Living without HIV drugs

[cageyone]

Trying to hold back but can't. I stand by my former statements. CDC officials have even conceded that the early AZT doses were killing people, the ARV's (weaker AZT combos) cause major liver damage. Liver failure is the number one cause of death in the so called HIV patient. This is major long term chemotherapy. Black Box cancer causing drugs, with no proof that they do anything to the virus. And last I heard, it was the virus that a community is fighting. Even the Doc who created the viral load test said it was never designed or intended for it's not accepted use. And if you really look at the disclaimers for the tests, they are not approved to be used to diagnose infection. What other immunity problems do people have that the medical community and our community is allowing to be herded under the umbrella of a diagnosis? End.

[HungLatinDom]

So, funny how you trust numbers (that you haven't shown) about mortality from liver cancer, but you don't trust the numbers about decrease of mortality due to HIV in young men.

"Black Box cancer causing drugs," Pure bullshit. Overgeneralization.

"with no proof that they do anything to the virus." A lie, pure and simple.

"Even the Doc who created the viral load test said it was never designed or intended for it's not accepted use." Citation needed. I know probably what you are talking about and it's still wrong. But still, citation needed.

[cageyone]

So, funny how you trust numbers (that you haven't shown) about mortality from liver cancer, but you don't trust the numbers about decrease of mortality due to HIV in young men.

"Black Box cancer causing drugs," Pure bullshit. Overgeneralization.

"with no proof that they do anything to the virus." A lie, pure and simple.

"Even the Doc who created the viral load test said it was never designed or intended for it's not accepted use." Citation needed. I know probably what you are talking about and it's still wrong. But still, citation needed.

People make their choices - but this subject is more emotional than rational. If you are the scientist you profess to be, (...and we don't know who YOU are) you have access to the research, documentation and case law. With name calling and other attacks, there is no discussion or conversation. FACT- more money and grants from research, med development and patents than for a "cure". FACT - Even the not for profits don't really want a cure. What will they occupy their time with? What will those CFO's do for their 6 figures? What will they "WALK" for now? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just someone who's lived a long time and watched licensed criminal and unethical behavior in action. And as lemmings, people follow... but they don't follow the money and the patents. Altruism ended a long time ago. End. I like this thread. People are talking in a fuck site.

[HungLatinDom]

"People make their choices - but this subject is more emotional than rational."

Evidence is not a matter of choice. And that's another utterly wrong claim. Either the drugs work, killing the virus and allowing people to live longer, or they don't. Period. And there are numbers showing that people are dying less than they used to because of AIDS. No room for emotions.

If you accept evidence from a source, but then you refuse to accept it just because it contradicts your beliefs, you are deluding yourself, but not others. And it does not make your claims true.

I have been very careful not to call you names, but to throw doubt on your statements, not on you.

As I said in another post: You don't need to eat, that's a lie. Monsanto earns billions of dollars and Big Agriculture needs people eating in order to profit. Become breatharian and learn the truth...

You are a conspiracy theorist, you definitely are. What you said is a perfect example of a conspiracy theory, including the refusal to accept evidence. This is not only a fuck site, people come here to become informed and that is why I am not letting your misinformation unchallenged.

[JerryGumby]

My experience with meds has generally good. I suffered through some really bad side effects - but at the time the choice seemed to be side effects or death - I choose the side effects. Eventually I found a combination that not only works but few if any noticable side effects. No doubt without them I'd not be here - been poz since at least '87. The one advice I'd give for those considering meds - choose to either do them as directed without missing doses or don't do them at all - its that mid ground that seems to get most into trouble.

[cageyone]

But by casting doubt on my personal experiences of what was done TO me by the medical establishment, you seek to discredit me because it doesn't follow the dogma and narrative. Evidence can be manufactured and tainted. Please look at the case law. The so-called evidence has been tossed in military and civil courts. OMSJ. thanks for listening.

[HungLatinDom]

But by casting doubt on my personal experiences of what was done TO me by the medical establishment, you seek to discredit me because it doesn't follow the dogma and narrative. Evidence can be manufactured and tainted. Please look at the case law. The so-called evidence has been tossed in military and civil courts. OMSJ. thanks for listening.

Honestly, in this case, your personal experience is irrelevant. There is no way that your personal experiences deny the facts. These drugs, despite the side effects, and despite that are profitable for some companies, save lives. HIV exists and it kills. When people who are sick take these drugs, they get better. No amount of personal experience can deny that. No absurd conspiracist "documentary" can deny that.

I do not need to discredit you, yo do it very well yourself, refusing to accept evidence (but willing to believe the same evidence when it supports your point), and make big claims about tainted evidence that are not backed up by any evidence. You keep saying things and making claims, but never back them up.