122

This was originally published here, in French (link).
We provide this translation for your convenience. Practical aspects may differ where you live.



Toxicity? In your dreams my good lady...

By Charles-Edouard!

Here's one who's had it! One must be quite unconscious!

The worst thing about this sad affair is that there are patients with 800 CD4 before starting a life-threatening treatment. If the U=U is an undeniable benefit of the treatment, it is still necessary to use it! In our tropics, the HIV Causal Cohort clearly shows that there isno excess risk in delaying treatment until 350. The same is true for START, where the excess risk measured is in exact proportion to the participants in the South (where the excess risk is real, as we know thanks to TEMPRANO) and those in the North, where the excess risk is nil, as we must remember. (see my post Early treatment: How Morlat is misleading.

At the very least, he could benefit from the LOTTI trial, which the parrots talk about here, the original article is here. Personally, my natural inclination invites me to treat, but to mistreat in this way the poor basic homo, already an outcast of a society that rejects him, not to mention professional circles, ah bah NO!!!

Toxicity vs. benefit

When the benefit is real or imperfect in the face of a situation of real danger, significant toxicity is acceptable: e.g. AZT, in its time, certain chemotherapies, etc. When the benefit is putative or even illusory, on the other hand, acceptable toxicity cannot be 10-20%, but at most 1-2%. Dr Marc Girard gives us a vitriolic analysis of Gardasil, for which we are still waiting for proof that there is a benefit or that immunization is lasting. Some dream of mass vaccination of young girls (and even young men)... Here, one of the problems is that it is absolutely impossible to identify with certainty a 1% toxicity, but multiplied by the number of innocent girls thus raped, it will make numbers!

In the same vein, let's demonstrate the real benefit of vaccinating infants against an essentially sexual disease, whose immunization duration is only 10-15 years (I speak with full knowledge of the facts, I have been vaccinated, with booster shots, and I keep an eye on them): once they reach the age of risk (say 15-45 years old...) they are no longer immune! The vaccination coverage against hepatitis B in children of 24 months (87% in 2015) is very high, but less than half of the adolescents are vaccinated. And the vaccination of ... infants is mandatory: look for the error! Will we have to wait 40 years to realize that the vaccination of infants has no effect on the incidence? If there was a vaccine against HIV, with an immunization period of 10-15 years at the most, like for HBV, would it occur to you to compulsorily vaccinate the very young?

There are toxic ideas, toxic characters...

When you invite to the debate the Rouzioux ®, the Raffis ®, the Peytavins ® (and I go on...), you spoil it: here are people from whom you have to stay away! I am not even talking about statin spreaders like Danchin ® or Steg ®... And our poor patient, don't you think that a good kick in the ass of his doctor would not be deserved ? Anyway, as soon as you hear Genvoya ®, run away and go read what the transparency commission said about it...

In the news, the French genius

Apparently, there are still a lot of people to pay tribute to him, week after week. I liked the character, even if I buy elsewhere...

overmedication is a chance if you know how to use it!

Comments

Pierre1 March 2019


AnonymousMarch 2, 2019