Four days ON

Four days ON, three days OFF on prime time state TV
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

ANRS-4D on prime time state TV:
a commented transcript

By Charles Edouard!

Breaking News, 22/11: Soon the french Guidelines HIV 2016 and the counter report will be published; we will keep you posted, here ...

AIDS: Can treatment be reduced?

Richard Cross is a well-known singing teacher on television. But in recent years, this seropositive activist also tries to attract attention on another method of treatment.

Unlike most patients, he no longer takes his daily treatment ...

"I take the medication just twice a week because the load by these drugs in the blood easily exceeds one week. When I take it on Monday and Tuesday, the effect of the drug will last until the week after and keep HIV at an undetectable level, so I have no interest in continuing to take medicines for five days, that are useless, it's an unnecessary over-medication," he explains.

The only requirement for Richard Cross is to have more frequent blood tests to monitor his viral load.

My comment: compared to the 1/7, isn't the 2/7 often an over-medication too? Once good efficiency is made certain (over 2-3 years ...), are bi-monthly VLs not an unnecessary over-medicalization?

Four days of treatment instead of seven

Richard has started this therapeutic alternative alone, to reduce side effects by antiretrovirals; despite the evolution of triple therapies, in recent years, their long-term impact remains uncertain.

Today, scientific studies are far from validating a medication two days a week. The latest, the ANRS-4D pilot study, evaluates the efficacy of triple therapy, taken four days a week.

"The 4D study consisted in giving reduced treatment to therapeutically successful people with an undetectable viral load at baseline, a reduced treatment where triple therapy was given four days a week," says Dr. Pierre de Truchis, an infectious disease specialist. Result: after one year, the researchers found a significant success of this reduced treatment strategy because "for the hundred patients who started with an undetectable viral load at the beginning, 96 of them kept their viral load undetectable, throughout the study for one year ".

My comment: De Truchis himself concluded that the 4 failures are due to cowardice, cheating and sabotage: will he finally take note of his own corrections?

But it is still too early to recommend this approach to patients. Especially since it requires strict medical supervision otherwise this reduction of drugs can prove dangerous as confirmed by Dr. de Truchis: "Many patients come to consult and have made of themselves a reduction by their own accord. In this case, there is a risk of resistant viruses ".

My comment: The infantilising discourse of de Truchis is probably false: he has never brought the slightest beginning of evidence. At the end, such evidence could be demanded!

My comment: strict medical supervision is a lunacy, a pro-domo, corporatist, castrating injunction, without the slightest factual justification: the initial, once and for all, determination of Premium Eligibility is enough. Viral load monitoring, more frequent at first, is desirable without being essential. What then about strict medical supervision? Pffff ...

Therapeutic and financial relief

To confirm this strategy, it is now necessary to produce a new double-blind trial that includes 700 patients.

"We will compare a group of patients who take the treatment all week with the one who takes the treatment four days, hence the name of 4D. And we will try to show that taking the four day treatment is as effective as taking it daily. This strategy is visible in France, patients wait for it, but it is absolutely not visible at the international level. Americans look at us with a lot of skepticism and for this reason we need to have extremely robust results "explains Professor Jean-François Delfraissy, infectiologist.

Finally, the last argument advanced by the proponents of this new therapeutic approach: the potential savings generated by a lower consumption of antiretrovirals.

My comment: R. cross had slipped an affectionate wink to J. Leibowitch, the inventor. The report could have mentioned the years of pharmaceutical remission thus obtained (more than 800 to date) and the enormous hope of being able to treat more patients, to tackle the million of deaths annually, especially with children.


This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

time to rebound

time to rebound
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

An activist activist, unaware of ICCARRE, opens the box:

Blessed are our readers: here we also look at how to benefit, in practice, from what the facts show. Richard Jefferys seems to ignore all of the short cycle and years of pharmaceutical remission. This is even more laughable now that our good Siliciano recently acknowledged his errors on reservoir content, hardly capable of initiating a rapid reactivation.

The time needed to rebound is the keystone of ICCARRE 1/7. We started this discussion here, and show its practical use there.

We can now visualize the time-to-rebound

The DNA method tels us nothing. We will still devote a post just to have the pleasure to grill down the Rouzioux criteria, which caused so many pain to patients.
Mykola Pinkevych in HIV Reactivation from Latency after Treatment Interruption provides a better understanding.

An analytical interruption can be done easily, is a bit tedious, and sheds much light.

Pointless! said J. Leibowitch: since we know how to do 1/7, why bother with an analytical interruption!
He has a point... If we have better things to do, let's peep at the results of scientific research. There are a few trials, duly documented, with a hundred of patients:

Author	Date	Titre	Lien
R. Davey / A. Faucy	1999	HIV and T-Cell dynamics after	read...
Marek Fischer	2003	HIV RNA in plasma rebounds within days	read...
Mark T. Bloc	2006	The Role of Hydroxyurea ...	read...
Rothenberger	2012	Abstract_Brief_Interruption	read...
Rasmussen	2014	Panobinostat_latentvirus	read...
Kroon & Ananworanich	2016	160717 Ananworanich Abstract 10535	read...

The time-to-detection: 21 days. on average!

To find the time to detection, we have to dig in eradication studies, since, at the end, they do an Analytical Interruption (the only valid method...), and, look at control patients. And, as the intervention is useless, why not consider also the patients that did undergo the failed reservoir intervention! See Ananworanich presentation.

Remember the pathetic sales pitch by Pr. Rouzioux-of-the-criteria, she does not mention it! Whichever: she does not know and this is incompetence, or, she knows, but prefers to wrong the audience.

The discreet sponsor does not mind... What about you?


This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

Comments

Anonymous 14 Nov. 2016


Charles-Edouard 14 nov. 2016


Joey 20 Nov. 2016


Charles-Edouard 20 Nov. 2016


Joey 21 nov. 2016 à 05:39

Quatuor: what for ?

Quatuor: what for ?
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

Quatuor and Strategy # 1

Following our suggestion: he goes to de Truchis; was disappointed ...


Excellent move! Finally, we have doctors who know about lighter treatments (most are in France):
http://once-weekly-hiv-therapies.blogspot.fr/p/experienced-doctors.html
7/7 triple therapy followed by 4/7, triple therapy has advantages: it is perfectly mastered at Garches Hospital (by de Truchis) and is based on solid science: 0 intrinsic failures in 190 patients! It opens to 1/7: weekly dosing, which is great, psychologically speaking.

The Mono Tivicay ®, practiced by some in 4/7, is an attractive compromise.

De Truchis offers a strategy where he excels: There is no reason for disappointment ... If you want to be disappointed, for sure, then, you go to Molina! There, you'll be served!

For mono Tivicay®: Katlama (Salpêtrière, Paris), Hocqueloux (Orléans), Lafeuillade (Toulon)

Quatuor? Why is that?

The ANRS feeds Big Pharma and this is no good for patients. Leibowitch is an outspoken opponent of the ANRS since its creation: why would you want the ANRS make him a bed of roses? These squabbles Parisian are at the expense of patients! Please, stop!

The enemy, defeated by ICCARRE, comes back through the window: ANRS, wants to limit the bombastic effect and deprive ICCARRE its atomic class victory atomic class.

A trial is a test of hypothesis: always keep an eye on terms and conditions for inclusion. The hypothesis tested in ANRS-4D: Leibowitch he lied? The answer is no! So ICCARRE-2 results (94 patients) and ANRS-4D (96 legitimate patients) can be aggregated: 190 patients!

What is then the hypothesis tested in the Quatuor?

When the ANRS publicized Quatuor, it sees in ANRS-4D 4 failures. These failures were lies, as it has been found out later. 4 failures that can not teach us anything about any inclusion criteria (always the harmful influence of Rouzioux-of-Criterias), especially as they are 'failures' without any other cause than cowardice and toxicity (the reduction of which is the target ...). 4 pseudo-failures, how to analyze them? We need more ... How Many more? Well ... 25 ... 25 divided by 4% falls on 625.

Did not you find the size of this trial: 640 patients, a bit unusual? 640? Why not 600 or 800, no... 640 ...

640 So ... That is rounding 25 divided by the failure rate (which were pseudo-failures, remember)

If there had been only three failures (ie if virologist-saboteur had been excluded), the trial would have been set at 840 ... The size of the test depends on the presumed failure rate (by ANRS, here misguided by anti-ICCARRE lobby). This failure rate (which was revised lower) made them very upset: the anti-ICCARRE lobby anticipated 5 or 10.
They have been screwed ... So they screw us ...

The intrinsic failure rate was 0 in the 96 'real' ANRS-4D participants, therefore, the 94 patients at Garches are valid: 190 patients, 0 failure: 0 among 190. Quatuor is only 3 times ICCARRE + ANRS-4D. ZERO was the observed rate, perhaps a bit lucky ... A bit of favorable luck.

In the test of hypothesis, we test the negation of which would be favorable (null hypothesis), hence the inversion in the expression: we invalidate the negation (I know ... It's not easy ...)

The main hypothesis tested is: the low rate of failure in ANRS-4D was due to chance. A secondary hypothesis is tested: INIS are not suitable for 4/7.

We want to ensure the true rate (1 or 2%?) Or ... But, then, we should look at the REAL rate of intrinsic failures, and put an end to cheating and sabotage. Especially as test of two hypotheses is tricky.

One of the stated objectives is to open the process to as many patients as possible. Of course, we do not believe a word: the avowed purpose is to delay, limit the impact of ICCARRE.

Let's compare inclusion criteria

Compare, differential conditions for inclusion ICCARRE, ANRS-4D and Quatuor

Conditions	ICCARRE	ANRS-4D	Quatuor
CD4 at baseline	> 200	> 250	> x (CD4-Quatuor)
perfect adherence	prerequisite	requested (controlled by dosage)	Quatuor ?
reservoir (proviral DNA)	Not required	Not required	?
Nadir (CD4)	Not required	Not required	?
CD4/CD8 Ratio	Not required	Not required	?
pregnancy	?	to be avoided	?
duration under current molecules	> 6 months	4 months	?
Is Nevirapine eligible ?	Yes	No	?
Is Issentress eligible ?	Yes	No	?
Is Stribild® eligible ?	non avail.	No	?
Is Triumeq (ou T&T) eligible ?	non avail.	non avail.	?
is Tivicay® Bithérapie eligible ?	non avail.	non avail.	?
Is Tivicay® Monothérapie eligible ?	non avail.	non avail.	?
Eclipse (Time to rebound)	not published	no	?

In a future post, we will discuss other aspects:
- Avoid cheating
- Include as many therapies as possible
- Avoid changing the key criteria
- Dare to be transparent
- The problem of Premium eligibility: observation of Eclipse

Until then: be compassionate ! Millions of patients in need suffering overmedication, when millions do not have access, the cost of a million death each year!




This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

The Montreal patient

The Montreal patient

Stribild® as Achille's Heel

This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

A patient at Clinique l'Actuel, screwed by Stribild ®

A case reported by the so lovely Dr. Réjean Thomas:

Development of a G118R mutation in HIV-1 integrase Following a switch to monotherapy dolutegravir ...

Montreal: another victim of Achille's Heel:

Poor patient ... HLA * 5701 positive ... This may have helped him be asymptomatic for so long. Why enter the treatment on the basis of a single reading of CD4 < 350? Ah ... Yes ... The new US recommendations, with, as first choice, Stribild ®. Why start so early with the Tivicay® mono-therapy, whereas a Dual Therapy Tivicay® + Lamivudine could have made a reasonable step? See how the Doctor (Dr Thomas?), puts the blame on the patient? He would have learned about the mono Tivicay ®? Where so? On the internet probably. Oh ... Naughty boy! ... And he is pushing, despite admonitions by his doctor ... Yes ... But without prescription, the patient can do nothing ...

In the discussion, the authors note:

Science, showing the Achilles Heel Trojan Horse, only took place in Oct. 2015, and, rare, very rare, too rare are those who relayed the discovery, made in Paris. The damage is done, and the pill is bitter to swallow ... And also for the prescribing doctor ... Stribild ®, once again, challenged ... Poor Quebec ... Its First-in-class biologists were the first to pinpoint the mono Tivicay® ...

Bad luck, the marketing teams from their Southern neighbors had already managed to position the Trojan Horse Stribild® as best choice, without the faintest history. Finally, this patients ends up with PIs. Holy shit ...

You read, here, and nowhere else, about the Achilles heel, the Mono Tivicay as first Line, the extraordinary success of ANRS-4D, the negative recommendation by the HAS for Genvoya ®, the Montreal patient (another exclusive ...), then you begin to see the broad picture. That's it, you think you have it all!

Not so fast! You do not know yet the Munich patient, DoluMono, Domono (later, this October!), how the snowman melts, suicides during the START trial ... I have more! And the best!

The Achille's Heel Trojan Horse has been widely discussed here. It was presented by C. Katlama at EACS-2015 and published in June 2016. Our regular readers had a head start ...

Hop! (as Achille Talon would say) Good weekend and good fuck!


This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

Gvt Health body torpedoes Genvoya(tm)

Gvt Health body torpedoes Genvoya(tm)
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.

From a patient who has poorly maneuvered:

What a journey! You toasted almost all your treatment options simply because of toxicity that you, and you alone, allowed to break in... Bravo!

Apart from the initial phase, your new combo has a very low dropout rate. This one remains widely used, to the chagrin of merchands. The Genvoya ® proposal will then have no interest.

If the patient has a proactive doctor: the 'promise' for relief that was made to encourage the patient to enter early in treatment, will be held. If the doctor is of the reactive type (relief only if under duress) the promise of yesterday will quickly retracted.
Remember to ask about what happens next before running to the slippery slope

In the first few years of its release, no one had seen the toxicity caused by TDF (which is in Truvada®). No one. No one; neither phase 3 trials or systematic monitoring done by D: A: D: S. And this, everyone has forgotten.

Toast an option due to resistance or due to toxicity, it is the same shit!

If the doctor is seasoned and proactive; the 'promise' of a lower medication burden that entices the patient to early treatment, will be fulfilled. If the doctor is of reactive type (lesser medication load only if under pressure) the promise of yesterday will quickly be retracted.

You want to take a second opinion (in a perspective a lower burden): you are proactive.

And, if you go to a reactive doctor, same as your current doctor, you are fooled again. And you can not know in advance: doctors not to put their 'profile' under their name

HAS torpedoes Genvoya®

Translation Note: the HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé) is a French gvt body, established in the wake of the Vioxx and mediator scandals; An equivalent to Britain's NICE. It aims at protecting patients and doctors again falatious claims.

The HAS ruling concerning Stribild® was already severe: it had positioned Stribild® in second line.

It points: [...] the low genetic barrier to resistance to elvitegravir and the lack of demonstration superiority in terms of effectiveness compared to other available INI (Dolutegravir, Raltegravir), and the need for a pharmacokinetic enhancer, Cobicistat, [...]

Genvoya® is nothing but Stribild® where TDF was substituted by TAF. Here is piece in Pharmaceutical that introduces the trick: This is an incremental innovation, which the Transparency Commission of the HAS has also denounced no improvement in actual benefit (although benefit is important)

The 2 reference documents are:

TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE, Avis and March 2, 2016 and SUMMARY OF OPINION OF THE TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE; General access is here.

About Genvoya®, it says: When a treatment strategy with integrase inhibitor is considered, Genvoya ® is a second-line treatment option.

In short: Say, you are under Atripla ®, and your doctor offers Genvoya®. If you want to follow the opinion of the HAS (or simply if you want to avoid Genvoya® food obligation): simply show this ruling to the doctor. Does s/he considers a treatment strategy with integrase inhibitor? Obviously, yes. Can s/he suggest Genvoya®? Well no ! It should first try the alternatives: Raltegravir (Isentress ®) or Dolutegravir (in Triumeq® or Tivicay ® ®)

If we follow the HAS (May 2016), Genvoya ® should only be considered as a replacement to Stribild® or Isentress ® . HAS denies the use of Genvoya® outside this context of historical continuity.

If you go by the HAS, Genvoya ® should never be your first treatment, or even, in the vast majority of cases, your second. At the earliest, this will be your third ...

For a relegation, that is a relegation! ...

And that nobody talks about ...

HAS: schizophrenic and obsequious

Having thus torpedoed Genvoya®, HAS will engage in an exercise of unprecedented baseness.
So, it had just disqualified for lack of improvement (TAF weak evidence of toxicity reduction), but, in the same document, it pleads the manufacturer to promptly substitute TDF by TAF, in other products . It has nothing to do with Genvoya®, but they write it there, in the ruling on Genvoya ®: message well received or a shot in the dark?

France, now a pharmaceutical dwarf, forced to supplication.

As if the US were to return a favor as they just sunk their flagship to the sea floor!

Genvoya ® HAS got it right: the trap is set for you

HAS saw it coming: in a future post, I 'll report how a Quebec doctor screwed a patient. For him, the pill is bitter: if he had read us, he would have thought twice.
This case illustrates a scandal being put in place: it is the same order of magnitude as the tainted blood scandal: the problem is known, but the alarm is not sounded.

By definition, the trap is concealed: it is enough to reveal the mechanism for curdling terror. To be continued...

Comical: the Seroneg's coming-out

Seronegative explain life to poz, as read on the Web, and worth reflecting upon:

Weird story about the 'AIDS' organizations: An official at a local 'conference' (AIDES) talks to about twenty HIVers on how to approach life ... I ask him if he is HIV positive, to what he replied that he preferred to keep the answer for himself! ... I left the room, protesting that announcing one's HIV status could be a problem that adds to the one of announcing one's HIV negative status!

Have a good week-end and good fuck!


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.

Pr. Delfraissy's surrender

Pr. Delfraissy's surrender
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

The ANRS announces Quartuor:


The introductory course is done in 7/7 ... Should we now recommend 4/7 days in current practice? NO said Delfraissy / ANRS: Pffffff !!! It's hard to have put our trust in these guys ...

ANRS-4D: there was cheating and even sabotage: the results prove it!

Two camps clash: Septists against Tempists

- The septists, infected by a Septisticum parasite: they only swear by 7/7strategies
- The tempists, proponents of the Viral Eclipse: the virus takes 7-21 j. before showing its nose: They follow the Tempo

It is by no means a 'enlightning' camp versus a 'conservative' camp. No, on one side we have the septists on the other, the tempists.

- The septists have an apocalyptic vision: 7 days otherwise, the Apocalypse
- The tempists have a temporal vision: the action adjusts to the viral tempo

I have used ICCARRE 1/7 and HYPO-DOLU (another 1/7): it works. So be it. When you witness the 1/7 at work , then you understand.

There is no question here of a showdown "massive therapy" versus "lighter therapy", but Septists against Tempists.

The ANRS and the blow snow job.

This is not a tiff amoung pharmacokinetists, between Peytavin one side, and Alvarez on the other. Between the proponents of a minimal plasmatic concentration, and the proponents of a residual concentration in the cell.

No, this is something deeper: the virus is integrated into the genome: it is comfortable, don't bother it, is is napping: it is the Sabbath, a long Sabbath ... It is a lentivirus, after all.

The confrontation was deferred by the desire of Prof. Delfraissy. It has happened: they are defeated.

The surrender is booked: there is no place for rear guard skirmishes.

SURRENDER does mean SURRENDER.

RESIGNATION is not our purpose (it's inevitable, so without interest), because actually it is the SEPTISM, which infects the entire profession, that surrenders.

Among the first to have published on the viral Eclipse, we find Antony FAUCY (the Big Boss at NIH) and Mark Dybul: it dates back to ... 2003!

It is the confrontation of the Alliance Faucy-Dybul-Leibowitch and Axis Ananworanich-Delfraissy-Katlama.

The SURRENDER, dear Professor Delfraissy, is not a "peace of the Braves": the SURRENDER is to let its territory to the winner: the real-virologists who-have-understood-the-virus: we can no longer accept SABOTEURS, who may compromise the upcoming new age. How can we accept cheating and sabotage in an ANRS?

Losers must recede: we will put them to trial them in due time.

The judiciary suit, the evaluation of the ANRS, all this will take place, in due time. The Pr. Delfraissy, perpetually tanned, is not just a one-time fuse: the entire Septism collapses.

A crooked medico-capitalistic construction will disappear, it is inevitable; since the Viral Eclipse is a factual reality.

It is known and recognized by FAUCY-the-Great who finally wins. Will Delfraissy and his tiny ANRS go against FAUCY-Dybul-Leibowitch?

Applause: Delfraissy, the artist, the man who we will have cost us 3 billion, has capitulated: Quartuor trial has been announced, even before being conceived: 640 patients!

Why 640? Is the size, 640, up to the challenge?

Yes, from the perspective of those who panick-decided, to save face, diffuse the bomb.

No, from the point of view of the victors, the scientific virology Alliance, attached to the facts

Facts are stubborn, the Eclipse Viral exists, it is measurable, I explained how to do (if you want to have fun).

In the Anticopernicus world, the Eclipse is denied. Copernicus, Newton win because they predict the Eclipse, and the commoner can see with his own eyes. Anyone can measure the eclipse, if wanted ... I started a post series here, and here. The measurement is not so important, as long as you know how to benefit from it.

Applause: Delfraissy the artist, the man instrumental in postponing , yet launching, ANRS-4D ... Exit through the back door or face-saving matters little to us: patients are not fooled by the guilty procrastination: patients who can not register to Quatuor, due to lack of spots, will need a solution.

And Congratulations to Leibowitch to Truchis, and other advocates of the Faucy-Dybul insight. Thank you for the hundreds of years of pharmaceutical remission ...



This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

First Line Dolutegravir monotherapy

First Line Dolutegravir monotherapy
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

This post is a follow-up to attack monotherapy and monotherapy of attack: the scoop.

jesuisdutreize, true pioneer, opens the frontier (in maintenance):

We fear Nope: an firstline therapy is taken, the virus is blasted, you let it cool, then, allow it a siesta and you maintain with 4/7. It was nontheless necessary to realize that Tivicay® Monotherapy is an effective firstline therapy (finally ...). If it had been possible with AZT or PIs, we would not be here, with these new questions. If the manufacturer had not cleverly obfuscated results, we would have realized faster!

Lanzafame opens the show: FirstLine Tivicay ® Monotherapy

Like us, Dr. Massimiliano Lanzafame opens his account of experience with the extraordinary results of ING 111521 (the page in French is more complete).

He recalls: Ddolutegravir 50 mg demonstrated a high power with a reduction of 2.5 log after 10 days of monotherapy.

We said: Log 2.5 is a low-estimate: maybe this is more!

The results speak for themselves:



Crystal clear: First line Tivicay® monotherapy : 9 naives patients = 9 success !
How many successes with First line Tivicay® ?:
- ING 111521 : 8
- Dr Lafeuillade : 1
- Dr Lanzafame : 9
Total : 18 (very good!)
Here, we are expecting confirmation results by Pr Katlama (Paris) ... We are not the least worried!

Normal values vs desirable values

The normal value is estimated as follows: take patients without problem, measure, calculate the mean and standard deviation and anything above (say, 2.5% below and 2.5% above) is deemed not normal.

The 'normal' salary and the desirable minimum wage, are not the same thing!

Desirable: looking at patients without problems, and those with problems, and put a threshold: those above are less problem-prone, those below are more likely problem-prone.

And it's not the same! And not the same at all times ...

Example: CD4 value 'normal' is 800, and, say, greater than 500; the desirable value is > 350 (for short ...)

To determine the desirable value, one must look at Joe-on-the-street patients (excluding those who already have the Achilles heel, it is another matter, and not a matter of concentration) who fail with dolutegravir (excluding other causes such as toxicity). To do this we will have to find patients who are failing with dolutegravir: good luck! Do you know patients failing with dolutegravir? Good Luck!

There, it's that simple: pharmacokineticists are unable to document a desirable dose ... And no one raises the question: why? How come? No ... They do not care. We force-feed, we force-feed ...

Well, then the force-feds are fed-up and fire the quacks: and this is normal!

Sorry... This is desirable !!!

Good Weekend and good fuck

ANRS-162-4D: cheaters are exposed

ANRS-162-4D: cheaters are exposed
This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

This what ANRS-4D uncovered

In short:
- J. Leibowitch was right: you can follow the 4/7 schedule, within the rules
- Eviplera ® (Complera ®) is eligible 4/7
- You can go direct to 4/7: bypassing 6/7, 5/7
- There was cheating in this trial
- There was sabotage in this unsponsored trial (see below)
- No intrinsic failure in this trial
- For patients 100% eligible and 100% adherent, regular VL inform us of nothing: they are useless

2 cheaters: revealed by their concentrations!

No doping! Not cheating! No cheaters: dosage reveals who pees blue, and also those who do not take their meds at all!

Le Figaro exposes the cheating:

"Of the 4 patients failing, one quickly abandoned by fear, and two are unlikely to have followed their treatment," says Pierre de Truchis (Hospital Raymond Poincaré), who led the study.

Yes, of Truchis has indeed granted an interview! He leaches out here:
Dr. De Truchis: ... two of the three had low plasma levels of drugs which suggests they did not take quite the expected dose of drugs.

Who are the 2 patients in question? identifying 2 patients 3 on low dosage criterion is easy ... Since 1 of 3 patients always a largely measurable concentration.

Patient number 2 obviously take Atripla ®; he has Efavirenz concentrations, while ON, well above the average (3669 for an average of 2218 among 100 patients) and, while in OFF period, has 1543 (an average of 692 when OFF), which is even a concentration worthy of ON. If de Truchis accounts that patient #2 as one who does not take these meds, he will have clarify. Because, in the published poster, patient # 2 taking his medication properly.

Who are those, then, who do not take the dose as ordered by the trial? Apart from # 1 and # 3? Whose doses are so low that they are not detected. Including in the period in which they were supposed to take meds. So that's quite clear.

You have undetectable concentrations when you are supposed to take medication and that you claim 100% adherence: you are lying!

Dear: Your doctor has prescribed Kivexa + 1 protease inhibitor, to be taken daily, and you miss doses? We understand you ... You are in a vicious circle: you are under PIs, you miss doses, your doctor realizes it, fears resistance, so leaves you under PIs. We understand your interest for the short cycle. We understand ... But you lied to the investigator ... Your lie costs us: redo the trial, delay deployment of the strategy for yet another 3, 4 or 5 years. The millions of patients who are waiting for a reliable strategy or simply treatment (because of shortages), do not say thank you! Here your lies have been damaging and are reprehensible.

Note for future trials: people want to go participate in a trial just to have an excuse to stop their treatment should not be included. This should be the first criteria for non-inclusion in the trial. Exclude anyone who would want to participate just to stop treatment.

We always thank the volunteers ... but not the liars!

Cheating (provisional): it does not count!

Read our complete analysis here!


This paper was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience. Some practical aspects may differ where you live.

Best Doctors List

Best Doctors List


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

A patient writes to Professor Reynes ...

You got it right on! Facing a crappy advice, you want to get a second opinion. Not just anywhere! If you knock on the wrong door, you are misled again. Thus, knock on the right door and invite doctors to collaborate. You still need to know where to knock.

Finally, there are enlightning doctors!

We consider as legitimate reductions:
- ICCARRE (short cycle: e.g. 4/7)
- Hypodolu and ...
- The steps leading to it: Tivicay® monotherapy and dual therapy (eg. Tivicay ® + Lamivudine)

We do not consider IP monotherapy to be a modern relief. Other crappy things offered at Hospital Bichat? Stay away.

The list of alleviating doctors gets longer and you can contribute. [note: French page has more]

Tops and Flops

top

He is the fronrunner: Dr. Pierre de Truchis with 190 documented successful cases he has become the toast of Paris.

190 successful cases, duly identified, with minimal entry criteria. He knows all the cases.

The pedigree is beautiful: he works at the same Hospital as Dr. Leibowitch, now retired. De Truchis is less flamboyant.

Yet de Truchis is the King of the day! Our Top # 1.

He is worth the trip (and the waiting time ...). If you can not go or do not want: ask your doctor to get in touch with him. Especially since he has no need to wait for the results of the Quatuor trial... 190 4/7 success: he knows them by heart!

Icing on the cake: he knows how to prescribe 1/7!

De Truchis = 190 4/7 success (also 1/7) and 800 years-worth of pharmaceutical remission !!

the Flops

The losers of Parisian virology: simply put : Hospital BICHAT and Docs (or pretending to be) : Molina, Goshn, Rouzioux, Katlama, Delfraissy and semi-losers (neutral, thus not neutral ...): Dr. Gilles Pialoux, etc. Run away! Run away!

Vote with your feet!

They should not be in 'specialist' positions anylonger! They should work in less perillous jobs such as prevention , PreP ...), at least, there is subsidized work, which we know the origin of the subsidy.

Learn to say goodbye to Dr. Knock: No regrets: it's not that difficult!

According to them, you will never qualify to either mono Tivicay ® nor 1/7, then, no regrets!

It's Summer: Have Fun!

First chat on litgher treatments: August 6 at 10:00

Have fun: are reviewing the videos and releases from our enemies: those who had 'criteria' are now completely demonetized by the results of ANRS-4D, and soon by DOMONO.

The ANRS-162-4D controversy continues throughout the summer and beyond. If you want me to send you the video interview of Dr. Truchis in Durban, July 19, drop me a line (with an email address I will blot) in the comments below

Thoughts for the Summer: Today, and at this stage, the guilty to condemn are not the ones who infect others, but those who benefit from the crime ...



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