I am a 25yr old White Male in UK, and I have been diagnosed with HIV :(

For those who care to educate themselves on the foolishness of HIV testing, in depth.

Originally posted by lakesidepark

Originally posted by halfoldman

....But that's probably a "conspiracy" and we shouldn't trust people who actually study these things; we should rather take the word of every self-styled Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to sell us a cure for a "small price".

Never mind that the people who took the medication tended to live, while the others just died.

www.tac.org.za...

I think you have to say it louder. They DIED. They are DEAD.

That's the thing the denialists that only read and spout the snake-oil seem to ignore constantly. Amazes me.

They should quit quoting monotherapy studies done in 1992 on patients that were already deathly ill and doing it as their last shot, they got better...then they died and the denialists quote that as their proof.

I'll even take a 2001 study if you got one....I do (A5095). Still taking the same drugs. Even have some frosty vials in a vault fer ya when they find new stuff to test. I'm not dead. Sorry that ruins your argument but I would rather live than concede such a foolish argument as this.

I wouldn't even continue it except there was one part of OP about not staying on the drugs, and I hope the OP gets it that I am not responding to this to fight the denialist....I would keep my mouth shut for that normally, but just the thought the OP might buy into it is enough for me to take my own chances and say what I know and live.

edit on 6-1-2012 by lakesidepark because: just can't quit fighting the idiots that are trying to kill people...its a mission

Fail, again. In 2002 Dr. Amy Justice, a University of Pittsburgh AIDS researcher, stated at the 14th International AIDS Conference that "The most common cause of death among HIV Positive people is liver failure." For those who don't know. Liver failure is not an AIDS symptom, but is a direct side effect of the drugs.

Yet we have people coming into a topic on ATS claiming they have HIV and have been on the drugs and healthy for years. Laughable.

Amazing story. Good luck in what lies ahead. But please...don't listen to the quacks on this thread who are Not physicians giving you dangerous advice. Take your meds as prescribed. Discuss your concerns with your infectious disease doc.

Be well

reply to post by D_Mason


First comment - If you doubt me, too bad. Won't be the first person I pissed off because I am still alive.

(edit - actually from looking at your [D_Mason] post history, I get the impression you are more a debunker than a believer - if you can find some debunking you post it - you are a good GooGle researcher and that is fine if this is history or politics, but this is life and death. I am sure it doesn't matter, as long as the post count goes up and maybe even some stars
Seems you disagree with yourself depending on the subject you respond to, you believe in infected mothers, then another thread argue it isn't real?
And for the first suggestion of yours, yeah, ok, now that is a schoolkid response for sure, so I'm sure this is one you just throw out there because you know I ain't posting my labwork fer ya)

Second comment - You can't really believe this crap unless you have lived in a cave for 30 years.

There are very few that die these days, however many are co-infected with hepatitis, others have alcohol problems, all of this in greater proportion to the population at large. That skews the numbers and helps with one of your fallacies.

Third - The video is just pure bunk, like much of it they create a documentary, and use at least one layer of evidence that has to be debunked before you get to the truth.

The final - The conspiracy of the OP is not whether it exists. He knows it does, whatever natural or man-made cause, it DOES exist. Go away and stick to arguing on research threads where your GooGle is safe, not life threads.

Originally posted by lakesidepark
reply to post by D_Mason

 

First comment - If you doubt me, too bad. Won't be the first person I pissed off because I am still alive.

(edit - actually from looking at your [D_Mason] post history, I get the impression you are more a debunker than a believer - if you can find some debunking you post it - you are a good GooGle researcher and that is fine if this is history or politics, but this is life and death. I am sure it doesn't matter, as long as the post count goes up and maybe even some stars
Seems you disagree with yourself depending on the subject you respond to, you believe in infected mothers, then another thread argue it isn't real?
And for the first suggestion of yours, yeah, ok, now that is a schoolkid response for sure, so I'm sure this is one you just throw out there because you know I ain't posting my labwork fer ya)

Second comment - You can't really believe this crap unless you have lived in a cave for 30 years.

There are very few that die these days, however many are co-infected with hepatitis, others have alcohol problems, all of this in greater proportion to the population at large. That skews the numbers and helps with one of your fallacies.

Third - The video is just pure bunk, like much of it they create a documentary, and use at least one layer of evidence that has to be debunked before you get to the truth.

The final - The conspiracy of the OP is not whether it exists. He knows it does, whatever natural or man-made cause, it DOES exist. Go away and stick to arguing on research threads where your GooGle is safe, not life threads.

edit on 8-1-2012 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)

I doubt you, but you don't piss me off. I am used to trolls on the internet popping up into every HIV thread saying things that back the pharmaceutical industry like "I have been on anti HIV meds for the last 10 years non stop and I am totally healthy." It is foolishness. You can claim what you want, I will continue to post links so people can open their eyes for themselves.

You grasp at straws that have already been cut. No test detects HIV, point blank period, and there are numerous things which make the test react false positive.

As far as a conspiracy as to whether it exists or doesn't. There is no conspiracy about that. The good thing about science is that many things are readily publishable. The bad thing about modern science is that many times the scientific method is tossed out the window, as was the case with HTLV, oops I mean HIV.

reply to post by D_Mason

Whoa I didn't say totally healthy, pop some pills and everything is fine, duh. No it isn't.
If this was some kind of cakewalk I wouldn't waste my time arguing about what treatment is better than the other.
Internet troll huh?
Why would anyone wanna say they have this? That's some sick twisted stuff you smoke.

The House of Cards documentary was recognized by most reviewers as the pseudoscientific piece of propaganda that is was, and 18 scientists claimed that they were edited out of context.
Tragically, the HIV-positive denialist Christine Maggiore and her daughter died of AIDS-related conditions during the production.
en.wikipedia.org...

The denialists had ample opportunities to present their so-called treatments and cures.
In 2000 President Mbeki convened a meeting between the denialists (skeptics, dissidents, supplement-entrepreneurs, whatever one wants to label them) and AIDS researchers at his Presidential Advisory Panel on AIDS. The denialists mainly argued amongst themselves, with some believing that AIDS did not exist, some believing that it existed, but HIV didn't cause it, and still others arguing that HIV indeed led to AIDS but that the ARV's were bad (see Side Effects: The story of AIDS in South Africa by Lesley Lawson, 2008: pp. 219-228).
Since then they haven't successfully treated or "cured" a single person with AIDS.

Although rare, false positive and negative test results do happen (especially when the tests are used improperly or inappropriately), but there are many places to get medical advice on diagnostic testing combinations after an HIV positive-screening test.

There are countless people who have taken ARVs since the triple-therapy cocktails became available in 1996. It is certainly no cake-walk, and it's a rigorous and stressful daily regiment, with many side-effects (especially at first).
Nevertheless it works for most people, and it works long-term.
The effects on aging populations are being studied, but the first ARV generation are reaching their 60s.
It's certainly not ideal, but considering that many of these people were dying before they went on ARV therapy, it's better than the tragic alternative.

To say that people are not living on ARVs for a decade and more is not only denying the work of millions of doctors, but also the entire culture and social reality of communities affected and infected by HIV/AIDS.
It's a denial of reality.
I suppose all those autobiographies of AIDS-survivors, and the thousands of narratives are all lying then.
Everybody is lying about taking ARVs, from rural villages in China, India and Africa, to Western cities and HIV-support groups everywhere.
Maybe the evil pharma firms are paying them all, and those pill boxes in my friend's fridge were just empty props for big pharma!
Gee, what a conspiracy to weave to defend a handful of denialists.
But who knows, maybe one of them who is well-meaning will come up with something useful one day?

reply to post by benjamin2012



benjamin2012,
You may want to look into OLIVE LEAF EXTRACT (capsule form for convenience) if you have not looked into it yet.
Available at health food stores
There is enough research (online, etc) re. its beneficial effect on bacteria and viruses.
It is all natural and very affordable.
You can adjust dosage till you can feel the difference in well being in a few days or sooner.

Be well.

So sorry to see this. I'm gay and it's something that scares me, especially since the stats are that 1/10 gay males have HIV. But my medic friend mentioned something about it the other day; it really isn't the death sentence it used to be

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by paperface

 

Heck everyone can bed hop, I did it when I was younger and once or twice I forgot the condom, I knew the risk's but my little man was speaking louder than my brain. I had more chance of contracting HIV then the OP did and Iam straight.
Pfft the lack of human empathy worries me sometimes.

The odds of a straight man with no IV drug use engaging in "normal" sexual behavior with females only doesn't run a significant risk of contracting HIV. And if it's a one time occurrence it's even more rare. It's very difficult to contract for straight men. Straight males contract it at a much higher rate in Africa because of underage sexual activity, we'd consider them pedophiles here, because of the blood involved. If I recall the actual statistics for straight men engaging in normal sexual behavior with adult females and no drug use on the males part is in excess of 1 out of 118,000. I think the stat for single women for a singular sex act is 1 in 1000 or something like that.

Why people are chewing Benjamin out(the few who are) is beyond me. Give the guy a break. I'm waiting for a Michelle Bachman comment, "Well, you got AIDS because God doesn't like homos". People are soooo stupid sometimes.

Going along with that stupidity are the folks who tell him to ignore the doctors and ditch all the meds. These folks don't know anything about his specific situation not do they have medical degrees. Magic Johnson has had HIV for 20 years, takes 15 pills+ per day and works out and he's never developed AIDS and his docs say he's the picture of health. I'll briefly share 3 experiences of friends of mine. One is similar to Magic. College football player, contracted HIV sharing a needle juicing in college. He's been on various drug cocktails, works out like a demon and eats healthy... 19 years and has never developed AIDS. He's a triathlete. He's straight. I have a gay friend who has had full blown AIDS for 12 years. Drug cocktails have been treating him well too. He still gets the occasional secondary infection and has to take a couple days off work to recover here and there but he's doing well. Lastly I had, I stress had, a bisexual pal who got HIV from a heterosexual encounter with an infected male. She had unprotected sex with him for about 6 months and he never told her he was infected, she actually won a lawsuit against him. She was really into the holistic stuff and a firm believer the meds were evil. She worked out, ate right, did the alkaline stuff to a fault.... She also had unprotected sex with her boyfriend for about 2 months before she told him she was infected. She had unprotected sex because she was convinced that what she was doing cured her. Her boyfriend never contracted it even though they had 50+ sexual encounters. Like I said straight men don't often contract it during normal behavior. Why did she tell him after 2 months? Full blown Aids, she only survived about 2 years after initially contracting the disease. Bottom line, listen to your doctors. There are so many people taking the enhanced drugs that will to a ripe old age that it
s ridiculous. The statistics say they outlive the holistic crowd significantly.

Is AIDS manmade? Don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But the US government probably did at the very least introduce during the Hep B trials of the 1000 or so gay men of Manhattan in 1979. Could have been created or it could have been a natural virus that was introduced intentionally or unintentionally during that particular trial. Nobody knows for sure but that trial seems like the most like point of origination for the virus in America.

But Ben, live your life my friend. So many people are taking the new drugs and living full lives all the way through their normal life expectancy. HIV isn't a death sentence. If you maintain the normal treatment regimes diabetes will take more time off someones life than HIV. Good luck. I'm rooting for ya.

Just had another viewing of the House of Numbers documentary, and it never fails to surprise one how shockingly bad it is.
Although one could go into scene by scene detail of the deceptions, the Inside the House of Numbers Wesbsite has some of the worst points in a nutshell, including reviews, and the interviewees who felt they were deceived and misrepresented: www.houseofnumbers.org...
For example:

This website offers documents summarizing and correcting the lies made in the film. For example, a key claim in the film is that researchers found that T cell depletion doesn't lead to AIDS. But it hides the fact that the article it cites was about research with monkeys: the article says T call loss in humans DOES lead to AIDS. Another example: In the film, Christine Maggiore describes receiving inconclusive HIV tests. But the lab work shown on screen belies her words: it shows a 8 out of 8 bands reacting positive for HIV. And there is much, much more to come.

There's no real argument in the film that HIV/AIDS is man-made.
Instead it suggests that the causes of AIDS are long debunked "lifestyle" issues, like poverty in Africa, or Amyl Nitrate use amongst gay men.
The desperate use of AZT in the 1980s/early 1990s was known to be ineffectual after the virus developed resistance, yet it is constantly conflated with modern cocktails to give the impression that ARVs actually cause AIDS.

One of the main denialists in the film is Dr Peter Deusberg (his business associate in SA, David Rasnick, was found guilty of conducting an illegal vitamin trial with the Rath foundation, which removed people from their medication, and subsequently at least 5 of them died).
www.aidstruth.org...
Yet clearly, some will defend this all tooth and nail, when it seems like a true conspiracy.

The idea that poverty causes AIDS fails to explain the death of rich South Africans (including a grandson of Nelson Mandela), or the low death-rates in even poorer African countries like Somalia.
Poverty has always been in SA, so we should have had AIDS a long time ago.

Some convincing arguments (see for example Helen Epstein) put the blame for the high rate of HIV/AIDS in SA on concurrent relationships.
Although Africans are not more promiscuous than Westerners, they often have additional partners added to their marriage partners, and these networks last over a lifetime (as opposed to serial monogamy in the West).
They are also not considered "casual", so people may not feel obliged to use condoms.
Factors like polygamy and migrant labor systems may be historical influences.
The problem is that people are hyper-infectious shortly after HIV-infection, and sexual contact at this stage is very high-risk, so one infected partner can spread it through the whole network.
There may be several other factors, such as the opening of our borders to countries where rape is a form of political violence (like the Congo or Zimbabwe), as well as transactional sex, rape or consensual sex in prisons, the trucking routes where prostitution is rife, customs like "dry sex", co-infection with other STDs or even unknown genetic factors.
What ever the risk for men, women should certainly always protect themselves, since men are seen as the "drivers" behind women's infections (which account for 60% in SA). Heterosexual men have to get it to spread it, no matter how small the odds, and most of these men and women are in adult relationships.

As for the denialists, its strange how they present themselves as noble heroes against the scientific establishment, yet they falsify positions, publications and qualifications within it:
www.aidstruth.org...
Deuasberg accused another academic of having financial interests in ARVs (one of their favorite lies), which was found to be without merit, yet he had a conflict of interest.
What's even sadder is the death of so many HIV-positive denialists, and the denialist accusations against them when they succumb to AIDS-related conditions by their denialist gurus.

reply to post by benjamin2012


If you are willing to put in the time and energy you can and will be able to not only become immune to it (it will still be in your system but will not effect you) and even cure it.

it will take a lot of dedication, time and energy but will make you a much stronger, wiser, understanding and capable human being.

Quite interesting how denialism has been examined as a cult, with very real cult-like features.

One of the main features is the sheer nastiness with which perceived "traitors" are described, including one of the scientists from the House of Cards film, who clarified his position, as well as HIV-positive denialists who die of AIDS, and are then posthumously chewed out for having been closet drinkers or poppers addicts!
Clearly once involved with these groups, one cannot leave on good terms.
www.thebody.com...
HIV-positive AIDS denialists who have died:
www.aidstruth.org...
However, fortunately amongst HIV-positive people denialism is in decline, and its becoming the territory of HIV-negative people rarely exposed to positive people, or people on ARVs.


Just to clarify, since my last post could no longer be edited: It was indeed Mandela's son, and not his grandson who passed away from AIDS in 2005.
www.southafrica.info...

A reviewer from the New Humanists who changed his mind on the film:
blog.newhumanist.org.uk...
It's good to theorize various sides on an issue, but especially people on ARVs, or people contemplating safe sex should research carefully before making a rash choice on their treatment or sexual choices.

Originally posted by DrJay1975
The odds of a straight man with no IV drug use engaging in "normal" sexual behavior with females only doesn't run a significant risk of contracting HIV.

one MINOR correction to make your quotation true...The odds of a 'circumcised' straight man with.....

When the male is uncircumcised the risk of female - male transmission goes UP from 6-10 times the risk of a circumcised male. In fact...the foreskin is the ONLY exposed place on a human where you can find immune cells with the receptors for HIV on the surface. HUGE risk factor.

That completes the path and explains why in the developing world it is more a heterosexual disease, but in countries where circumcision is more prevalent, it started as more a 'gay' disease.

Get your young boys cut. It ain't just for religion anymore.

reply to post by lakesidepark


And the largest growing populations whose risks are highest for contracting HIV disease is women and children.


Good post!

One doesn't see an increase with HIV/AIDS in children where Nevirapine is available to halt mother-to-child transmissions.
They are now available in SA and most countries, and hence there has been a major decrease in SA of infected children.
However it's up to the mother to come forward for treatment.
Whether HIV-positive denialist mothers should allow their children to die because of their "cult" should maybe be a matter for further discussion.
Luckily there are few people who choose this.
The infection rate of women is still a major concern, especially since straight men hardly mention the dangers posed to women.

In the US and other Western countries we have some aging populations on ARVs, many of whom would have taken some of the high doses of initial AZT before 1996, and a number of cocktails with decreasing toxicity over the years.
They would have also taken medications for several secondary conditions.

This is also interesting for us to see how aging and other factors influence the treatments and vice-versa.

Amy Justice has done a study for over a decade of veterans on ARVs (she is also mentioned above, and as per usual, de-contextualized to prove a dissident point).

Looking at veterans over 50 she did find organs affected by both ARVs and other drugs, especially alcohol.
Nobody ever said that ARVs had no side-effects.
But its certainly not the case at the moment that most people start on ARVs and in two years they are dead, as the House of Cards documentary suggests.
The science is improving; denialism is not.
It's hanging on the lips of any minor disagreement in life-saving "orthodoxy".

What is known is that before ART people died from AIDS, often at a young age within about two years.
These people on ART made it to old age, and many are still going strong.
So strong in fact that studies on aging and HIV are now relevant.

I'm not sure how the denialists can make a point of this in any case, since they always say that only people with a ruinous lifestyle get AIDS from poppers and alcohol and die.

Well, here is what Amy Justice really researches:

There is no question in my mind that the antivirals of the 80's and 90's actually help produced some (if not the majority) of the symptoms associated with AIDS. AZT in particular. The new breed of drugs are entirely different altogether. As to whether there is no such thing as progressive AIDS without antivirals that's another subject altogether, but a valid question.

There's certainly something very murky about the whole HIV+ testing and it's false positives. If you look at the factors and indicators they use to confirm a positive it isn't just HIV antibodies which isn't sufficient enough to diagnose. Factors such as number of partners (unprotected and sexual orientation), current and former drug use (particularly IV drugs), region (country) of birth and such. Nutritional deficiences and other disease (like Malaria) accelerate the process and that's why the epidemic in Africa is so bad.

I wouldn't bet my life on HIV to AIDS theory being incorrect however. If it where me I would look to all my options and certainly take a proactive approach to my lifestyle, diet and mental well being.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

Well we certainly had no AZT here when people started dying of AIDS, and most of our country is not prone to Malaria (especially not the Western and Eastern Cape), and our average life expectancy was 62 (one of the highest in the African diaspora) in 1990, but under Mbeki's Aids-denialism, and general maladministration it went down to 50, and some claim even lower.
www.plusnews.org...

reply to post by Cosmic911


Thank you.

Back to D_Mason:
Asking someone with this condition to prove they are who they say they are on a public forum is a question that will most likely not get an answer. For one, I have polluted this screen name and can no longer tell any personal stories about other aspects of my life that may identify me to friends, family, coworkers, customers, whatever, because they don't know this about me.

SO I can only prove the aspects that are direct to this condition, and may also be relevant to the thread.

First, yes I have took the drugs for 11 years, and am now 50 years old. Started with CD4 at 232 (almost full-blown and I was definitely sick and I looked it) and VL at 20,000 copies. Current status is VL less than 0 copies per the new ultra-sensitive assay (I do have an unusual response - only two in our region qualified for a new study based on this new test with results of two tests either greater than 0 or less than 0) and CD4 leveled off a few years ago and stays between 1100 - 1400. I participate / have participated in a total of three ACTG (AIDS Clinical Trials Group) studies.

Here is where I started:www.medscape.com...

This is a description of the ACTG5095 study I mentioned earlier for the trials of the newer first-line combos. The results are detailed. Not 100% success, but a lot of patients that were successful. FYI this trial established the current standard for the first-line drugs. I can speak of this trial as evidence, not because I GooGled it, but because I lived it as a participant.

A NOTE ABOUT THE SUCCESS RATE: Although it would be stupid to judge someone based on a disease (and I assure you there is still plenty of that with this one), I do need to point out that the group of HIV sufferers, although by no means dominated by, still includes a larger proportion of 'non-compliers' than would the general population, as I cannot deny this subset of population does include a higher proportion of drug users, prostitutes, and overly promiscuous people that will not abide by the drug schedules. These are not antibiotics. The compliance rate must be greater than 96% to suceed. That means if you forget to take your drugs, you will fail.

Here is where I am:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That is a link describing ther ALLRT study of long-term survivors under treatment, the group formed from participants in other ACTG studies. As a note, in 2001 this study was only supposed to last 5 years. Just that long ago, it was the average 'predicted' survival time WITH the drugs (remember the new combos only came out in 1997). In 2004 they extended it to 10 years at the same time they announced with a public release that HIV patients on the drugs could expect to live 10 years or longer.

Just last year they extended it again, with another public release stating that now HIV patients could expect to live 20 years or longer, and reasonably expect a near-normal lifespan. On my last visit, they expanded the testing (Damn vampires).

ONCE AGAIN, I do not provide this link as my evidence of my good debating skills and ability to GooGle an answer. I provide this because I am a participant, and I celebrated each ALLRT public announcement as I was a part of it, and it was great to hear confirmation of what I felt - that I would live!

I am providing evidence from my life that I believe and can prove with my own blood, not cited evidence from research that I think would make a good argument.

I am not trying to get stars and increase my stats on a message board, and if you want to do that, no problem, there are many forums and subjects here that you can use practicing your debate skills without endangering lives.

Just don't do it with this subject, because you do not know what is is you speak of.

This should satisfy everyone else besides D_Mason, and meanwhile provide some more details to the OP and others about what a current HIV sufferer can expect from the current regimens.

As for D_Mason, I give up, once the debate resorts to accusations of lying, there is no further to go with it.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

 

Well we certainly had no AZT here when people started dying of AIDS, and most of our country is not prone to Malaria (especially not the Western and Eastern Cape), and our average life expectancy was 65 (under Mbekis Aids-denialism it went down to 47.8).

edit on 9-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

The epidemic isn't as bad in South Africa as compared to other sub saharian countries right? I could be wrong on that. What are the symptoms of severe nutritional deficiency and Malaria and are they in some way similar to AIDS in some way? What do they use to determine whether a patient is HIV+ or not and how does protocol differ from western countries?

Be well my friend, I hope you live a healthy and happy life.