186

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



4/7 in Italy! It's coming, it's coming...

By Charles-Edouard!

Very pertinent question, asked here:
What could be more natural than to think about it! When you see success rates of almost 100% in 4/7 for others, and a prolonged efficiency for yourself, you would like to think that limiting yourself to 5/7 would have been a missed opportunity. As it is iterative and Darwinian, the next increment is 3/7, it is obvious. This is not validated by a large clinical trial... So what??? it has not been invalidated either. If you don't even look for it, you can't find it!

The experimental method is described in FASEB-1: make sure of the good susceptibility of HIS virus (something that must have been done before initiating 4/7, so normally it's good), make sure of the efficacy at 4/7, don't try it under Isentress, Genvoya, Kaletra (but who still takes that?) monitor at the beginning by CV 1 month, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months (at the beginning only), and that's all! BIOLOGICAL follow-up necessary. The medical follow-up? Well... For the comfort of the mind? Maybe ? And still ... In any case, the medical follow-up in 3/7, did exist (100% success rate, subtracting the risk combos), and, in practice, it disappeared with Leibowitch...

What does the ANRS tell you? It could not be clearer: " Get on with it"...

A new publication in 4/7

This publication comes from Italy. We had distributed our biblio to various clinicians. Including them... Did it help? I don't know. We can see that French works are abundantly cited (ICCARE, Leibowitch, Calin, ANRS-4D, Quatuor). Normal, there are not many others (Breather, in 5/7, at most...). The results are the same: 100% success, a few dropouts... It's like usual... Nothing new... And the nothing new is reassuring!

The very interesting discussion is in the body of the text. That's why I made a translation in french, in extenso. You have to read it. There is a vibrant tribute to ICCARRE, despite a small inaccuracy: Leibowitch et al. published in 2010 (FASEB-1 and 2015 FASEB-2), BREATHER was published in 2016, so Leibowitch is earlier, not the other way around...

The dosages... They are instructive!

They made 4 dosages per patient... It is instructive, because as in ANRS 4-D, there are cheaters, and it shows! There seems to be 1 or 2 who take more, but mostly a dozen, or a third, who take less. And it works just as well! It shows us the way: 4/7 is good to start... It's a start... And, after a while, you have to grow up

The threshold dose is a joke!

The threshold dose is determined by the failures when introducing the molecule in a new therapeutic scheme. Never in the long term, never... I challenge you to find a threshold dose at T plus 1 year that is equal to that seen in the short term. The good example is Nevirapine, with its dose-dependent failures at less than 6 months(thanks to poor tolerability in some), but no failure beyond 8 months. No failures: no threshold.

The authors discuss here the doses observed after 3 days of interruption (but perhaps more, the patients were just doing their own thing), and we are successful even at values well below the IC90. Note that the 'official' therapeutic dose is 3 times IC90 for Rilpivirine, while it is 15 times IC90 for the more effective Dolutegravir. Look for the mistake...

The Eclipse exists: we see it, so what does the threshold dose mean? Moreover, in the long term, we don't know how to determine it. In the stable phase, it's just a flan!

Can do better...

I like this kind of publication: it is an obvious progress in the percolation of ICCARRE at the international level. This publication is in addition to the others. This poses 2 problems:

- as long as one perceives that the Eclipse is only a few days long, for everyone(vision of the 2000s), it is quite logical to consider the results of others for a reflection on oneself. Now that we have Eclipses that are both longer and more dispersed, these tests on others, on non-identical viruses, no longer make any sense!

- The tests accumulate ad nauseam. Medical Darwinism obliges, it is only a question of time that we pass to 3/7... And what a waste of time! Obviously, if 4/7 is as 'good' as 7/7, it is no less 'bad'.

The 'enemy' of yesteryear was 7/7(will there still be people to practice it in a few years?). It has fallen. The new 'enemy' is the 4/7: it will necessarily fall one day...

In the news

- Satoshi Omura, Japanese Nobel Prize winner, presents I*T as a treatment against C*D: no doubt, a Nobel Prize is no match for 'fax checkers' without the slightest scientific background. It should be noted thatin vitro I*T is as effective on Omega as on the others...

- Before/After critical analysis of the pasteurian 'predictions', it's here, and it's scouring! (it's good too...)

- Very well documented article by Helene Bannoun: The origin of the Covid-19 virus

- Very interesting Evaluation of the methodological methodological practices implemented in Pfizer trials, by Christine COTTON

- Genetic Forcing, Self-Disseminating Vaccines, Chimeric Viruses... The sorcerers' apprentices of the genome by our excellent Bruno Canard, Étienne Decroly Jacques Van Helden (it's not free, but if you ask nicely...)

Pieces of Anthology

- The virus has not mutated," says Professor Karine Lacombe on RTL (at 4 min 50 sec): To be enjoyed in moderation!

- Typhus, a little history on Science.org:

The French genius

Today is Saint Darwin's day! It was Lamarck who discovered Evolution. Darwin, the Evolution under pressure from Selection. This is still relevant, even if many advances have been made since then. Our French genius is Montagnier, who died on February 8.
If he had not set up the Pasteurian Laboratory on Oncoviruses, there would not have been the very lucrative patent, there would probably not have been Barré Sinoussi or Schermann at the head of this world competition. There would have been a genius, but not French...

We don't care about the rest, the squabbles, the greatness and the smallness. Read again Darwin, Descartes or Newton, it's not all rosy either; they also said some bullshit with no equal; history will sort it out.

The fact remains that for us, Montagnier was the beacon of a whole generation! In fact, I am interested in 2 concepts that he exposed:

- DNA does not integrate randomly anywhere (so depending on where it is integrated, it will be more or less active)

- silencing(passive reservoir) is a reasonable therapeutic goal(as for tuberculosis)

We will come back to this, it is inevitable, since it is our salvation...

Feel free to comment, like, share and use

Turn off the TV and don't be fooled by Pharisee venality