Does The New York Times Want to Kill Gay Men?

GNN May 25, 2006

AIDS drugs for HIV negatives: the dangerous new trend in AIDS medicine

Viread: the feel-good drug

A January 22, 2006 article in The New York Times Magazine promoted the idea that gay men – not just HIV positive gay men – but all sexually-active gay men (among others) should be given an AIDS drug, on the assumption that doing so would stop AIDS. The drug in question is called Tenofovir (brand name Viread), which the writer, Jon Cohen, described as “a drug that appears safer than the other AIDS medications on the market1.”

Cohen asked, “Could the sexually active take antiretrovirals [AIDS drugs] to avoid contracting H.I.V. in the first place?” The answer is: Some people are willing to find out.

Cohen reports that “a recent survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at Gay Pride events in four U.S. cities found that seven percent of those interviewed said they had tried it.” The result? “A half-dozen studies are now under way that will determine whether these men are onto something.”

This use of powerful AIDS drugs, in healthy young people who are neither HIV positive nor have AIDS, certainly needs a buzzworthy name to sell it, and it gets one: “PrEP!”—Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. As in, Don’t get HIV, get “PREP-ed!”

Andrew Sullivan, conservative, gay HIV-positive pundit, liked the idea, and wrote on his blog: “Why not put all HIV-negative men on a simple anti-retroviral regimen as a prophylaxis, rather than as a treatment?… My own view is that gay men, if the studies pan out, could and perhaps should embark on a proactive campaign to get as many sexually active men as possible on meds2.”

Sullivan opined: “We’re used to taking pills after we’ve become sick. Why not take them before – as a prevention technique?” Why indeed? Who could object to that line of thinking? Besides the FDA, which mandates that the manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, carry the following warning on the drug’s package insert:

“VIREAD does not reduce the risk of passing HIV-1 to others through sexual contact or blood contamination.”

Kind of a mixed message, don’t you think? Maybe so for you and me, but not for the individuals and couples around the world who will be taking Viread as part of NIH (National Institute of Health) and WHO (World Health Organization) clinical trials.

I went looking to see what Viread would actually do for these young people. I found this at the doctor-run medical information website HIVandHepatitis.com4:

“All of the RTIs, including Viread, are associated with a relatively uncommon, life-threatening toxic reaction called lactic acidosis and severe hepatomegaly with steatosis (i.e., acid in the blood and a fatty, enlarged liver).”

I found the same thing repeated on the manufacturer’s FDA-mandated label (which they write in all capital letters, for some reason):


Doesn’t sound good, but what does it mean? The AIDS Treatment Data Network4 (a non-profit treatment advocacy group) explained it this way:

“Anti-HIV nucleoside analogs impair the function of mitochondria. This can lead to increased acid levels in the blood [lactic acidosis], and an enlarged fatty liver [hepatomegaly with steatosis]. The symptoms are severe nausea, shortness of breath and vomiting that does not get better.” (Yikes!)

The warning at goes a little further, explaining that that the drugs “can cause damage to DNA (genes) in the mitochondria (energy producers) of cells [which] may be the cause of many of the significant toxicities associated with each drug in this class.”

But, they noted that Viread was, thus far, not as bad as other AIDS drugs: “There is preliminary, in vitro evidence that Viread is the RTI least likely to cause mitochondrial damage,” but, they cautioned, “these data are not definitive in that regard.”

“In Vitro,” from the Latin for “in glass,” literally means an experiment done in a glass container, but in practice it refers to any experiment done with laboratory machinery, as opposed to something observed in a human or animal.

Maybe that’s what Cohen meant in the Times’ story by “appears safer” – there is simply no long-term data available yet. At least that’s the impression you get from reading the warning label, which states: “The long-term effects of VIREAD are not known at this time.”

So, what do we know about the drug?

The FDA label explains that Tenofovir is a DNA chain-terminator5. It works by disrupting the normal replication of DNA in cells, in order to stop the replication of viruses, if any are there. Of course, in HIV-negative people, the only DNA chains available for “termination” belong to the cells, tissue, blood and bone marrow of the person taking the drug. This is probably why DNA-chain terminators have been so effective at causing anemia, bone marrow suppression, organ failure, birth defects and death in patients who have taken them6.

The FDA reports that Viread also destroys bone:

“Twenty-eight percent of VIREAD-treated patients…lost at least 5% of Bone Mineral Density at the spine or 7% of Bone Mineral Density at the hip.”

The FDA adds that the drug’s effects “on long-term bone health and future fracture risk are unknown,” although four people in one study developed “clinically relevant fractures (excluding fingers and toes7).”

These illnesses: “Hepatitis, Renal [kidney] failure, Acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis [blood vessel death], Pancreatitis, Fanconi syndrome [kidney damage],” were also associated with the drug. And the list goes on – “diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, weakness,” and on, “inflammation of the pancreas, dizziness, rash, kidney problems,” and on, “The list of side effects is not complete.”

The label also warns: “Do not take VIREAD if you are allergic to VIREAD or any of its ingredients,” which is a little bit funny; I mean, how do you tell an allergy from a side-effect, like “vomiting that does not get better?” The warning continues, “If you suspect that you took more than the prescribed dose of VIREAD, contact your local poison control center or emegency room right away.”

In that case, better tell poison control in Brazil, India, Thailand and Africa to get ready. That’s where the NIH and WHO are enrolling participants for human trials with the drug. They’re enrolling 1,200 healthy, sexually active, HIV-negative 18-29 year-old women and men in Botswana8.

They’re accepting “healthy volunteers” for a study in 1,600 HIV-negative drug users in Thailand9, as well as 3500 people in India, Brazil, Malawi and Thailand, where the drug will be given to the HIV-positive partner from a “discordant” couple (that’s where one partner tests positive, one tests negative), to see if it protects the other from contracting HIV10.

The trials are also going on in the U.S., but not in young, healthy heterosexual couples. No, the study here specifically asks for 400 HIV-negative men who report any anal sex with a man in the last 12 months11. The “discordant” couples trial is also recruiting in the US, but, again, not for everyone. The trial is being held at the Fenway Clinic, Boston’s gay health center.

The trials are placebo-controlled, so about half of the people enrolled will be taking the drug, and half (the placebo group) won’t. Unless, I suppose, they seroconvert (become HIV positive) during the study. Then they too will be put on AIDS drugs.

That is, the participants will be subject to regular HIV testing throughout the length of the trial (and the couples’ trial is slated to last over seven years). If they become HIV positive, they’ll simply be put on the same drugs they were (or were not) taking to avoid becoming HIV positive. As you can see, it’s quite an offer.

Where, one might ask, does an inspired idea like this come from? The answer: the streets of San Francisco. And I mean, the streets. The trial in that fair city, with 400 healthy, HIV-negative, gay and bisexual men, is being conducted Dr. Susan Buchbinder, head of HIV research at the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

The Times reported that Buchbinder decided to conduct the Tenofovir trials for two reasons. The first: “because Tenofovir PrEP had worked well in research monkeys.” The second: “because she’d heard the anecdotes about underground use, including a cocktail known in street slang as the 3V’s: Viread, Viagra and Valium.” Street slang and pill-popping – a revolutionary inspiration for establishing international drug trials and medical policy, to be sure.

The details of the monkey research is also worth noting. AIDS researchers tried for a long time to study AIDS in chimpanzees, thinking that these primates, our nearest genetic relatives, would be the best subjects to help us unlock the riddles of the paradigm12. But it hasn’t panned out.

As the Times reported in 2003:

“In the early days of the [AIDS] epidemic, scientists theorized that the chimp would be a useful model to study the disease in people….only to find that although chimpanzees could contract the AIDS virus, they rarely became sick from it. That distinction makes it hard to use the animals to test treatments or vaccines13.”

So no chimps in the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) PrEP studies. Instead, they’re using smaller monkeys called macaques. And doing so, they claim that Tenofovir will protect healthy heterosexuals from contracting a deadly STD. How have they accomplished this remarkable feat? By shoving some proteins up….well, you’ll see.

Here’s the title of the study: “Prevention of Rectal SHIV Transmission in Macaques by Tenofovir/FTC Combination14”. Here it is again, in greater detail: “Tenofovir/FTC combination protected all 6 treated animals from infection after fourteen repeated rectal SHIV exposures15.”

As a result, we now know that drugging six monkeys with DNA-chain terminators prevents them from testing positive, by some standard, for up to fourteen anal exposures of “SHIV.” Gosh, I hope we at least bought them dinner.

But what’s “SHIV”? The paper explains that SHIV stands for “Simian [monkey] Human Immunodeficiency Virus.” But it’s not just any old SHIV: “All animals were subjected to weekly rectal exposures with a low dose of SHIVSF162p3…”

And what is “SHIVSF162p3”, you ask? Well, who knows? It’s a molecular biology experiment. A laboratory construction of synthetic proteins and genetic material derived from bits and pieces of various monkeys and humans. So, you can see how this relates to heterosexual intercourse in young, healthy men and women in India, Botswana, Thailand and Brazil. Or to sex between healthy gay men [and other non-monkeys].

But there’s another problem. These studies are being done with “Tenofovir/FTC.” That’s two drugs, not one. Two different drugs, because Tenofovir, on its own, didn’t do what the monkey-rumpers wanted it to. So what’s the point of giving Tenofovir to thousands of healthy individuals?

But even asking these questions can be dangerous. Criticism of AIDS research has typically been met with a forceful response. Asking questions like those posed above is called “denialism.” A heavy charge like this tends to silence critics. But if, despite this warning, you still don’t think Tenofovir PrEP is a good idea, it probably means one thing: you’re not an AIDS specialist.

The Times asked Dr. Marcus Conant, a San Francisco AIDS clinician about the drug. His response? Conant “has high hopes that tenofovir PrEP will work wonders. Indeed, he already prescribes it to a half-dozen select patients.”

“With my patients, it’s not even ethical for me to wait for the science,” Conant told the Times. “I can identify those patients who I know are at extremely high risk.” (How does he do that? Easy, it’s the ones who take street and prescription drugs in wild combinations.) Conant adds: “Should I wait for the scientific evidence to prove that it doesn’t work before I give it to someone where it may work?” (No, why wait? What’s the worst that could happen?)

So, will gay men take Tenofovir? A potential death sentence, a slow-drip of poison, as pre-penance for their cultural sin? I’m sure some will, and I’m sure some will feel grateful for the privilege. Like the 7% of people at Gay Pride parades. Andrew Sullivan stated that taking the drug would be “a way for HIV-negative men to do something which is not simply defensive in nature, and make decisions about their health in a moment outside the inevitable irrationality of a sexual encounter.”

Sure, we’d hate to be irrational about sex. “Next up,” he wrote: “Include vulnerable African American women in the discussion.”

Of course – vulnerable black women! They’d hate to be left out of this. But I’m not worried. I’ll bet we have drug studies lined up for them already.

References and Notes

Top Photo: Demonstration by ACT Up Paris at the 2004 AIDS Conference in Bangkok. HERE The sign reads “Tenofovir me fait vomir” – “Tenofovir makes me puke.” More from the protest HERE

1 “Protect or Disinhibit?” Jon Cohen, The New York Times Magazine, January 22nd, 2006. Cohen is the author of “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine.”

So where is the vaccine? Cohen writes in the Times’ article: “Even if it works spectacularly well, tenofovir PrEP will not substitute for an AIDS vaccine, the holy grail of prevention research…Then again, no AIDS vaccine is on the near horizon.” Note the meaning here: no AIDS vaccine, so instead, we’re going to drug perfectly healthy people.

2 Drugs and Negs Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, a Time, Inc. blog.

3 Viread Label Gilead Sciences/FDA.

4 Viread – Cautions and Warnings from the doctor-run medical information site Viread – a Simple Fact Sheet – The AIDS Treatement Data Network.

These are two of the many HIV info and advocacy sites like and The often funded by pharmaceutical companies, providing information complied from FDA documents and studies.

5 From the Viread label3: “Tenofovir diphosphate inhibits the activity of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase [a ubiquitous cellular enzyme found in human and animal cells, also used by retroviral particles] by competing with the natural substrate deoxyadenosine 5’-triphosphate and, after incorporation into DNA, by DNA chain termination.”

6 AZT, the premiere nucleoside analog, the basis for Tenofovir and at least a half-dozen other major AIDS drugs, has been studied at length. Get past the front page reporting about AIDS wonder drugs, and you find consistent reporting on the drug’s overwhelming toxicity – anemia, bone marrow suppression, accelerated illness and death. For example:

“AZT has similar effects in children as in adults. We have previously documented that AZT accelerates the deaths of those taking that drug compared to HIV positive people who do not take AZT.” (The New England Journal of Medicine 324: 1018-1025, 1991)

“Babies whose mothers had ZDV [AZT] exposure during pregnancy had a greater incidence of major malformations than those whose mothers did not. ” (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000 Jul 1; 24(3): 249-256.)

“Finally, survival probability was lower in children born to ZDV+ [AZT treated] mothers compared with children born to ZDV- [no AZT] mothers.” (AIDS. 13(8):927-933, May 28, 1999.)

7 Bone mineral density loss: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Viread (Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate) Labeling Revision

8 Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Daily Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Prevention of HIV Infection in Heterosexually Active Young Adults in Botswana (Study ID Numbers: CDC-NCHSTP-4321; BOTUSA MB04)

“This study will test whether taking a pill of tenofovir (an antiretroviral medicine) is safe for sexually-active young adults in Botswana without HIV infection and whether it will reduce their risk of getting an HIV infection.”

Enrolling 1,200 people. Ages:18-29, “healthy and sexually-active.” “Volunteers will be randomized to receive either Tenofovir or a placebo pill to take once a day. Volunteers will be seen monthly for at least 12 months to monitor for side effects and toxicities and to test their HIV status.”

“Persons who become HIV infected during the trial will receive ongoing supportive counseling, CD4 and viral load monitoring, education about HIV infection/disease, and access to HIV care including free antiretrovirals when clinically indicated.”

9 Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Daily Tenofovir to Prevent HIV Infection Among Injection Drug Users in Bangkok, Thailand (Study ID Numbers: CDC-NCHSTP-4370)

“The primary goals of this study are to assess the safety and efficacy of daily tenofovir to prevent parenteral HIV infection among injection drug users (IDUs).”

Enrolling 1,600 people. Ages: 20-60. Both Sexes. Accepts Healthy Volunteers. “This is a phase II/III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of chemoprophylactic tenofovir, administered orally once daily to IDUs… Medication adherence will be measured as: rates, by interview and documentation on tenofovir adherence card, of participants taking at least six (86%) of seven daily doses of study drug each of the four weeks preceding the monthly study visit.”

10 A Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Antiretroviral Therapy Plus HIV Primary Care Versus HIV Primary Care Alone to Prevent the Sexual Transmission of HIV-1 in Serodiscordant Couples (Study ID Numbers: HPTN 052)

“This study will determine whether anti-HIV drugs can prevent the sexual transmission of HIV among couples in which one partner is HIV infected and the other is not.”

NOTE: This is a precise inversion of the two related studies. Instead of asking whether a ‘negative’ person can avoid becoming ‘positive’, this study claims to see if a person who tests positive will be “less contagious” because he or she is taking Viread and up to seven other drugs. A remarkable claim, given that in 20 years of AIDS mayhem, the mainstream dogma has always denied the possibility that anything could make a person, once having tested positive, either be uninfectious or revert to negative (or live a normal lifespan).

“Enrolling 3500 people. Ages: 18 years or above. Nevirapine; Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; Atazanavir; Efavirenz; Didanosine, enteric coated; Stavudine; Lamivudine.”

Breastfeeding is allowed at enrollment; however, during the initial enrollment period, women may not be on a regimen containing study-provided atazanavir if they are breastfeeding” [But the other 7 drugs are allowed – what do you think – better or worse than secondhand smoke?]

“Participating couples will be enrolled for approximately 87 months (7 years, 3 months).”

11 Extended Safety Study of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) Among HIV-1 Negative Men (Study ID Numbers: CDC-NCHSTP-4323)

“The purpose of this study is to examine safety and tolerability of daily tenofovir use in HIV-uninfected men… Enrolling 400. Ages 18-60. Healthy biological male (male at birth). Reports any anal sex with a man in the last 12 months. Able to understand English.”

Recruiting at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, SF, California, and the AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta,Georgia.

12 Hypotheses on the origins of AIDS: Chimp origin of HIV-1 Nature, 1999 | and a very different view on the psychological underpinnings of AIDS

13 “For Retired Chimps, a Life of Leisure”, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, The New York Times, January 7, 2003.

14 “Prevention of Rectal SHIV Transmission in Macaques by Tenofovir/FTC Combination” (Heneine, Walid. Laboratory Branch Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC, Atlanta, GA). Presented at the 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Denver, Colorado. Feb 5 – 8, 2006) Summary

15 CDC Abstract: Prevention of Rectal SHIV…. (ibid) “All animals were subjected to weekly rectal exposures with a low dose of SHIVSF162p3 (10 TCID50; 3.8×105 virus particles), which expresses an R5 tropic HIV-1 envelope that resembles naturally transmitted HIV-1 strains. Infection was monitored by serology and PCR amplification of SHIV gag and pol sequences from plasma and peripheral blood lymphocytes, respectively.”

NOTE: My reading of the study – it’s more than a stretch from study to claim: These researchers postulate that some aspect of the SHIV construct causes the expression of a protein (in vivo? in vitro?) that “resembles” a protein which might be used by some retroviruses (what they’re calling HIV) in humans. (What is it to “resemble a protein”?) At the same time, they’re drugging the monkeys with Tenofovir/FTC, and injecting a gene/protein mixture into the monkeys’ rectums. They then do PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction – gene fragment copying tests) and antibody (blood, “serology”) tests on the monkeys to see what kind of reaction occurs between the monkeys’ blood and the test materials. They’re testing for a sufficiently strong or weak reaction between what they take out of animals, (once they fill their rectums with SHIV) and the material in the test kits (those proteins and gene sequences they associate with the SHIV construct). It’s awfully loose, speculative stuff, in my view, with too many a priori assumptions in place, to validate drugging healthy people with very strong drugs.



  1. Great article Liam, you are a beacon of light upon the cloudy, mirky waters of disinformation and proproganda. Why do a study on the effects of Viread or any of the other anti-viral for that matter, this has already been done. Check the medical records of all HIV or AIDS persons on these medications and you will find many problems.

    I, for one, was sick, my blood levels were somewhat abnormal. However, my enzymes and other levels were consistently worse while on the anit-virals. Being off the meds, my lab results are showing great improvements.

    Anyone placed on these medicines will be harmed, especially those in Africa, where there living conditions and health habits are their reasons for bad health. Giving these people toxic medications will bring on their demise that much sooner.

    All that anyone has to do to stay healthy is to take the advice from one of the all-time, greatest sci-fi classics, Star Trek; Dr. McCoy, who said, “To eat right and exercise”, probably the all-time, best medical advice.

  2. Could you give something about your technical qualifications?…

  3. Hello Don Saklad,

    (Is this you? )

    What qualifications do I need to ask these questions?

    I have none that should impress anyone so much that they trust me more than their own experience, or their own willingness to ask and investigate themselves.

    That separates me from the public health scare-mongers, who expect and demand obedience and loyalty to their every dictum.

    A freedom to think critically, and speak openly. Imagine that!

    To be fair Don, that’s a little bit cheeky (though true, I think).

    I’m not a true believer, I’m not mainstream, I’m not in the dogma, or the religion. But it took me a long time to get where I am: a lot of research, hundreds and hundreds of papers read, analyzed and discussed. Dozens and dozens of interviews, arguments and debates with professionals and amateurs, in and out of the field of medicine, science, law, education, you-name-it; and from the many perspectives: gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, academic and self-taught.

    I’ll post something on that soon. But the thorn in your question is still there, and it is the thing I’m not in favor of. I don’t worship the public health authorities. And I’m not concerned with credential, more than I am with clarity of thought, and evidence in research.

    Now, this wasn’t always so. I probably had more trust (as in ‘faith’) in them years ago, before I started looking deeply, reading and researching on my own and with others, and asking hard questions.

    For example, I remember being shocked and dismayed when a friend told me, years ago, that there was something truly wrong with the AIDS establishment (or with what we call ‘Aids’). It took me a great deal of energy, and a certain amount of courage to see if what he was saying was true; if there were really gaping holes in medicine and science, glossed over by a public mindset encouraged and willing to worship men in white coats, and tremble before their mighty institutions.

    Bottom line, Don, is that I don’t worship at that church.

    I’ll certainly get back to this question of what I think and why. My answers will not satisfy everyone, I’m sure. But they will be honest, and give the reader a chance to follow my footpath, to see what they come up with.

    Hope that helps.


  4. Liam,

    Only a moron would ask the question:

    Could you give something about your technical qualifications?…

    The AIDS drugs are more lethal and cause more severe adverse reactions than the underlying disease. See Reisler Paper in JAIDS.

    Keep up the great work, Liam

    Hank Barnes

  5. This is an excellent article that’s getting positive responses here and elsewhere. It subtly brings up questions about JUST HOW FAR are we going to go with this “AIDS” madness. Unfortunately, for some gay men and their doctors (who don’t want to wait for the science to catch up), the madness is NOW, and it goes completely unquestioned.

  6. Liam,

    Andrew Sullivan sez: “We’re used to taking pills after we’ve become sick. Why not take them before – as a prevention technique?”

    I don’t think Sullivan is representative of the gay population in general, but I can only hope he represents a small segment.

    How moronic can you be? He sounds like a highly-educated, high-tech junkie. Andy, why not take random pills each day to ward off random diseases in perpetuity? Yeah, that’ll work.

    This “pill-popping mentality” is beyond idiotic. It’s a fetish.

    Hank B

  7. HB,

    a funny, well-made point. Even I get so overwhelmed by the weight of self-importance the aids industry spews out, I lose track of what’s actually happening.

    Why not just take pills for every illness, if this actually had a chance of improving health? Because it doesn’t.

    We’re such a bunch of sheep these days. Maybe always have been, I don’t know. But when we’re talking about drugs and pills and manufactured illness categories, there’s precious little thought going on out there.

    A fetish! Maybe you’re right. It is so very strange, and kind of desperate and sad. Really too much. These crazy pills for perfectly healthy kids, just because they live in Thailand.

    Why don’t we do it at Beverly Hills High, if we’re serious about sex having anything to do with it?

    Dan – thanks!


    thanks for your post. So you say you were on the drugs, and you’re off. What were you on and how long? How did it go?

    What changed your mind, and how’s it going? (just fine, I know, but if you don’t mind posting a detail or two, I’d like to hear).



  8. Liam, it is not just powerful chemotherapy for HIV negative gays – up on the Center for Disease Control website they are now recommending HIV negative heterosexuals as well -if say you suspect that your partner last night might be infected, or if the condom split… It says a sharp strong course of these drugs might stop you getting infected… it means anyone nervous and worried should take them automatically… this is a dreadful recommendation. I know at least four antiretroviral drugs that are also marketed for chemotherapy against cancer. You are talking about drugs with severe side effects – that can destroy your liver – now the biggest killer disease for AIDS patients ,

    As for denialism – ~I tell of my encounter with this nasty term on my recent trip to South Africa on my website

    with every good wish, Janine Roberts

  9. JanineRoberts,

    I just read your diary from your trip to South Africa — outstanding work!

    You and Liam are excellent, inquisitive, investigative journalists –particularly on this strange topic of AIDS.

    Keep up the good work!

    Hank Barnes

  10. Getting off track here, but…

    Janine, your diary really gave me more insight about how deeply imbedded the very idea of “HIV=AIDS” runs in South Africa. You mention that woman and her boyfriend going to get an “HIV” test as if it were just another one of life’s ordinary tasks. Wow. I think that’s how some folks would like it to be in the U.S. Keep testing folks until they hit the “jackpot”, and don’t tell them about the myriad of factors that can skew the results. Just get them on those drugs! If they’re gay though, they can start taking them right now! Why wait?

  11. Amazing that people do not read labels or understand the meaning of the skull and crossbones and have faith in the doctor. These drugs kill. They are totally immune suppresive and bring on the very AIDS syndrome they are alleged to suppress or retard. Talk about a self fullfilling prophesy.

    “You are HIV positive therefore you are going to get AIDS. Here, take this drug – it wont cure you and it has all these horrible side effects and it may kill you. But, it is worth it if it buys you a few more months of a miserable existence.

    Talk about Gullible’s Travels!


  12. Liam, I am, doing just fine, and have contacted you many times. You asked what medicines that I was on, well, there were three different sets at different times. Some I could not eat with, others required food, some turned me yellow and I usually had diarrhea everyday.

    My blood and lab reports were like a yo-yo, up and down, high in some things and low in others. What mostly concerned me was the abnormal, liver enzymes and the not knowing of the damage that was being done that could not be immediately seen.

    I personally found that the anti-virals do seem to help when one has many viruses in the body. In other words these medicines are so strong that many of the bad guys are killed. Nevertheless, these are still the most toxic medications invented by man and no one should be placed on them long term just for HIV, an unproven virus.

    This is where the mainstream physicians are missing the boat. I relate this to cancer treatments which I have also had. What do you think would have happened if they had continued to give me radiation treatments for the rest of my life. The answer to this is quite obvious.

    I am not anti-medicines but I personally believe that they should be taken only when absolutely necessary as one cannot be medicated or vaccinated into health. Health is acquired by following natural laws, violate these laws and one will be sick.

  13. Liam this is another great article. Many thanks.

    What Janine describes sounds like PEP not PREP. PREP will mean a far higher rate of ARV use than if it was just used after an “unsafe” event. The crazy thing with PREP is how it suggests that “safer sex” is impossible. Is this an acknowledgment of just how irritating condoms are for many men? Or is word leaking out that “safer sex” does not stop gay men turning “positive”? Given the accounts I have heard on how some gay men have supposedly been infected according to their doctors, we may as well add sitting on an unprotected toilet seat as a risk and admit that simply being gay is still a low risk activity.

    While there is plenty of evidence that some ARVs are strong anti-microbials, I have to wonder where the evidence is that they work against viruses as Noreen suggests. If some of them indeed are antiviral then why have they not been used more widely to treat viral infections? Is this just because the establishment does not want to risk fatal effects in people who are not “HIV+”?

    For the record, the Dr. Conant who is poisoning his patients who take sexual “risks” appears to be the same one who performed in an early AZT monotherapy video put out by Glaxo and long ago described by John Lauritsen. He does not seem to have learned anything about iatrogenocide from the AZT era.

  14. Glad to have all of you on the blog!

    Janine, great reporting from South Africa. You’ll see you’re on the blogroll.

    Noreen, thanks for personal experience. I think it matters to people to hear all the different perspectives. I hope to get further into the drugs (what they do and what they don’t do, from people’s personal experience) in upcoming posts.

    Robin, thanks for the informative posts. What do you do? You bring a lot of research.

    Crotft, HB, et al, good stuff!

  15. dsaklad,
    do you have anything worthwhile to say?

    Those two quotes from the NY Times would mean something if the reporter actually even attempted to go beyond tabloid journalism and give a reference or two for these assertions.

    It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the defenders of the “HIV” faith: Duesberg’s been discredited, they say.

    They never say how he’s supposedly been discredited, as if just the mere act of saying this is evidence enough. Weak stuff.

  16. One major point that is being glossed over, is that if HIV is transmitted by sex and if HIV did in fact cause AIDS, why then doesn’t the sexually, tramsmitted diseases (STD’s) in this country reflect this? When one researches the government’s own records (I love to hit them with their own statistics) this obviously doesn’t add up in the race, age, sex or even the location of the country which has the most STD’s.

    Approximately, 13 to 15 thousand (in the ball park) new cases of AIDS not HIV are in this country each year. Now, compare this, say to the top 3 to 5 STD’s and the AIDS cases aren’t even a drop in the bucket. We are talking about millions of other STD’s.

    Another thorn in the side to the mainstream is cases such as myself who had full, blown AIDS, went on the standard medications, have rebuilt my health and now I do not take the anit-virals and am extremely healthy. There are others of us out there. How do they explain us?

    The truth is that we were the sickest of the population for various reasons and with great effort have turned our health around. This is not an impossible feat so one is lead to believe nor are there medications absolutely necessary.

  17. Duesberg’s Dismal Failure
    And why we should perhaps, just perhaps, be grateful for him!

    Let men be once fully perswaded of these two principles, That
    there is nothing in any object, consider’d in itself, which can
    afford us a reason for drawing a conclusion beyond it; and, That
    even after the observation of the frequent or constant
    conjunction of objects, we have no reason to draw any inference
    concerning any object beyond those of which we have had
    Popper Karl R.
    Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach

    p88 Ch 2 Section 26
    Oxford University Press
    First edition (1975 reprint, with corrections)
    ISBN 0 19 875024 2

    .. if our aim is the advancement or growth of knowledge, then a
    high probability (in the sense of the calculus of probability)
    cannot possibly be our aim as well: these two aims are
    Popper KR
    Conjectures and Refutations – The Growth of
    Scientific Knowledge

    p218 Ch 10 Section 1(III)
    Routledge & Kegan Paul
    Fifth edition (revised) 1989
    ISBN 0-415-04318-2

    a system is to be considered scientific only if it makes
    assertions which may clash with observations; and a system is, in
    fact, tested by attempts to produce such clashes; that is to say,
    by attempts to refute it
    Popper KR
    Conjectures and Refutations [Ibid]

    p256 Ch 11 Section 2

    Any empirical scientific statement can be presented
    (by describing experimental arrangements, etc.) in such a way
    that anyone who has learned the relevant technique can test it.

    If, as a result, he rejects the statement, then it will not
    satisfy us if he tells us all about his feelings of doubt or
    about his feelings of conviction as to his perceptions.

    What he must do is to formulate an assertion which contradicts
    our own, and give us his instructions for testing it.

    If he fails to do so, we can only ask him to take another and
    perhaps a more careful look at our experiment, and think again
    Popper KR
    The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    p 99 Ch V Section 27
    Unwin Hyman
    1990 (14th impression)
    ISBN 0 04 445934 3

  18. Dsaklad,

    If you want a dialogue, you’re welcome here. But dialogue is conversation, and a willingness to try on new ideas.

    If you want to throw down your particular philosophy, then say so, and own it, but don’t act like it’s truth.

    Whether you like it or not, there are simply very different views on the subject you’re blogging on. This isn’t a majority rules conversation. It’s a deep analysis of the material, from a variety of perspectives.

    Most of all, you should understand something. I’m not a reductionist, so reductionist arguments don’t do a lot for me, because they leave almost everything that matters out of the equation.

    If you want to participate, ask questions, ask what I think what I think about specific topics, or why I think them, I’ll answer, as long as you’re polite.

    If you’re here to tell us you don’t agree, consider yourself heard. We got you, you don’t agree.


  19. Hey Liam,

    If Dsaksalad is such a noted scholar of Karl Popper, ask him what evidence would falisfy the hypothesis that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.



  20. > …what evidence would
    > faisify the hypothesis that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.

    I would assume if somebody came down with
    acquired immune deficiency syndrome and they couldn’t
    detect human immunodeficiency virus by any of the known methods.

  21. Actually, there are several thousand HIV- cases of AIDS. So to explain this abnomaly, the CDC gave it a new name.

    Causes of immune deficiency disease has been known since the 1920’s, this is nothing new.

    In reality, there is no such thing as AIDS either. AIDS is not a new virus, cancer, bacteria or any other thing, just a new name for old sicknesses. So by doing the math, prior to 1984 did people die of the 29 AIDS definining diseases? Of course they did. Some people have always gotten certain illnesses and died. This is nothing new under the sun.

    Unfortunately, fate stepped in 1984 when the gay, male population had health problems which Robert Gallo, the NIH, CDC, big drug companies and medical institutes took advantage of this to further their respective agendas.

    When one thinks logically about this situiation, there is nothing to fear about HIV or AIDS, non-entities, figments of the above, named imaginations.

  22. So what are you gonna do Donny-Sak?

    Amateur hour’s almost up! We’re just not reductionists here.

    And why the softball pitches? You could’ve figured that one out yourself.

    Here’s one of my favorites:

    An “Ask Doctor Science” query at, with a clever little title:

    What the F###, Kull how do u explain this????

    Posted: May 14, 2003

    Mr. Kull, Sorry about the title, but how the heck do you explain a case like this??? Um how can individuals be confident that their tests are accurate when we have freak cases like this one. Thanks. Listen, you really are a hero! Keep up the excellent fight.

    Website is:

    Persistent Lack of Detectable HIV-1 Antibody In a Person With HIV Infection—Utah, 1995 Infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is diagnosed routinely by the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for HIV-1 antibody; a nonreactive blood sample is designated as negative without further testing. However, one limitation of this screening algorithm is that a blood sample may be obtained from a patient with recent HIV infection before detectable HIV antibody is present (“window period”). This report describes a patient with confirmed HIV infection in whom EIAs for HIV antibody (HIV-EIAs) were persistently negative beyond the expected “window period.”

  23. > Amateur hour’s almost up! We’re just not reductionists here.

    A little reductionism never hurt anybody.

    > And why the softball pitches? You could’ve figured that one out
    > yourself.

    How many points for a touchdown?


    Trying to demonstrate a truth about AIDS/HIV that stretches
    back to 1995 is like demonstrating the principles of flight
    in, what, 1900?

    Do we really want to explain a 1995 case in 2006?

    How would we explain a case of “the vapors” today?

    You mean the one reference from 1995?

  24. Can anybody tell me if there have been any developments
    in HIV/AIDS research in the last 10+ years? Would anything
    we “knew” 10+ years ago be changed by any of this new

    – – – – – references – – – – –
    Persistent Lack of Detectable HIV-1 Antibody In a Person With HIV
    Infection — Utah, 1995

    Table 1. Laboratory results for a patient with HIV infection —
    Utah, 1995
    – – – – – – – – – –

    > what evidence would
    > falisfy the hypothesis that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.

    I would assume if somebody came down with
    acquired immune deficiency syndrome and they couldn’t
    detect human immunodeficiency virus by any of the known methods.

  25. You mean a SINGLE freak case from 1995! Thank dog cancer
    research has progressed to the point where everyone is
    accurately diagnosed in a timely fashion–and cured!

    Now didn’t my saying that last sentence make you think
    that I am really stupid?

  26. >Now didn’t my saying that last sentence make you think
    >that I am really stupid?


  27. > What qualifications do I need to ask these questions?

    You don’t need any qualifications to ask these questions.
    You need qualifications to answer questions or to make claims.

    What are the punishments for these people who demand obedience?
    Have they had anybody executed, for example? Or jailed for
    disagreeing? Or do we actually live in a society? Or a culture
    that allows any idiot to make any claim they want?… Or am I
    being a little to harsh there?

    Is there is some kind of overarching authority that attempts to
    control such things? There’s none. It’s stupid doubly.
    It avoids the question so far.

    Trying to imply there’s some kind of authority preventing
    that. Any idiot can make any claim they want.

    When you have something about acquired immune deficiency syndrome
    you should have some kind of technical qualifications. If you are
    going to say an entire scientific community with decades of
    experience is wrong you better have some kind of technical

    There is no such thing as an overarching authoritarian
    community. It’s simply science at work.

    You are dogmatic when you make some claim about some nonexistent

    If you’ve read and analyzed what is your technical background for
    being able to do that?…

    And have you read the people who reply to
    the acquired immune deficiency syndrome denialists?

    What does have acquired immune deficiency syndrome have to do
    with any of those subgroups of people. It either exists or it
    doesn’t. You imply you’re doing something the acquired immune
    deficiency syndrome scientist doesn’t.

    You’re trying to make a claim that the public health authorities
    are authoritarian. The scientists aren’t authoritarian. They do
    their research. They write their papers. They don’t browbeat
    people into believing what they found.

    What is one of these hard questions?

    What is this?… What is the hyperbole’s connection with reality?

    What church is this?

    Is this a church of scientology? The church of viral research?

  28. – See Reisler Paper in JAIDS.

    That doesn’t explain how people died before there were acquired
    immune deficiency syndrome drugs. Like for cancer. Chemotherapy
    drugs don’t always work.

    Looks like it could be reasonably good peer reviewed journal.
    What are you trying to prove in mentioning the reference?
    Experimental protocol, what were the conclusions?

    Just like cancer patients. Chemotherapy kills some of them.

    What’s the connection between being a moron for asking about
    technical qualification to this other thing? Non sequitur.

    Of course the drugs are harsh just like cancer drugs. Chances are
    you’re going to die anyway What kind of world do you live in
    expecting perfection in every single thing? When you’re trying to
    kill something dangerous and elusive of course the weapon you’re
    using is going to be dangerous. What’s the first thing that
    happens in chemotherapy? You loose all your hair.

  29. dsaklad,
    are you even remotely interested in engaging in a discussion here? If so, please act like you are.

    A person who is sincerely interested in discussion and exchange of ideas will treat this more like a conversation.

    Why don’t you ask just one or two questions/criticisms at a time, and wait for a response?

    Right now, you’re bombarding with questions and criticisms with what looks like no actual desire for engaging discussion or debate.

  30. I really did no more than respond to things people are, quote,
    “bombarding”, close quote, me with. How do you equate no desire
    for debate with point by point responses? I thought that was
    debate by definition.

    Please feel free to abandon metacriticisms of me
    and deal with, say to begin with, one of my responses.

  31. Donny,

    This isn’t an AIDS Debate forum.

    Many of us here have made up our minds, but only after years of doing more-or-less nonstop reading, observing and research.

    I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, especially if they haven’t read what I’ve read, seen what I’ve seen, or walked in my shoes.

    On the other hand, I’m not going to walk anybody all the way through it, hoping they can come up with the same answer. I don’t care if you do, particularly.

    I want the research to be available to persons given this innane, dangerous and cruel diagnosis.

    I’ll be posting some of the stuff I’ve read that’s been formative in my thinking, on the site in a dedicated section very soon. But I have no doubt you’re already familiar with it, and just choose to ignore it.

    I asked you to participate in a discussion. I asked you to express your philosophy or hypothesis up front.

    You haven’t done so, at least not directly.

    I don’t know what you think, or why you think it. I know that you want to provoke an argument, and so, I’m going to send you along to the guys who like to argue this sort of thing in the minutae, tirelessly, and ad nauseum, over at AME.

    I’m sure they’ll be glad to walk you through the ten thousand miles of history, only to still have you refuse to acknowledge any single minor point any of them makes.

    That is the style and manner of those who can’t get their heads around the blatant realities of science today. It’s cooked. It is at least as imperfect as any other government bureuacracy.

    But maybe you think it’s not. Maybe you hold a belief that science is the golden child of all human endevors, untouched by, well, humans and human nature.

    If you hold this belief, or this sort of belief, you won’t find many takers here, because is not our experience. At least it’s not mine. And it’s not evidenced in the record, anywhere. And you’ll just go on writing angry posts, demanding more and more answers to questions you could and should easily research yourself.

    This is my blog, this isn’t an open abuse forum. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear. I go onto blogs that are open, and quite informal, and quite abusive. You can meet me there and post your chattery responses, which you are too lazy, apparently, to look into yourself. And I’ll probably ignore you there too, but maybe I’ll send some reading your way, hoping you will read it, but knowing that you probably won’t.

    You can also read anything I’ve written on the subject, including the article in question here, which you, like most apologist reductionist true-believers, never respond to. You never respond to the question at hand.

    The question, Donny, is, would you take or give this drug – Viread – to perfectly healthy people?

    That is the question posed by the article. Is this a good idea – this drug for perfectly healthy people? If you think so, let’s here why you do.

    I’ve cut the long re-iterations of earlier posts out of most of your posts, becuase it’s damned annoying to have to re-read an entire earlier post so you can make one snarky comment.

    Finally, I asked you to come forward with your philosophy – what is it that you believe. I didn’t ask you to attack my philosophy, I asked what yours is.

    If you want to post here, own your point of view, but don’t expect others to agree with you.

    See if you can keep up, and allow for the differences.

  32. If one feels the need to take a drug for preventive measures, why not choose one which is non-toxic, non-addictive, effective, inexpensive and no side effects. I am referring to Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) which has a long, proven track record.

    Dr. Bihiri from New York City pioneered the use of this drug in 4.5mg for immune deficiency diseases. He found that if one’s CD4’s had not fell below 300 that they could be maintained and more importantly, opportuntists diseases could be prevented.
    This seems like a better choice of drugs for preventive measures.

    This drug is helping sufferers of MS, AIDS, cancer, fibromylagia, autism and the list goes on and on. Results of Dr. Bihiri’s work can be found at I’ve found this to be a wonderfull drug and I take it instead of the anti-virals.

  33. Can you just block this Don poster? I would love to read about these issues from the dissident folks without having to read flames by these folks who can’t seem to accept that not everyone buys the mainstream baloney on this. Not everyone worships all of these peer-reviewed journals and so on. No, you don’t need any specific qualifications to ask questions about any of this or to be able to see the illogic in some of the mainstream arguments put forth.

    Trying to have discussions with some of these folks who have been so immersed in the often horrifying mainstream medical scientific ‘educational’ system of thought, those who have read too many ‘peer reviewed’ journals and taken much junk in them as fact, who forgot to wonder too much about financial conflicts of interest and so on, is similar to someone who has studied colonialism and neocolonialism, a more accurate and complete history of the United States, who has read the ‘other’ side of the narratives, trying to have a conversation with someone who missed out on courses in Critical Theory and American History, Neocolonialism, etc., and who actually believes that the U.S. has just been trying to spread democracy in the world and not colonlize and exploit other peoples and their resources. And western science and medicine certainly have their place in the history of colonialism and neocolonialism/post-colonialism, have been tools of western capitalism and imperialism along with christianity. Those who have studied these histories, critical theory, etc., may have less of a problem accepting the dissident point of view I would guess.

  34. Here is a suggestion. Make sure when mentioning this Gilead Sciences to include information on who has been involved in this company such as Donald Rumsfeld. Is that right? I read this somewhere and that was enough for me to wonder about anything this company might be doing. The man is truly evil.

  35. Hi NanaB,

    I’d like to respond to your many interesting points about history, etc, but I have to ask…where were you christened? (What’s the origin of NanaBanana), it has a particular history in my own family, so I ask…

    Yes history, colonialism, and even, gasp, eugenics – all part of the tapestry of human experience. And so is paradigm-blindness, top-down authoritative b.s., socially-enforced dogma. Musicals.

    Lots of stuff in the canon.

    Thanks for the posts, tell us more!


  36. I just want to pick up on a point Noreen made about “HIV” prevention. The most reliable way to prevent an “HIV infection” is to avoid testing. Given the Perth Group’s account of the results of oxidative stress triggering the tests, one might assume that if they eliminated all stressors and established redox balance with antioxidants, they should be able to avoid triggering a “positive” test result. But, these tests are non-specific and are triggered by a wide range of conditions and factors, so there simply is no reason to assume that even without a redox imbalance something will not trigger the test.

    While I have yet to be firmly diagnosed with MS, after many months it looks like that is the way my doctors are headed as it is about the only condition that explains all of my symptoms. While I have done little research into MS yet, I am a bit puzzled as to why LDN would be used on MS patients, unless it was to treat the side effects of MS drugs. The problem with MS is not a low CD$ count it is that T-cells attack myelin. Like other auto-immune conditions it is a problem of T-cells attacking self, hence the standard allopathic treatment is to suppress the immune system. It makes no sense to take a drug which claims to increase T cells when they are part of the problem in the first place. I can see trying immune modulating herbal treatments, but nothing that claims to “boost the immune system.”

    As for CD$ counts it should be obvious to anyone who keeps up with the more recent dissident critiques (see for example Dr. Matt Irwin) that these counts are pretty much meaningless. People get sick with high counts and low counts, and what is normal for one person will not be for another. Stopping smoking will reduce a count, but it is hardly evidence that smokers are healthier than non-smokers. The orthodoxy’s latest syndrome, known as IRS, IRD or IRIS, is the most obvious example of the meaninglessness of these counts. Rather than take a drug I would suggest the most obvious way to avoid a low CD$ count is to not take the test. Like the “HIV” test, CD$ counting is part of the voodoo hex.

  37. Robin, you are absolutely correct in your assessment about CD4’s and HIV tests. I, personally, do not place a lot of significance in them. Nevertheless, for what ever reasons, they were proven to stabilize CD4’s in HIV persons. In regards to MS, LDN reduced the activity of multiple sclerosis by reducing fatigue and spasms, improved bladder control, heat tolerance, and improvements in mobility, sleep, pain and tremor.

    LDN works by blocking the endorphin, or natural painkillers, that the brain and the adrenalin glands produce. These brain chemicals are produced in times of stress and to induce mood elevations. Every cell of the immune system has receptors for these agents. It was discovered that people who suffer from immune disorders have low endorphins levels which cause poor immune function.

    Robin, you are also right that there are natural ways to stimulate the release of endorphins such as, strenous running, cycling, swimming, and by eating foods which contain L-Phenylalanine such as almonds, bananas, cheese, lima beans, peanuts, pumpkin or sesame seeds. I find it easier to take the pill and know what levels I am getting.

    LDN in non-release form is taken between 9p.m. to midnight; the theory being since most of the natural endorphins are produced between that time, this triples the endorphin levels in the body and all the next day the levels are restored to normal.
    From personal experience, since being on this pill I sleep better, have decreased pain issues and have not had symptom or opportuntist problem. I have found it to be quite effective in these areas.

  38. About Qualifications.
    My one and only qualification is, I’m here now, in this moment.

    It’s a rare qualification indeed.

    I’m “HIV +” and nobody knows my body like I do. Not a lab test, not a Doctor, nor a ‘viral load.’ All the experts in the world can poke and prod ’til their hearts are content but still they have no idea about me.

    In November 05, My first CD4 count and it’s 590 – Apparently that’s ok… Even though at that time I was just coming off using recreational drugs, a poor diet and lack of exercise. Yet the amazing thing was that my Dcotor said to me “Jason, go out and live your life as you have been. You can’t change a thing. HIV works on it’s own accord.” Wow, that’s intelligence!

    Last test, only 5 months later and my CD4 count is 360. I am feeling the best I have felt in 5 years, have loads of energy, am eating well, exercising and not feeling lethargic as I did previously. Now, my Doctor is concerned…???

    I don’t get it. Because she has the qualiification, she can tell me ( from one blood test) that I am not well. This is simply untrue. I have kept a diary over the past 15 years of my life and for the first time in a long time, I am healthy and happy. No matter the counts… to me, they count for nothing… So, I will only go back to the Doctor when and if I choose to go back.

    IN the past, I would only go to the Doctors if I was feeling unwell. This is the way it is going to stay, however, I have a lot more knowledge now about looking after myself than I ever have before.

    I don’t need anyone with qualifications to tell me how well I am. I am feeling f****** alive! And damn, it feels good.


  39. Jase,

    Outstanding! You and Noreen should contact each other. It’s no nice to see courageous folks breaking away from the AIDS=Death paradigm, and these so-called, “AIDS experts”

    Hank Barnes

  40. Jason,
    How wonderful to hear your story! I knew that there had to be others out there. You are so right, don’t get to wrapped in the cd4 or viral load tests, they are not the best yardsticks of measurement for one’s health, however, try and tell an infectious, disease doctor this.

    If you live in a city which has environment doctors, I would highly recommend that you see them instead. I have found that mine are light years ahead of traditional, thinking doctors.
    If you are strong willed, which it sounds like you are, then it probably won’t hurt to keep seeing your doctors periodically. I plan to keep on seeing mine because I figure by them seeing how well I am doing, especially my lab reports, will do more to prove my point than anything that I might say, as they generally won’t listen anyway.

    Stay in touch and good health to you!

  41. Jason, I will do you one better, The pharmacist told me that it was normal for my liver enzymes to be messed up! She has to be kidding, yeh, it probably is normal for a person’s enzymes to be messed up if one is on the HAART. See how they think, f’d up.

    My last cd4 counts were just slightly over 200, so what, big deal. I compare now to when I was dying and there is no comparision. You are 100% right, we don’t need tests or doctors to tell us how we should feel!

  42. Noreen, Liam, HankBarnes,

    Thanks for your comments. It is always a great thing to share with like minded people – and people who are happy to see others happy.

    Sincerely, I thank you for making contact. I will drop by and keep in touch. I do go and see a Naturopath and he is wonderful – he talks to me about everything to do with my body (not just one test here and there!) It’s all about balance – balance in everything.

    Hold your head high!

    Best wishes always


  43. Guys,

    I remember before my Pap died (He was my Grandfather)… His last words were… “Love. Isn’t that what it’s all about?”

    Dear Pap, you were right. I somtimes get tangled up in all the mess of HIV/AIDS and forget the big picture. For some reason, tonight, I am reminded. Thank God and thank you to the many people that have touched my life, some I’ve met, others I haven’t.

    You people, thank you and let’s make love the main part of our journey.
    No matter how long, or short we are here for.

    Now, time to go out and sing a song at karaoke! Love you all!


Comments are closed.