|
Summer 2016: we offered a serial: ANRS-4D and the cheaters Summer 2017: we will debunk DOMONO: - Dolutegravir and R263K - R263K: new scenario (DOMONO) - N155H: new scenario (DOMONO) - Nevirapine and Mono-DTG Switch: the Hunchback Trap - calculation error in the primary hypothesis - DOMONO and the benefit for the patients (not for BigPharma ...) |
This was originally published here, in French. We provide this translation for your convenience, practical aspects may differ where you live.
N155H in DOMONO
By Charles Edouard!Testimony of by a sucker:
Genvoya® ... When patients discover that with Genvoya® they can not consider 4/7 nor the mono-DTG, they mare not too happy... What can I do? The error is in the choice of the virologist. In a predominantly feminized profession, we find that all Tempists are men (except for Breather where they are ... pediatricians ...). However, about 20-25% of the candidates to 4/7 (ANRS-4D and ICCARRE-2) are women. This sexual tropism of virologists deserves further study.
resistances shooting-gallery
In the ten green bottles, we had worked by elimination. There are several types of failure: random failures that reflect a random risk and predictable failures, therefore avoidable, which constitute a prognostic element in order to avoid the risk. This knowledge is obviously crucial for effective selection: it therefore does not contribute to rincrease isk but, on the contrary, reduces it.
When they launch DOMONO (DOLUMONO), they do not yet know the risk identified by Prof. Katlama: the Achilles' Heel. It is defined by the prior use of RAL or EVG. It is the prior use that constitutes the risk; A simple failure with RAL or EVG is not a satisfactory description of the Achilles' Heel. Of course, if one has failed with such an inhibitor, it is because one has used it ... Let's state it clearly: the Achilles' heel is the prior use and not the previous failure.
Unlike Barcelona Munich and Paris, those in Rotterdam absolutely did not understand the Achilles' Heel: they turn their backs to it, deny it, do not want to document it. Unlike the collaboration between BMM + P. The risk could not be known before it is identified ... By Oct. 2015 ... From then on, they had the opportunity to rework the files, document the Achilles' Heel and provide a constructive discussion . To this day, they have not done it!
N155H: What are you the name of?
One can only turn to BMM + P. There are 4 failures with emergence of N155H: B001, B004 (poor adherence and AH), B007 (AH), B008 (poor compliance). A selection algorithm that includes AH (Achilles Heel) and adherence reduces risk by 75%.
At no time do they question their selection criteria or improve the selection of patients. It is therefore a trial for nothing, not by the methodology but by the obstinacy of the investigators not to question their hypothesis. So much the worse for the patients, who will henceforth be rejected indiscriminately. Fortunately, we still have Hocqueloux, Lanzafame, Oldenbüttel, Blanco and Katlama.
Alternative scenario and choice of patients
One can make the Achilles' Heel and / or non-adherence an alternative scenario.
Conversely, for the polysexual patient, DTG + 3TC or ICCARRE (4/7) are interesting alternatives.
Hopefully, Dr. Hocqueloux, in charge of the Moncay trial, will be better inspired.
In The News, Statins: The French Guidelines U-turn
Reminder: ANSM recommended statins, as prevention, so called primary. 6-7 million French were statinned (how many deaths?), Including 25,000 HIVers (albeit having already 3-4 molecules). The recommendation was voided by the Council of State (upon request by FORMINDEP) due to conflicts of interest of experts. The analysis of the studies, already old, and widely disputed, led the HAS to withdraw this deleterious recommendation. Le Figaro, a French paper in this article , clears, somewhat easily, its historical contribution to over-medication, to collective anti-cholesterol hysteria, by making false accusations to anti-statins. Yet what could they do but to bring to the public's attention the uselessness and dangerousness of statins, and the apparent bad faith of the industrialists? (So says Le Figaro)
Conflicts of interest? Bad faith of the industrialists? Toxicity concealed? Overmedication? Over-prescription? Misleading official recommendations? Turning into sneaky? Legal irresponsibility? Doesn't that remind you of anything?
Mutatis mutandis ... Ad nauseam
All this reveals the deception on a large scale, of which nothing (or almost nobody) has protected you. Are you taking statins? Go to an Independent and Caring Cardiologist!
Personal note: I started (100 mg DTG + 300 mg 3TC) in 1/7 (that's 1 Lamivudine less ...)
Go ... It's summer ... Enjoy the holidays, fuck, freemindedly!
I like your careful math approach to:
ReplyDeleteOnce validated, I will have to make a decision of either stay with it, as it is real cool, move on to 2x50 mg DTG (1/7) or keep this 100 mg DTG + 300mg 3TC and explore forward into the 1/9, 1/15, as I did before
Perhaps combination of both for mono therapy for example 1/7 100mg DTG. Then following next week 1/7 100mg & 300mg 3TC then following two weeks 1/7 100 mg DTG 2x then 1/7 100mg DTG & 300mg 3TC followed by three weeks 1/7 100mg DTG and so on or some similar mix too
Perhaps better make more certain of successful outcome without resistance developing that may happen in some percentage of persons?
If you are successful in DTG mono therapy, we may see others follow up.
This would have likely been unnecessary if widespread prevention were utilized rather than ignored in favor of let it spread for big pharma expensive pill selling. For example inexpensive testing kits could have been available much sooner at low cost as well as PREP &/or PEP month supply over the counter, without prescription, if exposed as PEP in some form around for medical doctors and staff since about 1988 as who would take these if not needed except if needed? The 2000 FDA PEP & 2005 PEP were largely totally ignored and not utilized at all for the most part in favor of big pharm selling lifetime pills to more persons.
Also near 100% effective 2012 PREP underutilized too. Speaks for itself! And since well known leads to many higher cancer rates allows for more cancer drug sells too. The cut off in some places for HPV vaccine to prevent cancers at day after 27 but ok to get vaccine day before 27 shows how erroneously this is when studies shows even helps in those with precancerous legions heal 50% of time when vaccine study as treatment rather then chemo & radiation.
Best Regards & Wishes.
Also the origins of hiv is cloudy with most bizarre policies at critical outbreak in favor of let it spread. Speaks for itself.
Viagra advertising abounds in comparison to almost no advertising of either PEP and/or Prep. Any ideas or thoughts?