept on and hoping my life will be saved. Now I am not fearful anymore, quit the meds and am taking good and excellent care of ME. I wish everyone to do the same. This carnage has to end and hopefully soon.

      • Brother Strawberry said

        So glad to hear you overcame fear recognizing the truth, facts and lies. Have lost too many friends and heroes already and still watching too many dying from purportedly “life saving treatments.” I too would be a statistic had Spin magazine not published the AIDS Words from the Front investigative research journalism of Celia Farber reporting the dissent of Dr Duesberg and others.
        Nearly thirty years of obsessive research study leaves me astounded that anyone can still believe the unproven proposal of HIV as causal factor considering the failure of every prerequisite, prediction, threat and promise made in 1984. Fear is amazingly powerful.
        The only survivors who began AZT in 1987 that I have found record of have suffered unimaginable sickness including paralysis from the muscle wasting toxicity of the drug yet still consider themselves lucky because everyone else they knew who tested positive has already died. Consideration that those who tested positive most likely also immediately began prescribed treatment seems to elude them. The facts seem to elude so many.
        I wish you the best. We are the ones who can end the carnage by striving that truth be known. I regularly stand outside the local AIDS task force with a sign reading “End the HIV myth” and “HIV is a lie.” Task force workers chastise me for supposedly preventing patients embarrassed by my actions and presence from coming in for their meds. I consider that success.

  3. David Rasnick said

    Thanks, Henry.

    Attached is the complete paper.

    Raz

    >

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Rasnick and all readers:
      I couldn’t find a way to link the article into the Comments, so it is now in the blog post itself.
      Many thanks to David for contributing this.

  4. voza0db said

    And then we have this:

    Integrated HIV-1 DNA load remains constant in the peripheral blood of individuals receiving long-term suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, the mechanisms preventing decay of the reservoir remain unclear. We studied a cross-sectional population, defined by the duration of suppressive ART. Integrated HIV-1 DNA load did not differ significantly according to the duration of suppressive ART, and showed no association with direct or indirect markers of ongoing virus replication. Rather, there was an independent, positive association between integrated HIV-1 DNA load and the frequency of CD8 cells expressing the activation marker HLA-DR/DP/DQ. These cells appear to have important regulatory and effector function. Our findings add to growing evidence that immune activation sustains the HIV-1 reservoir during long-term suppressive ART.”

    From here http://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964%2815%2930077-3/abstract

    Not a long wait until we all see the HERV’s hypothesis pop up from within the Establishment!

  5. april said

    I intend to survive this aids holocaust. I quit the anti-retrovirals less than 10 years ago and am ok so far. I would be dead and forgotten by now, if I had continued listening and following what the so called Aids docs (IDs)told me. For those who have no experience of having gone thru it and questioning and contributing to this unending aids saga, stop to think and listen to what survivors have to say. I have found “ADVICE FROM SCHOLARLY ARTICLES/BOOKS BY FAMOUS AUTHORS, LABELLED DISSIDENTS”, by mainstream murderous researchers. Generally Aids and non Aids people should educate themselves, so as to be able to make wise decisions and be advocates for themselves.Stop the the back and forth /wrangles/duels on what is right or wrong. ARTS ARE POISON, period!!!!!!!!! and I can attest to that. As usual the back and forth numbers and statistics will keep confusing everyone, as that is the remaining way to keep Aids alive and strong. If anything no one should be lead to taking that so called incriminating HIV test. Like I have done, people should educate themselves on proper nutrition, good emotional health and herbal medications. This information is out there for everyone on the internet and thanks to “GOOGLE”!! and “BRAVO” to all Aids dissidents, researchers/authors out there. The list of their names is very long and they know who they are. Keep up the good job for helping save the lives of HIV folks and inadvertently the non HIV folks as well. We all benefit.
    Thanks to David Rasnick and Henry Bauer. I have your books and I benefited from your wise writing, continue the good work you are doing with your all other colleagues.

  6. Gilles St-Pierre said

    Antiretrovirals kill, another proof is the significant reduced life expectancy of those who take them.

    A study recently published in Canada is showing more than 20 years SHORTER life expectancy for the people taking the latest ‘AIDS’ treatments, compared to the general population.

    The bottom right number in the table 6 (36.6 +- years, after statistical adjustments), is the life expectancy at age 20 for ‘positive’ patients with the latest treatments.

    Life expectancy at age 20 refers to the number of remaining years a participant would be expected to live.
    The same study estimate the average remaining life expectancy for Canadians at age 20 to be 59.7 and 63.9 years for men and women, respectively.

    “Life expectancy of HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in Canada”, BMC Infectious Diseases 2015.
    The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/15/274

    • @Gilles St. Pierre
      thanks for the link to the paper on life expectancy of HIV-positive individuals using ART in Canada. That was an interesting read, but it sheds little light on the central question in this discussion: Does ART help or hurt HIV+ people?

      That’s because, in this paper as in the Cowell et al. paper originally posted by Bauer (and now, Rasnick), there is no comparison made to the mortality of HIV+ individuals NOT on ART. The comparisons are made to the general population, and that is not useful to this question.

      I did find this statement interesting in the paper you linked, where there is at least a passing acknowledgement to the toxicity of ART, and that this contributes to an increase in mortality, i.e. a reduction in life expectancy:

      QUOTE:
      However, despite widespread availability of more efficacious ART regimens, life expectancy (an important population health indicator) remains lower for HIV-positive individuals compared with the general population [8]. Additionally, other non-AIDS defining comorbidities are of increasing concern for HIV-positive individuals accessing ART; including malignancy, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, liver disease, and renal disease [10], [11]. These comorbidities are hypothesized to occur at a higher rate among people living with HIV due to immunodeficiency [10], inflammation [12], a higher prevalence of behavioural risk factors [10], viral co-infections and the toxicity of antiretroviral regimens [13].
      UNQUOTE.

      When is someone going to do the research on the toxicity of ART compared to the supposed lethality of HIV+ infection??

      • lukas said

        “These comorbidities are hypothesized to occur at a higher rate among people living with HIV due to immunodeficiency [10], inflammation [12], a higher prevalence of behavioural risk factors [10], viral co-infections and the toxicity of antiretroviral regimens”
        Do you believe a retrovirus, may cause: dementia,Kaposi,heart attack,liver cancer,cervical cancer etc…all ailments that have nothing in common one another???: if the answer is yes i suggest you go check by yourself the scientific literature that demonstrate this(and take care to some fake studies around there) and see if you have satisfactory answer.The second step you have to follow is to read an arv leaflet that report possible renal, hepatic failure, side effects, etc.
        Lastly you can answer your final question by yourself without any further study comparison. I make you notice that you shouldn’t expect this answer to come from orthodoxy or hospital investigation or you can be suspected to be very ingenuous,you will have to draw your own conclusion and no one else.

      • Dear Lukas:

        I understand that if one could show ARV therapy was of no use, then this would support our notion that “AIDS” is not caused by a viral infection. I don’t really need that evidence, because I am quite convinced by the epidemiological evidence (gathered by Bauer and others) that AIDS is not an infectious disease… not caused by HIV, whether or not that virus even exists.

        I believe also that the mainstream is fairly aware of the hazards of ARV therapy – of the toxicities. But the mainstream will contend that those hazards are less than the hazards posed by a finding of HIV+ in your person. Moreover, especially once one is sick enough to be in the hospital, the mainstream will contend that ARV therapy is effective in prolonging your life (FWIW). That is the point on which this Cowell paper is relevant.

        1. You ask me, do I “believe a retrovirus, may cause: dementia,Kaposi,heart attack,liver cancer,cervical cancer etc…all ailments that have nothing in common one another???” Answer: no, I do not. Nothing in my reply above makes this claim.

        2. I think you brought the Cowell paper to Bauer’s attention, because you believed that here’s evidence that ARV causes harm (or at least, more harm than benefit). Was this your thinking? This is the claim of which I am skeptical, and I’ve given my reasons in detail in another post (below, which I posted after reading the paper in full).

        However, I don’t mind summarizing my thinking. Assuming the Cowell paper is not falsifying results, it shows:

        Mortality was reduced over the “ART era” for in-hospital patients that were HIV+. (But not all those patients were on ART)
        ART utilization _increased_ from 50% in the early… to 75% of patients in the late period of the era.
        The rate of mortality from “non-AIDS” diseases remained constant, while the rate from AIDS diseases _declined_.

        If nothing else, I suggest that the paper is not useful in showing ARV to be net-harmful. As such it is also of little utility in answering the question of what causes “AIDS.”

        Respectfully yours.

      • lukas said

        well i have never expected any scientific study will ever show me the evidence that arvs are inevitably toxic,for the simple reason science is not a pure field,and simply suppress the evidences that are not convenient to manifest.so simply the studies that may damage some interests are simply not conducted.An hiv disbeliever knows that aids is a construct,the diseases that are said to be caused by hiv + are also common in hiv – so as first one cannot accept that those statistics are kept separated.So let’s see some of your points: Mortality was reduced over the “ART era” for in-hospital patients that were HIV+. (But not all those patients were on ART) :How can you be so sure they would have certainly died if those patient would have not taken art(or insted treated differently)?Becouse it is simply assumed they would have died if not art treated,but it cannot be proven.Are you sure mortality was not reduced from variables different from art?2you claim -The rate of mortality from “non-AIDS” diseases remained constant, while the rate from AIDS diseases _declined_The paper claim differently since the beginning:Non-AIDS deaths increased significantly during the ART era and are now the most common cause of in-hospital deaths; non-AIDS infection, cardiovascular and liver disease, and malignancies were major contributors to mortality.
        Making the distinction of aids deaths and non aids deaths the paper clearly states non aids deaths and comorbidities are increasing.Since non aids malignancies and infections do not belong to hiv related diseases,what is going to cause them?
        Other passages claiming that ” However, the proportion of deaths that are not classically considered acquired immunodefi-
        ciency syndrome (AIDS)-related such as liver disease,cardiovascular disease, and non-AIDS malignancy has
        increased,1,5–7″- As theHIV population is aging, we hypothesized that HIVinfected
        patients are more likely to die from non–AIDS-related death in the late ART era due to factors
        related to cardiovascular and liver disease, compared to the early ART era.Cardiovascular and liver disease represented the
        next most common causes of death,…”-How is hiv causing liver disease if it is classified as non aids malignancy?What is causing these comorbidities?Are you expecting they will admit black on white art is what is causing them?,no it’s you who have to infer this evidence.I’m not saying that it is proven that not to take art is more advantageous than taking it,but that associated with therapy there come potential lethal comorbidities as the paper suggest and that it cannot be denied.

  7. I would like to expand on my initial comment, now that I have read the Cowell et al. paper. Thank you to David Raznick.

    I only had time for a quick reading, and worse yet, my knowledge of statistics is rudimentary (most of it I think I learned from reading this blog!).

    That said, I don’t see how this paper supports our position of dissent. I feel it does not hurt our position, but it also does not support it.

    The full paper does not answer the questions I posed initially… particularly frustrating is that the paper reports that not all patients were on ARV treatment (table 3. line 7), but does not distinguish or relate the morbidity of patients to the treatment. That would be a useful relationship to explore, but the paper does not touch on this question directly. However, indirectly one could conclude that ARV treatment does no harm.

    Some statements in the paper come tantalizingly close to answering questions relevant to our position, but then fall short or remain ambiguous, for example on page 5:

    “Although deaths due directly to cardiovascular and liver disease _did not_ significantly change over time, these represented the major comorbidities associated with non-AIDS mortality and, along with renal disease, _increased_ significantly over the study period.”

    Which is it? Did these non-AIDS diseases increase over the period, or did they not? This statement can be read both ways, and the charts and tables of data provide no direct help. (but read on, because I think I figured out that the rate remained constant).

    Significantly, unless I am reading the data wrong… the claim that overall morbidity was significantly reduced over the ART era, where the treated fraction of the (in-hospital) population went from about 50% to about 75%… THAT observation alone hardly indicts ARV treatment as being harmful.

    Whatever disease was being treated (let’s call it, arbitrarily, AIDS), whether or not the disease is infectious or viral or what, the fact that morbidity is reduced seems a good thing – that ARV treatment seems appropriate and effective in prolonging life. That non-AIDS diseases then cause a larger fraction of the fewer remaining deaths is not surprising.

    Page 3, under RESULTS:

    “The proportion of hospitalized HIV-infected patients
    who died declined from 6.2% in 1995 to 1.5% in 2011.”

    This data, together with the percentages given for non-AIDS diseases caused deaths (figure 1.), suggests that the rate of these deaths remained constant over the era. Early in the era, 20% of the deaths were from non-AIDS diseases (thus 20% of 6.2 = about 1.2), and late in the era 90% (thus 90% of 1.5 = about 1.3). If the rate of non-AIDS deaths remained constant, and the rate of AIDS deaths declined, then this is not an indicator that ART is reducing life expectancy, nor that it is ineffective against “AIDS.” (regardless of what causes AIDS).

    Another point to consider: HIV+ patients who are in hospital are SICK with something. Otherwise, they would not be in the hospital. The data in this paper say nothing about how long healthy HIV+ people survive, when they do not submit to ARV therapy (ART). That is the data you need, if you want to condemn ART as a therapy that reduces people’s life spans. This paper is useless towards answering that question.

    Yours in skepticism!

    Boris

    PS

    Other statements do acknowledge the dangers of ARV treatment in passing:

    “Additionally, ART side effects such as hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance contribute to an increased cardiovascular risk profile.31”

    But the tone of this statement suggests this is accepted knowledge already.

    The authors note that while the numbers are small, the increase in deaths from malignancies is significant in the “later” era. Now this is of interest to us! But again, without relating these deaths to ARV therapy, how much meaning is there?

    In the conclusion, the authors admit:

    “The study did not include a control group of hospitalized HIV-infected patients who survived or hospitalized HIV-negative patients who died, which might have
    further strengthened our findings.”

    Indeed, that data would have been useful to compare the effects of ARV treatment on the health of patients (after all, it is unlikely that HIV negative patients would have been in such treatment).

    So again, the paper seems useless to me, if I wanted to indict ARV treatment as ineffective and harmful.

    • rukkahua said

      retroformat ….As you say, according to your analysis of paper, ARVs could prolong the lives of HIV +, but most likely not death caused by AIDS-related illnesses. I am right? this paper it could be used to highlight the serious side effects, rather than directly kill, does it?

  8. lukas said

    I’ve randomly stumbled upon a 2007 paper that anticipate and get to the same conclusion of the cowell,that is that higher cd4 count correlates to non aids death:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17075385.Another mainstream article that start looking suspicious at arvs is the following:http://www.aidsmap.com/Abacavirlamivudine-could-be-driving-liver-damage-in-ART-treated-patients-with-HIVHCV-co-infection/page/3005711/

  9. Bit said

    I am positive myself and tried to wait as long as possible before starting ARV for the first time (now 1,5 years ago). After a while (3 years after the test) my health started to decline slowly and by the start of 2014 I caught TB in Asia during a holiday (later to be diagnosed). My diet was second to none (enough vit d, magnesium, selenium etc and everything organic). There where a couple of things which could have been responsible for that decline (I got a thyroid storm when taking too much kelp, jodium and I tried some other things which did not work out well). After the progression of the TB the coughing went on and I lost a lot of weight and had 5 weeks of fever before I went to the local hospital. After one week of continuous testing they did not find the cause and in the mean time my health deteriorated further. Out of desperation they transported me in a quarantine ambulance to an academic hospital and there they found out I had TB. Finally 7 doctor’s where standing around my bed to try to convince me to start the ARV therapy (my TB treatment started a couple of days earlier). My health situation was seriously critical (cd4 was 0 and viral load through the extrapolated roof). Eventually I accepted to start ARV. I went through a heavy recovery with high dose prednison etc and lost 17 kg before gaining 27 kg back. For 6 month I took the TB and ARV treatment and recovered completely. While I still had my doubts about the cause of the symptoms (be it TB only or combined with hiv) I later started to test by halving my ARV medicines. It worked out well (cd4/390 and 0 VL) after a couple of months. Then I tried to quit completely for 4 months. the first 2 months went according plan, but then I started to feel symptoms which i recognised from the first episode. The reason I wanted to test this was that I wanted to exclude that TB was solely responsible for the illness earlier. Eventually I told my doctor that I stopped taking my ARV medicine and she told me my cd4 where down to 94. This time I was convinced that no matter what the cause was of the decline that without the ARV my health went down the drain. Although I am concerned for the longer term, the side effects are relatively mild right now (very slight neuropathic tingling in my toes and a perceived slowing of metabolism). The ARV therapy does one way or another stabilizes my health. I will always be open minded about alternatives but it apparently did not work out for me this time. Right now I would like to subcribe to the co-factor model of Montagnier but without ARV I did not succeed yet to control whatever it may be! My cd4 is now back to 390 after a couple of months of therapy and right now I am valuing my achieved situation. My hope is for a better less toxic treatment and/or a different solution but it is quite easy to cope with at this moment!

  10. lukas said

    Bit:
    have you ever considered if arvs work indirectly as anti-tubercular agents? Have you ever considered if it is possible to boost rapidly cd4 cells addressing only TB without arvs and if there is at least one case described in literature? I’m not saying this to make people change their mind and divert from their own therapies, but only to arise doubts.The answer is yes to both previous questions however. I’ve found such answers in the recent book written by Lawrence Broxmeyer MD that i read:”aids what the discoverers of hiv have never admitted” that consider hiv as a form of potential active or latent TB infection and investigates this relation. I’m not considering one hypothesis better than another, neither is my intention to advertise books, or make people blindly believe in such hypotheses but i think it is a good thing to let the door open to all alternative views.

    • Bit said

      I did consider that scenario, that’s why I tried to stop my arv therapy after being declared TB free. Of course there is a small possibility that the TB was not killed off completely (dr said around 1,5%), but I am pretty sure that TB was not the cause of my decline the second time. I am and will remain open minded and will read the book you recommend thank you for your tip! I promised my dr to be honest and open about any new approach in the future and she does not put any pressure on me to take arv she just presents me with the potential risks of not complying with the therapy according to her best knowledge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s