Cancer scare 2: CANCELLED

Graphic of AMAS logo with "NORMAL" stamped over it.Very good news: I just received the results of the confirmatory AMAS cancer screen, and it was “normal”, or negative. In fact, the results were in the lowest possible range provided on the test, which is a good thing. The result from my first AMAS test a couple of months ago was “elevated”, and required a confirmatory test. For obvious reasons, I have very mixed feelings about this test, but I am ready to put it behind me.

Now I am waiting to see if the pancreatic extracts that I have been taking are compensating for low elastase levels in my gut, as well as the other analysis of my gut microbiome from a recent Comprehensive Stool Analysis. I’m debating when to have CD4 and viral load testing done again. It’s only been a couple of months since I started taking the boosted Darunavir again, and expect the “viral load” marker will be reduced, but I’m more interested in CD4 counts, which take longer to recover.

I have reduced some of the supplements I’ve been taking, due to “pill fatigue”, but have started taking some Chinese herbs, including mushroom extracts.

Meanwhile, I have attempted to introduce the research director at the clinic I attend to the folks at The Perth Group, in hopes of determining whether high dose intravenous vitamin C is beneficial, or possibly counterproductive, in terms of balancing my redox. I will try to write more about this topic, as it seems to be of great interest to some folks, and I don’t mind admitting that I’m having trouble getting straight answers from those who seem to know.

Finally, some not so good news: I’ve been using credit cards to pay for much of this kind of testing, supplements and alternative medical care. I’ve posted detailed records of some of these expenses here, though they do not include travel, or interest on the credit cards. Even though I also have expense for this year that I have not yet posted, I’ve already spent over $5,000. The credit limit has recently been reduced on my two primary credit cards, which effectively halts my efforts to pursue any care that is not covered by my traditional insurance. Any contributions to the GoFundMe campaign on the right side of this page would be greatly appreciated.

Wait... there's more!

  • 97

    97. That’s my latest CD4+ count, less than half the count from six weeks ago.

    That’s it. I have tried as many alternative treatments as I can think of to reverse the decline. I will be starting my third round of pharmaceutical ARVs as soon as I can get a prescription and fill it.

    This decision has been a long time coming, and in hindsight, I probably should have restarted a few months ago. There’s nothing magical about 97, or being below 100, but it’s as good a breaking point as any. I’ve long argued that there are two things to keep in mind about CD4 counts: one is the long-term trend; the other is single- or low double-digit counts.

  • Reduce AIDS drug toxicity and side effects

    I embarked on my third course of ARVs since 1998. For ten of the sixteen years I have been HIV-positive, I was able to manage well enough without ARVs and I continue to believe there is no reason for otherwise healthy HIV-positive—let alone negative—gay men to take these drugs. To those who want to wave a recent study about the benefits of early intervention in my face, I would ask them why they put so much faith in a science that has utterly failed us to date.

  • The truth about Truvada: PrEP won’t stop AIDS

    I’m willing to grant that gay men are entitled to use PrEP… provided they have access to all the information they need to make an informed decision. Informed consent has been a hallmark of the HIV and AIDS research and prevention efforts for three decades, and that shouldn’t be waived for the campaign favoring PrEP.

    Gay men deserve to know that all the claims for Truvada reducing the risk of acquiring HIV-positivity  are based on trials—funded by Gilead—that emphasized the importance of using condoms…

  • Confessions of a heretic AIDS dissident

    You might not know it from reading the comments left here on my blog, but there are more than a few AIDS dissidents who really don’t like how I think or what I write about.

    There’s a whole thread on a very popular Facebook page called “Rethinking AIDS”, discussing my open letter to Dora. Last I looked, that thread had nearly 100 comments, and very few of those comments were about Dora, Ruggiero or the defense of academic freedom.

    No, the gist of the thread was whether or not I am in “the AIDS Zone.” It seems that because I did not use “air quotes” around the term “HIV disease”, I’m not really an AIDS dissident. Others took issue with my post for daring to publish that some AIDS Rethinkers hold a very narrow view about “HIV” and “AIDS”, while others of us are merely “questioning” the whole affair. None of them chose to comment directly to me here.

    Some of the most visible and vocal Rethinkers seem intent on imposing their own “beliefs” (another loaded term that deserves quotes) on the entire movement. There has long been a tendency to try to impose a sort of litmus test to determine whether or not one is a true “AIDS dissident”.

    Since I first met the AIDS dissident community via the AIDS Myth Exposed forums—since renamed Questioning AIDS—several years ago, I’ve become aware of several of the various factions, distinctive personalities and divisions within that broad group. Now I’m finding it ironic just how guilty some of these people are at their own version of “bone-pointing”.

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *