Iccarre and reservoirs

This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide the google translation for your convenience. Proper translation will come soon. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

Iccarre and reservoirs

Iccarre and reservoirs

(Nb: 2 tickets complement this: dolutegravir & reservoir and how to measure its reservoir)


Candidates for relief could be against this type of account ... should prevent manipulation tendentious.
The Septistes (the defending dogma 7/7, maintenance) have 2 'pseudo-objection':
1- there would be 'criteria' tank to qualify for relief,
2- relief might fill the tank.

Fuelling fear, such is their credo.

Any objective, factual, not just support these incantations, quite the contrary.

In drafting the handbook 4/7, I took care not to involve the 'tank' as a condition of eligibility. This is not an oversight. I found nothing that would justify ... I'm interested ... if it exists ...

Dismantle the first argument:

The criteria would type: tank and / or immunological. Are sometimes offered:
- HIV-DNA <2.5 log (why 2.5 ... where is the confusion table What is the sensitivity or specificity of this criterion can?)
- CD4> 500 and Nadir> 200 CD4 / CD8> 1: there is the height: when you read carefully the description of 94 Garches (all success with 4/7), we would have excluded 95% ! (Only 7% had a ratio> 1 to the entrance, it is to say ...)
How can people who have no experience of relief 5/7 Can construct a predictive table and pompously proclaim that if you do not meet a particular criterion, you may fail. How to identify a predictive criterion of failure when there is no failure? (Or very little, according to tests).

ICCARRE tank immunology CD4 Rouzioux relief septiste success criterion

The table in ICCARRE-2 study (94 patients) is clear: 50% were over 2.8 and 50% had less than 2.8; then put the bar 2.5 is put so low, that would have eliminated a priori more than 50 patients ... and in what name, please? The 50% and over who had more than 2.5 LOG, and who, like others, have passed the 4/7, you watch in amazement. From the top of this pyramid the majority of ICCARRIENs you 'contemptent ... And are laughing softly ...

Here, for once, to get to the bar, it is the fact ... and put the entire length

The definition, quantification of tanks is in its infancy ... and the clinical benefit of a small tank, if any, is poorly established.

confusion table deconfusion cheating specificity sensitivity test credulity HIV corruption If criterion ago, then build the confusion table!

Patients already ELISA, it was explained the concepts of sensitivity and specificity of a test: they understood. And include, thus, a criterion which one knows neither the sensitivity and specificity, this is not a criterion, the wind!

Stop smoking out: no confusion table? So ... no criteria!

For primary infected, the dynamics of the reservoir, starting treatment, abounds in favor of the non-deferred treatment initiation. The other, themselves, do not care because we do not know how to significantly reduce the reservoir. (We do not also know how to increase ...)
The drugs have no effect on the short-long tank: Then why get stuff?
The possibility of a 5/7 (or even better, 4/7 ...), is it a much better argument for the non-delayed initiation of treatment.
The 5/7 is even an argument pro-treatment more accessible and acceptable to the patient, all patients, the quibbles on the tank ...

Dismantle the second argument:
Poor woman ... You will want to make him believe that a viral rebound, low amplitude, remastered in 2-3 months max., returns to the tank initial levels, before treatment! Ridiculous!!

Back to the starting point ? Really ?? It will prove it before the state. And this ... this is not played ... We already know that it's wrong for small interruptions (research, surgery, ...).

adverse effect of (rare) viral rebound? Psychologically, yes ... but not death ... And the tank ... no patient has ever seen or felt ... a side effect? Really ??

Leibowitch, and that's the only ... publishes cellular DNA (a measure of the tank), in 7/7, before entering ICCARRE, then after every few years 4/7: no notorious increase.

I think the argument is unfounded, at the base, but who cares ...
Even the argument would be based, there still remain the following finding:
In tests with comparator arm (Faucy, Breather) rebounds were observed in the CV in the 2 arms (in 5/7 and 7/7 in). It was found more rebounds than 5/7 by 7/7 in each of the two trials.
In FOTO ICCARRE and no rebound in 5/7 trials.

The 7/7 were not more immune to this supposed re-filling ... If I'm wrong, thank you to tell me ...

We can anticipate the construction of arguments 'marketing', dependents against the 5/7, at the initiative of septistes, who have an interest, money or power, at 7/7.

But to date, no convincing ... They work there ... It's their job ... They are paid for! ... So far I have not seen ...

The attentive patient, he will not be fooled ... A careful reading tests will be useful. Here we find: www.tinyurl.com/maliberte, and, of course, on this blog.

The Practical Guide progresses ... The FAQ is enriched. This is the most downloaded document. I recommend presenting it to the doctor, as a basis for discussion.

And if they oppose you 'tank', you now know what the wrong medicine!

For myself, the 1/7 ICCARRE had no adverse effect ... Without any blipounet, zero to zero. This was true also of the vast majority of documented 5/7 ...

In Hypo-Dolu, too, still undetectable. And the tank? I did measure ... Yes, yes ... It makes me look good!

Good Night and Good Bourre!