HIV Conspiracy??? Has anyone heard this crap?

[bearbandit]

Strange for me to say someone else is being cynical, but I think you are Rayne. In the UK (where we have free HIV drugs because HIV clinics are deemed to be sub-clinics of GU clinics, exempted from prescription charges shortly after WW2 to prevent a gono/syph epidemic) the HIV clinics are champing at the bit for the arrival of generics to save money which, hopefully will go to pay for drugs for the more "treatment experienced" (I prefer to call myself a drug whore). With other drugs I've never noticed a difference between the "name brand" and the generic - I take a number of drugs that are out of patent and the brand I get can change from month to month. I've never noted a change in effectiveness, so I expect the same of generic ARVs.

[whtbbcumhole4blk]

My Atripla costs $23,000/ yr (I'm insured and only pay $75/30 days) but when generics are available, you bet I'll go on it, at least to screw with the obscene amounts they charge.

If I overstep my bounds with this I apologize, but I'm curious: do you live in the US?

I'm on Atripla as well, with excellent health benefits, but my doc gave me a copay card from Bristol Meyer Squibb that covers my $50 monthly copay. I showed it to the pharmacist one time and since then haven't paid the copay.

In the attached material it says it covers up to $400/month (for those who don't have good prescription benefits).

[Rayne]

Strange for me to say someone else is being cynical, but I think you are Rayne. In the UK (where we have free HIV drugs because HIV clinics are deemed to be sub-clinics of GU clinics, exempted from prescription charges shortly after WW2 to prevent a gono/syph epidemic) the HIV clinics are champing at the bit for the arrival of generics to save money which, hopefully will go to pay for drugs for the more "treatment experienced" (I prefer to call myself a drug whore). With other drugs I've never noticed a difference between the "name brand" and the generic - I take a number of drugs that are out of patent and the brand I get can change from month to month. I've never noted a change in effectiveness, so I expect the same of generic ARVs.

And I very well could be. From my experience, though, I have had mixed experiences with generics. For example: when I had a script for Adderrall a while back, I was on the generic for about 6 months before I received a different generic pill; when I was given the new generic, it was literally twice as strong. I couldn't function with my normal dose, and had to talk to my psychiatrist about what to do. The chemist said they would be no different from each other, but that wasn't the case. I did some research, and found that certain binding ingredients cause my original pill to be much less effective, with the exact same amount of ampthetamine salts. My experience with antacids has been similar; generic label otc omeprazole doesn't really work for me, while brand label otc Prilosec works great. Funnily enough, the generic capsules of omeprazole, with a script, work just fine. I think it's the binding agents in the tablets that makes a big difference for me. I also have a similar story with allergy medications and anti-histamines; although not all generics are less effective for me. Generic Percocet and Vicodin work fine for me; however, I've never had name brand tablets, so I can't compare them.

I'm not trying to say generics for HIV medication will be the same story; I'm just saying that generics are not necessarily going to be as effective as the original, as well as saying that not all generics are created equal. I know other people who have had similar experiences with generics, hence why I started experimenting with different generics. It also explains why many otc drugs never worked for me, while they worked for others. All I had to do was take a different generic, or a name brand, and I'd be fine. Again, that's my experience, and what I've heard from others' experiences with various generics. I believe I've found some articles on the topic as well, so if anyone wants some more scientific information, I'd be happy to look into it deeper once again.

I also don't know how ARVs are metabolised/taken, so depending on what happens in the body, it may not even be an issue.

[bbzh]

The downside with generic drugs is that they aren't always as effective. I have taken various prescriptions over the years, mostly generic, and some name brand. Many of the generic meds I've taken work well, but I've had a good amount of them that were also ineffective. Binding ingredients, manufacturing processes, and quality control of ingredients all factor into how well generics work. Contrary to what some would believe, not all generics are created equally. The downside is that most generic manufacturers create the drugs just to get in on the revenue, while the rest create a quality pill/capsule/etc.. What sucks is when you don't get to choose what generic you take, and the pharmacist/chemist gives you different generics each time you go (I've had that happen).

Hopefully the generic drugs for HIV medication won't have this problem. Considering what's on the line with these meds, they should take it much more seriously; but you never know. Fingers crossed!

I've had a doctor who wasn't prescribing meds to me issue the same warning about generic drugs. If a higher priced brand name drug is allowing you to keep a life threatening condition in check, perhaps it's worth the extra cost.

[Rayne]

I know some people won't have the same problems I have; I think it's how your body handles the ingredients. I can most likely pull up the Adderall info I found a while back, if anyone wants to get an idea of what I'm referencing (or pm me if you'd prefer).

All I know is I've had some unlucky ones using certain generics. If image to contract HIV, I'll probably stick with name brands until I know what the generics contain, an if they are as effective. Just how I would handle it, considering my experience.

[wood]

OINK~! I threw my meds away September 2007, after billing dispute between my Insurance & my Doc's bookkeeping dept. I thought it immoral that she would not renew my Rx if I didn't bring my balance to zero. I asked her if the only reason I was on Rx was so Doc's could get paid.

I had the counts checked in Fall 2008, new Doc agreed I did not need to be on meds. I have not had #'s checked since. I do not regret my decision. I have never had an opportunistic infection, other than the various std's one gets from anonymous unprotected sex. I have never missed worrying about missing a dose, forgetting to reorder on time, having my meds stole out of the mail, waiting in Doc's office, waiting for test results, or side effects like chronic indigestion, painful neuropathy, & inconvenient diarrhea. My weight & mood has stabilized too. I would suggest reading "Built to Survive" by Dr Nelson Vergel if anyone is considering alternative therapy. I also refer people to listen or watch lectures by Doctor Peter Duesberg( Nobel prize winner, & head of a research lab at UC Berkley). Dr Duesberg & Dr Nelson Vergel have some damn good questions that the whole medical field ignores. I don't have any answers or any evidence. I just know I'm healthy today in spite of ignoring advice from best American Doctors in my area, Mid West USA. XOX

Oh by the way, I have put my beliefs to tests by never refusing a load. I have take many loads of poz cum since 2007 with no ill affects.

Its Funny, you say you are "healthy" but you have nothing to back that up except your knowledge of not having a known opportunistic infection, and still being alive.... Right. I've had friends and relatives that have had SERIOUS health problems that also had no symptoms. the only thing your statements here mean is that "ignorance is bliss" for you. BTW there have been plenty of people like you in the past that were perfectly fine until they dropped dead from a VERY minor illness.

Back to the statements from the OP. I ignore people like that. I trust in science because science can be proven. Its not perfect, but its the best thing that we have.

[wood]

I have had mixed experiences with generics...

I'm not trying to say generics for HIV medication will be the same story; I'm just saying that generics are not necessarily going to be as effective as the original, as well as saying that not all generics are created equal. I know other people who have had similar experiences with generics, hence why I started experimenting with different generics.

I have a feeling you might be having a psychosomatic response to certain things. Generics MUST be made in a way that they are chemically identical and metabolized the same way, or they are not thee same drug. The only difference in that could be coatings, fillers, and binders which do not effect the chemical mechanism of the drug, but might effect things like indigestion, or stomach reaction to the medication. For example the generic prilosec may take a bit longer to work (but will always be effective within the same specified window as the name brand drug.

A good example of this is the multitude of different formulations of acetaminophen/paracetamol/aspirin/ibuprofen, etc etc. Advil, can come out with "liquigels" that may claim faster delivery, and it may very well be true, but its still the same drug. The drug industry and VERY tightly controlled pretty much all around the world. The main exception of course being China. Even in India drugs are highly regulated to the point that it is considered that india has some of the best drug makers in the world, despite mainly producing generics.

[piggyandblack]

Where conspiracies are concerned, Just remember gentile men that old saying...you just can't fix stupid!!!

[Rayne]

I have a feeling you might be having a psychosomatic response to certain things. Generics MUST be made in a way that they are chemically identical and metabolized the same way, or they are not thee same drug. The only difference in that could be coatings, fillers, and binders which do not effect the chemical mechanism of the drug, but might effect things like indigestion, or stomach reaction to the medication. For example the generic prilosec may take a bit longer to work (but will always be effective within the same specified window as the name brand drug.

A good example of this is the multitude of different formulations of acetaminophen/paracetamol/aspirin/ibuprofen, etc etc. Advil, can come out with "liquigels" that may claim faster delivery, and it may very well be true, but its still the same drug. The drug industry and VERY tightly controlled pretty much all around the world. The main exception of course being China. Even in India drugs are highly regulated to the point that it is considered that india has some of the best drug makers in the world, despite mainly producing generics.

I'm open to that explanation, but it doesn't change the experiences I've had. Typically, when I have had a generic work differently than a brand name pill, I had no idea what the difference was; I just took it, because that was what I was given. I've primarily taken generics throughout my life, so I have nothing against them. My adderall experience was something I investigated after realising something was different. I noticed I had a different pill dispensed, checked the markings with an on-line reference (just to double check the pharmacist's work), took them, felt stoned out of my head, and then investigated the potential causes. I thought it was my diet, taking it at a different time of day, or that I had an empty stomach; but the only simplest explanation was the pills, as I was able to rule out everything else. Further research showed me that I wasn't alone, and the original pills I was taking were known to be of a lower quality than the rest of the ones on the market. Again, this is just my experience, and not everyone will have the same experience. Some people don't have this issue, while others reportedly do. Call it psychosomatic, but I rarely believe a pill is going to do a damned thing for me. I only take them because I have no other alternative, or my doctor tells me to; I usually don't believe anything works until I can notice the difference, physically, or I see the end result; even then, I usually won't attribute much directly to a drug without decent evidence.

Now, considering how much I loathe that "Doctor" Oz quack (he's such a salesman, and he has contradicted himself plenty of times), I'm genuinely surprised his website talks about the differences between generic and brand name medications. His website posted the article What You Need to Know About Generic Drugs in April of last year. I was surprised to find that he claims people should keep an eye on how well generic drugs do their jobs. I actually thought he would have been on your side, wood.

According to Science Base Medicine, there seems to be no real difference between any of the generic and brand name medications. I wasn't surprised that this would be their stance, although I was slightly disappointed at how they came to their conclusions (I'll expand on why in a bit).

I would post a link to the discussion I found concerning amphetamine salts, their inactive ingredients, and a few other things, but I can't locate it at the moment. I originally used a very specific search query to find it, using the pill markings, and now I wish I had the page bookmarked! I'll keep looking, but I'll need a lot of luck to find it again. It took me a while to find it back then.

Most sources I come across don't give very much unedited information (raw study results, for example), and this bothers me; how do I know these people aren't misinterpreting what they've read? It sounds a little naive, admittedly, but it has happened a fair amount in the past. One example is the continuous anti-smoking campaigns that point to a specific study conducted, in regards to second-hand smoke. The study many of them point to doesn't actually prove their point, and they take various pieces out of context in order to purport it as evidence. I'm not saying this is happening with the generic medication debate; however, considering only a fraction of patients have this problem, I want to see a much more in-depth study based on patients who claim to have this particular phenomenon with generic medications. Basically, a study on those who report such things, in order to find out the exact cause of the reported "differences" would be a much more convincing study, to me. At least, that is how I would handle these claims as a scientist; and if given the opportunity to conduct clinical research on these particular people, I'd love to get down to the bottom of this.

I can't take a "maybe" answer as proof. I'm just not convinced all drugs are equal yet. If everyone else thinks they are, then go ahead and take them; I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing so. I just haven't had all my questions answered yet, so I can't say I really understand what is going on. I also think it's important that others question in the same way, because we could be overlooking something.

Take this metaphor however you like: If I had a cat allergy, walked into a house with three cats, I start sneezing and having problems breathing, nobody else is allergic, and nobody in the house understands what an allergy is... what's going to happen? If nobody can figure out that the cats are doing this to me, then I'll likely suffer; however, if someone thinks to take me outside, and I get better, we know it's an environmental factor in that house. Nobody else is having this problem, but we have an idea of where to start looking. But, using the logic that I'm the only person having an adverse reaction to the house, and that it is likely psychological, we'd never figure out that it's the cats that are causing the problem. So, if we experiment with just me, we could find what is causing my sneezing/breathing problems by considering what environmental factors might be the culprit. Using this logic, we could, in theory, find out why some people have better reactions to generic medications, by conducting clinical trials on only those who report to have these experiences. Using this kind of clinical research, we might be able to find out what it is in each medication that might be causing one to work better for only a small group of people.

Hopefully that makes sense to someone lol.

[dickluva]

I tested POZ in 1986. I qualified as full-blown in 1999. The state pays my health care costs, & I receive disability. I'm just saying I qualify as having AIDS. You say I have no evidence that I'm healthy, I have quarterly counts going back over 20 years that show the counts had nothing to do with how I felt. Today, I don't believe the counts are relevant. I'll say it again, after I discontinued Rx in 2007 against Doc's recommendations my health has improved considerably. My Doctor said all my symptoms were AIDS related & definitely NOT related to the medication butt the painful Neuropathy in my hands & feet disappeared in a couple of months, chronic indigestion disappeared almost immediately, diarrhea disappeared quickly too, & my weight stabilized over time. Today, I can run 3 miles in 20 minutes 3X a week, bench press my own weight 6X, leg press over 500 pounds. I wear 30" waist jeans, & weigh 175. Big difference from my medicated 36" W at scrawny 160#'s who walked with a cane. I also don't believe you have read anything by any author who criticizes current HIV/AIDS system or listened to any lectures, like Dr Peter Duesberg, or Dr Nelson Vergel. I have read the criticisms of Dr Duesberg, they never debate him on medical evidence they just call him names like "AIDS denier." Dr Nelson Vergel's "Built to Survive" changed my life, & I believe I am still here today because I follow Dr. Vergel's protocols. I think I would be dead if I stayed on HIV meds. I think many of my 30 friends I lost to this disease actually died from medication destroying liver & kidney functions. I remain grateful for the 7 years I have not had to endure doctors. Thanks for this opportunity to tell my story again. I have known several people who got clean bill of health from their Doctor, that they should expect a long life, & were dead within a year from something that was missed.

[Rayne]

It all depends on how you wish to define the term "healthy."

I think Lewis Black made a great point in his comedy show Black on Broadway (back in 2003) when he said:

"And for all we study about health, we know nothing. Is milk good or bad? I rest my case... The bottom line is that nobody knows. Nobody knows shit about health. I know this because there was an article written a few years ago, about a gentleman in the Bronx. The oldest man living in New York, 115 years old, living by himself, having no health problems, getting around without any trouble whatsoever, mentally clear. And they asked him what his diet was; and he said that between the ages of 100-115 he narrowed his diet down, and it now consisted of bread fried in fat back and three gallons of Thunderbird wine a week. When they asked him why he didn't fry his bread in bacon, he said, "because bacon's too lean."

"Imagine if he went to a doctor. The guy had been doing tremendously, and if he sat there, and described his diet the doctor would go, "What the fuck's the matter with you? You can't eat that any more, you have to start on a diet of fruits and vegetables." And he would have; and he'd have been dead in a week. Cause they don't know. They try to come up with these general rules of health, and they can't do it; it's impossible to do, because everybody's health is different. What's good for one of you will kill the person sitting next to you. Every one of you has a health that is unique, and totally different, from everybody else; completely. Because we... are all like snowflakes."

Yes, that's coming from a stand up comic; however, he makes a great point. I find it strange when people think that their personal success stories are a representation of what is correct, or when someone else thinks one person's success means it will work for them. It's nice to see someone, like dickluva, not having to worry about meds, and feeling better than when he was on meds; but that doesn't mean I would have the same outcome if I were to copy his actions. We really have no clue what we're doing with health, regardless of how flashy our gadgets get. We've been putting the cart before the horse with health for too long, and many have lost sight of what is actually truth, and what is speculation.

[wood]

I tested POZ in 1986. I qualified as full-blown in 1999. The state pays my health care costs, & I receive disability. I'm just saying I qualify as having AIDS. You say I have no evidence that I'm healthy, I have quarterly counts going back over 20 years that show the counts had nothing to do with how I felt. Today, I don't believe the counts are relevant. I'll say it again, after I discontinued Rx in 2007 against Doc's recommendations my health has improved considerably. My Doctor said all my symptoms were AIDS related & definitely NOT related to the medication butt the painful Neuropathy in my hands & feet disappeared in a couple of months, chronic indigestion disappeared almost immediately, diarrhea disappeared quickly too, & my weight stabilized over time. Today, I can run 3 miles in 20 minutes 3X a week, bench press my own weight 6X, leg press over 500 pounds. I wear 30" waist jeans, & weigh 175. Big difference from my medicated 36" W at scrawny 160#'s who walked with a cane. I also don't believe you have read anything by any author who criticizes current HIV/AIDS system or listened to any lectures, like Dr Peter Duesberg, or Dr Nelson Vergel. I have read the criticisms of Dr Duesberg, they never debate him on medical evidence they just call him names like "AIDS denier." Dr Nelson Vergel's "Built to Survive" changed my life, & I believe I am still here today because I follow Dr. Vergel's protocols. I think I would be dead if I stayed on HIV meds. I think many of my 30 friends I lost to this disease actually died from medication destroying liver & kidney functions. I remain grateful for the 7 years I have not had to endure doctors. Thanks for this opportunity to tell my story again. I have known several people who got clean bill of health from their Doctor, that they should expect a long life, & were dead within a year from something that was missed.

Okay, but sometimes feeling like crap means your body is actually doing what its supposed to be doing, fixing itself.

A common occurrence in people with severely compromised immune systems with AIDS is for all of their allergies that they once had to go away. Why? because there is no immune system to fight back. BTW Nelson Vogel (he is NOT a doctor) is also resistant to most treatments and just had a bout of cancer, which is common with people who abuse steroids. He takes adderall and steroids... I can assure you that ANYONE would feel amazing most of the time if they were constantly on Adderall and steroids because guess what, they make ANYONE feel strong and vibrant!!

I am in no way denying you feel better and that symptoms have gone away, but again that doesn't make you healthier!!! How you feel is NOT the same thing as being healthy. Is what you are doing better for your short term quality of life? sure! but that doesnt mean its going to last.

My Aunt had cancer and endured 16 rounds of chemo when 10-12 is usually the max people endure. She felt awful for over a year, and said if the cancer ever returned she wouldn't go on the chemo again. Was she healthier with the chemo? yes, did she feel better with it? not at all. But it saved her life.

I had a friend last year who died of AIDS at 28, because he never got treatment. Even if the treatment sucked for him he would almost certainly be alive today if he had choose to get treatment for HIV. And yes For you information I have read alternative viewpoints, but being blunt, most suck, and fail to address the key aspect that HIV destroys the immune system, and overtime kills the ability for a person to fight off infection and disease. Most of them (like you) focus on feelings, not science. Lastly many of the were based in a time when the drug regimes truly sucked, where as today many people have little to no side effects. Dusesberg's theory? I mean its a quack job with no scientific merit. Science is based in peer review, if your peers review it, and there is no merit to it, its done. Why? because it means that one person cant make up whatever they want, without hard evidence based on scientific merit. That is why no one believes him.

[wood]

It all depends on how you wish to define the term "healthy."

I think Lewis Black made a great point in his comedy show Black on Broadway (back in 2003) when he said:

"And for all we study about health, we know nothing. Is milk good or bad? I rest my case... The bottom line is that nobody knows. Nobody knows shit about health. I know this because there was an article written a few years ago, about a gentleman in the Bronx. The oldest man living in New York, 115 years old, living by himself, having no health problems, getting around without any trouble whatsoever, mentally clear. And they asked him what his diet was; and he said that between the ages of 100-115 he narrowed his diet down, and it now consisted of bread fried in fat back and three gallons of Thunderbird wine a week. When they asked him why he didn't fry his bread in bacon, he said, "because bacon's too lean."

"Imagine if he went to a doctor. The guy had been doing tremendously, and if he sat there, and described his diet the doctor would go, "What the fuck's the matter with you? You can't eat that any more, you have to start on a diet of fruits and vegetables." And he would have; and he'd have been dead in a week. Cause they don't know. They try to come up with these general rules of health, and they can't do it; it's impossible to do, because everybody's health is different. What's good for one of you will kill the person sitting next to you. Every one of you has a health that is unique, and totally different, from everybody else; completely. Because we... are all like snowflakes."

Yes, that's coming from a stand up comic; however, he makes a great point. I find it strange when people think that their personal success stories are a representation of what is correct, or when someone else thinks one person's success means it will work for them. It's nice to see someone, like dickluva, not having to worry about meds, and feeling better than when he was on meds; but that doesn't mean I would have the same outcome if I were to copy his actions. We really have no clue what we're doing with health, regardless of how flashy our gadgets get. We've been putting the cart before the horse with health for too long, and many have lost sight of what is actually truth, and what is speculation.

I agree to an extent, however, we do know things within reason. We know that certain diets around the world (Mediterranean) lead to the longest overall life, we know that smoking is bad, exercise is generally good, but hard on joints. We know that exposure to certain chemicals, and compounds is bad and can cause cancer, etc, etc.

The guy you mentioned is an outlier, And they ALWAYS make great stories. Heres another one. My great aunt is 94 iirc and still smokes a carton of marlboro reds a week. Still drinks, doesnt eat all that great, and lives on her own. Her IDENTICAL twin died a few years ago in a home, from respiratory failure, she never smoked.

Heres another one, Albert Steven survived the highest radiation dose known to man with almost no side effect. He was a victim of an experiment after WWII because he was thought to be terminally ill. However, he wasnt, and still lived to be 75. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens

People ALL react to things differently, but overall we know certain things will kill, and we know that when the immune system effectively ceases to exist because of HIV/AIDS, the person dies from very basic infections.

[rtpbbcub]

I like conspiracy theories, not because I believe them, but because I wonder at the ability a person needed to create it, the charisma to convince others of it, and the capacity of so many people to keep believing despite evidence to the contrary. It really is, in a way, inspiring.

Where ever there is a dollar to be made, someone will come up with a conspiracy theory. Because, let's face it, we all have to eat. And some people have a skill set better suited to convincing other people to give them money, not to doing anything productive that people would want.

Its the story of televangelists, infomercials, climate change deniers, ponzi schemers, snake oil salesmen, get rich quick books, and anyone else who could sell other people on an alternative reality. Which isn't very hard, the desperate want to believe.and what is really being sold is comfort, peace, and hope. False comfort, peace, and hope, but sometimes that is better than what science has to offer.

[cum2me]

BEAUTIFUL.

thank you for going against the tide, and with such eloquence.