OMG guys WTF happened to Jeff Palmer ?! He used to be so hot now look at him ..

[fuxwell]

Are you for real?

I was there when HIV AIDS was some unkown devastating plague. I was there when dozens and then hundreds of homos were cut down in their prime as HIV developed into full blown AIDS and there were no drugs. Iwas there when the drug Cocktails were being developed and I witnessed the change in HIV AIDS as being a fast death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. I have also see AIDS attack the brain stem and turn completely rational people into raving lunatics.

And yes, the drugs are tough on people. But they have given millions of people decades more of living.

I also have 25 years of knowing when death is a man's companion.

I served as a board member on a national organization dedicated to AIDS education and research.

I've have 25 years in contact with HIV AIDS. What are you offering?

Get the fuck real.

HIV as the cause of AIDS is not a theory.

Don't give some kind of vague new age nonsense statements without backing them up with solid sources.

Well said. 100% agree

 

[notime]

Attributing one's emotions to what we know to be AIDS epidemic could be considered unscientific.
Many are too vested into the subject on an emotional level that they cannot look at it logically (you 'rareboy' seem to exhibit the same/similar behavior).

I do not attempt to trivialize the loss of life to the said illness, but rather I try to look at thing objectively.
There were also too many people back then who DIED because of the drugs - but lets just ignore those deaths for the sole purpose of glorifying the 'miraculous cocktails' (which happen to be pushed on healthy HIV negative people these days for the purpose of 'lowering transmission rates' - it will be interesting to study the data of the population taking them).

I am NOT providing 'vague new age statements' (whatever you classify under those) - most posters here in this thread were making statements about Palmer based on 1 photo and all I did was ask a question if they knew he is actually sick (because if you have no such evidence, then all you do is basically make assumptions to justify personal perceptions of what you think is 'the truth' - which again is unscientific).
Watching at a photo can only tell you so much if you want objectivity (the rest Humans fill in with personal perceptions that stem from culture they grew up in) - or are you going to tell me otherwise?

You should look more into how the scientific method works and what its based on.
Emotional outbursts can only deteriorate the discussion.

You're all style and no content. Ridiculous, illogical mush couched in flowery prose. You have no idea what the scientific term "theory" means. Before the antiretrovirals, EVERYBODY died. Now, if treated promptly and if the patient is compliant, essentially, nobody dies. Duh? How much freakin proof do you need? Wait, that's what you're doing--trying to get people to bite and write endless proofs to you so that you can reject them because you are so amazingly intelligent and demanding. BULLSHIT!!!

 

[MassRuss]

^^^^ + 1................

 

[ixthrock]

Jeff Palmer is one of our members? Cool!

 

[foodandart]

Before the antiretrovirals, EVERYBODY died.

Ermmm, no. NOT everybody. Most everybody. Not to quibble or troll on this subject, but I've a friend - a fine young man now - who was born in 1986 and his mother was diagnosed HIV positive AFTER he was born.

He was not given any drugs and as an infant he did have the virus but he's now 100% free of it. Granted, that's as his brand-new immune system turned on at three or four (or whenever the age is that the thymus starts to act on it's own and the child's immune system differentiates from the mother's) and drove it out. Even in Africa it's been noted that children born HIV positive had a naturally occurring rate of 15% survival and if the retrovirals were given to the mothers before the child was born, that figure rises to nearly 80%. It's even higher survival now with the newer drugs.

Though I do have to say.. Yeah, Jeff's looking a bit haggard lately. Shame too, as I use him in my fakes.

Deb.

 

[eastofeden]

Wow...the picture is startling. I didn't even recognize him and frankly even after reading this it is hard for me to see that is him in the first photo.

 

[notime]

Ermmm, no. NOT everybody. Most everybody. Not to quibble or troll on this subject, but I've a friend - a fine young man now - who was born in 1986 and his mother was diagnosed HIV positive AFTER he was born.

He was not given any drugs and as an infant he did have the virus but he's now 100% free of it. Granted, that's as his brand-new immune system turned on at three or four (or whenever the age is that the thymus starts to act on it's own and the child's immune system differentiates from the mother's) and drove it out. Even in Africa it's been noted that children born HIV positive had a naturally occurring rate of 15% survival and if the retrovirals were given to the mothers before the child was born, that figure rises to nearly 80%. It's even higher survival now with the newer drugs.

Though I do have to say.. Yeah, Jeff's looking a bit haggard lately. Shame too, as I use him in my fakes.

Deb.

Of course not literally everybody.

 

[markychv]

I did some research and he IS indeed positive and he has in fact refused treatment with antiretrovirals, he is also an admitted meth addict. I do not understand your posts deksman, what are you trying to achieve by posting this? It makes no sense, he is VERY OBVIOUSLY SICK!

Mark

I have a question.
Is he actually sick?
Those of you making assumptions about him being sick on account of a VISUAL picture (without any kind of evidence to back it up) is a bit arrogant.

Thinness can be related to a variety of things - Meth for one thing (if he used it), change in diet (resulting from altered perceptions in life) none of which have anything to do with the person being HIV + (which doesn't guarantee a person will develop AIDS symptoms).
Does the guy still go to the gym and is he following a nutritional regime required to maintain an athletic body?

Honestly, from the picture that was posted in the first post, the guy doesn't 'look' sick at all (which doesn't have to mean anything).
He has dyed hair (of which I'm not a fan of - but I cannot say I found his athletic-self past photos more appealing) and looks thin.
That's about everything I can say from the picture alone.
Without access to his medical data, making assumptions about his health status is arrogant and distasteful.

I find it very interesting how people will jump to conclusions.

Also... on him questioning whether HIV is the cause of AIDS:
To berate a person for questioning established notions seems closed-minded and very dogmatic.
Science is not about the 'absolute truth', 'belief' or 'faith'.
Evidence is not proof and correlation is not proof of causation.
That said, people keep forgetting that the scientific method is a way of APPROXIMATING what is happening in real life - all the while keeping in mind the possibility the said findings are subject to change at any given time (because as our methodology and knowledge improves and changes with time, so could/would the results of various tests).

Last time I checked... HIV being the cause of AIDS is still being regarded as a THEORY that has strong correlations based on available data.

At least the guy is showing a degree of intelligence to him for openly asking questions - as opposed to majority of the global population that seemingly lost the ability for critical thinking.

Finally: his choice for quitting the drugs is his own (and those of you ignoring the toxicity of the said drugs would be ignoring the premise that each person reacts differently to same drugs - go read up on the actual drugs being used and what kind of side-effects they can produce - don't just read superficial media articles that don't give any actual DETAILS).

 

[markychv]

well said. 100% agree

100% agree also !

 

[JeremyB37]

Are you for real?

I was there when HIV AIDS was some unkown devastating plague. I was there when dozens and then hundreds of homos were cut down in their prime as HIV developed into full blown AIDS and there were no drugs. Iwas there when the drug Cocktails were being developed and I witnessed the change in HIV AIDS as being a fast death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. I have also see AIDS attack the brain stem and turn completely rational people into raving lunatics.

And yes, the drugs are tough on people. But they have given millions of people decades more of living.

I also have 25 years of knowing when death is a man's companion.

I served as a board member on a national organization dedicated to AIDS education and research.

I've have 25 years in contact with HIV AIDS. What are you offering?

Get the fuck real.

HIV as the cause of AIDS is not a theory.

Don't give some kind of vague new age nonsense statements without backing them up with solid sources.

Bully for you.

I too was around at the very beginning of the advent of illnesses subsequently called 'AIDS', and I had personal friends who became ill and died, and subsequently friends who committed suicide when they tested 'HIV' positive because it was seen as a death sentence.
I too have seen friends who went on anti-HIV drugs in the period from 1998 onwards (the so-called 'good' ones') and I have seen them have to start taking a whole load of other drugs to counteract the effects of the anti-HIV drugs. I've seen them lose their body shape - classic skinny legs, arms and NO ASS to speak of and a pot-belly. Ive seen their increasingly emaciated and aged look in the face, even though several of them are TEN YEARS+ younger than me.
I have also known two people - not close friends but acquaintances - who literally DROPPED DEAD of heart failure out of the blue, literally a few weeks after their last full medical exam and tests, who were on the anti-HIV drugs. Just google Clint Walters - one of the most well-known UK activists around 'HIV' - who dropped dead on the drugs at the prime old age of 31! His friends wrote in Baseline (the main magazine for people who are 'HIV' positive) asking why so many of their friends are dropping dead on anti-HIV drugs despite regular (3 monthly) check ups.
So, people who QUESTION the efficacy and toxicity of anti-HIV drugs have a lot of evidence and data to make them question their use, especially since the MAIN causes of death of people on anti-HIV drugs are in this order:
Liver failure
Heart Failure
Kidney disease
They are NOT 'AIDS' illnesses - they are fatal conditions caused by the toxicity of 'anti-retrovirals'.
Try reading the LANCET study of 10 years of triple combination ARV therapy in over 25,000 people and read the conclusion - 'mortality has not changed with the use of these drugs' .
So Jeff Palmer, if he chooses, has a lot of reason not to take anti-HIV drugs, and that pic of him is by no means an indication of anything except poor fashion sense when it comes to dying his hair and, if you read his own website, a slightly eccentric idea of what is a 'good diet'! lol

So many here have written ignorant and often nasty comments. Get a life.

 

[JeremyB37]

Ermmm, no. NOT everybody. Most everybody.
Deb.

To be clinically and scientifically accurate, it very much depends what you mean by 'anti-retrovirals'. Prior to the widespread release of Protease Inhibitors (PIs) the only drug used was AZT. That drug killed most of the people given it in the USA at doses that even at the time were seen as madness by AIDS doctors such as the famous Joseph Sonnabend - who proved that the trials were virtually fraudulent. 38000 gay men died in the USA as a direct result of AZT use and very little to do with AIDS.
In the UK the Concorde Trials of AZT (even at much lower doses) were steeped in controversy and the journalist Brian Deer and many others found serious ethical problems in hidden information around those trials.
So when people say 'most people survived on anti-retrovirals' what they really mean, is that when AZT *STOPPED* being the sole first line drug treatment, the horrific effects and rapid deaths from it slowly stopped.
But the 2006 Lancet study into 10 years of triple combination therapy was published the disappointment among the authors was massive. The *only* benefit was the end to rapid trauma and death from AZT use. Actual mortality rates did NOT change - people just took LONGER to die on 'combination anti-retroviral therapy' (cART, also known as 'Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy' HAART) than previously.
There has still been no decrease in death rates but the *causes* of death are almost exclusively linked to the drugs and not the illnesses collectively termed 'AIDS'.

 

[FanofFiction]

I am sad to see anyone in this condition. I hope he isn't in a lot of pain.

 

[Telstra]

Bully for you.

I too was around at the very beginning of the advent of illnesses subsequently called 'AIDS', and I had personal friends who became ill and died, and subsequently friends who committed suicide when they tested 'HIV' positive because it was seen as a death sentence.
I too have seen friends who went on anti-HIV drugs in the period from 1998 onwards (the so-called 'good' ones') and I have seen them have to start taking a whole load of other drugs to counteract the effects of the anti-HIV drugs. I've seen them lose their body shape - classic skinny legs, arms and NO ASS to speak of and a pot-belly. Ive seen their increasingly emaciated and aged look in the face, even though several of them are TEN YEARS+ younger than me.
I have also known two people - not close friends but acquaintances - who literally DROPPED DEAD of heart failure out of the blue, literally a few weeks after their last full medical exam and tests, who were on the anti-HIV drugs. Just google Clint Walters - one of the most well-known UK activists around 'HIV' - who dropped dead on the drugs at the prime old age of 31! His friends wrote in Baseline (the main magazine for people who are 'HIV' positive) asking why so many of their friends are dropping dead on anti-HIV drugs despite regular (3 monthly) check ups.
So, people who QUESTION the efficacy and toxicity of anti-HIV drugs have a lot of evidence and data to make them question their use, especially since the MAIN causes of death of people on anti-HIV drugs are in this order:
Liver failure
Heart Failure
Kidney disease
They are NOT 'AIDS' illnesses - they are fatal conditions caused by the toxicity of 'anti-retrovirals'.
Try reading the LANCET study of 10 years of triple combination ARV therapy in over 25,000 people and read the conclusion - 'mortality has not changed with the use of these drugs' .
So Jeff Palmer, if he chooses, has a lot of reason not to take anti-HIV drugs, and that pic of him is by no means an indication of anything except poor fashion sense when it comes to dying his hair and, if you read his own website, a slightly eccentric idea of what is a 'good diet'! lol

So many here have written ignorant and often nasty comments. Get a life.

Funny how you create a new account just for this post?
More explanation is needed for the new account.

 

[rareboy]

To be clinically and scientifically accurate, it very much depends what you mean by 'anti-retrovirals'. Prior to the widespread release of Protease Inhibitors (PIs) the only drug used was AZT. That drug killed most of the people given it in the USA at doses that even at the time were seen as madness by AIDS doctors such as the famous Joseph Sonnabend - who proved that the trials were virtually fraudulent. 38000 gay men died in the USA as a direct result of AZT use and very little to do with AIDS.
In the UK the Concorde Trials of AZT (even at much lower doses) were steeped in controversy and the journalist Brian Deer and many others found serious ethical problems in hidden information around those trials.
So when people say 'most people survived on anti-retrovirals' what they really mean, is that when AZT *STOPPED* being the sole first line drug treatment, the horrific effects and rapid deaths from it slowly stopped.
But the 2006 Lancet study into 10 years of triple combination therapy was published the disappointment among the authors was massive. The *only* benefit was the end to rapid trauma and death from AZT use. Actual mortality rates did NOT change - people just took LONGER to die on 'combination anti-retroviral therapy' (cART, also known as 'Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy' HAART) than previously.
There has still been no decrease in death rates but the *causes* of death are almost exclusively linked to the drugs and not the illnesses collectively termed 'AIDS'.

Well eventually there is a 100% mortality rate for everyone isn't there?

But I've heard all the rants about AZT before and the anger with the rush of some of the drugs into wide use before it could be replaced by other drugs. But at the time, there just weren't choices, were there, as you'll remember since you were apparently there too.

But every person I knew who had AIDS before drugs like AZT died within 6 months as a result of Kaposi's Sarcoma or Pneumocystis....often combined with lesions on the brain.

I know a number of people who have now been on maintenance meds, some who started out on AZT, for over 20 years.

I know of no one who has declined drug therapy with AIDS who has lived even a fraction of that time.

 

[readymade]

Well eventually there is a 100% mortality rate for everyone isn't there?

But I've heard all the rants about AZT before and the anger with the rush of some of the drugs into wide use before it could be replaced by other drugs. But at the time, there just weren't choices, were there, as you'll remember since you were apparently there too.

But every person I knew who had AIDS before drugs like AZT died within 6 months as a result of Kaposi's Sarcoma or Pneumocystis....often combined with lesions on the brain.

I know a number of people who have now been on maintenance meds, some who started out on AZT, for over 20 years.

I know of no one who has declined drug therapy with AIDS who has lived even a fraction of that time.

Hear, hear.

No, the drug regimens aren't perfect. But they're way better than dying of pneumonia, KS, wasting, etc., within as little as a few months.

To go back to the argument that HIV as the cause of AIDS is a "theory:" you're right, as far as it goes. Following your argument, ALL science is a theory. However, when the theory is proven again and again through experimentation, then it really ceases to be a theory anymore. How electricity works is just a "theory." But it's substantiated through practice, so there's no need to think of electrical principles as doubtful anymore. Same thing here.

 

[Benvolio]

Wow...the picture is startling. I didn't even recognize him and frankly even after reading this it is hard for me to see that is him in the first photo.

I agree. The jutting lower jaw does not appear in other photos. I do not believe it is him.

 

[FanofFiction]

I think it does look like him. I believe it is him, sadly.

 

[markychv]

well for those who do not believe that it is him guess what? I got the pic off HIS WEBSITE! .... LOOK IT UP !

 

[JeremyB37]

Funny how you create a new account just for this post?
More explanation is needed for the new account.

I was referred to this forum and thread by someone I discuss the subject with elsewhere.
I have no other interest in this forum other than the scandalous ignorance being posted about Jeff Palmer and the subject of 'HIV' drug treatment.
Fairly simple explanation when you take the time to think about it.

 

[JeremyB37]

Well eventually there is a 100% mortality rate for everyone isn't there?

But I've heard all the rants about AZT before and the anger with the rush of some of the drugs into wide use before it could be replaced by other drugs. But at the time, there just weren't choices, were there, as you'll remember since you were apparently there oo.

But every person I knew who had AIDS before drugs like AZT died within 6 months as a result of Kaposi's Sarcoma or Pneumocystis....often combined with lesions on the brain.

I know a number of people who have now been on maintenance meds, some who started out on AZT, for over 20 years.

I know of no one who has declined drug therapy with AIDS who has lived even a fraction of that time.

Unless you have personal knowledge of the subject, or detailed scientific and clinical knowledge that you have acquired in a serious and disciplined manner, I suggest you avoid ridicule by avoiding comment.
If you want to learn more about AZT, from its first use in 'AIDS' treatment, then perhaps you should head over to the Blogs section of Poz.com and read the articles by Doctor Joseph Sonnabend (he is probably the single most experienced and knowledgeable physician on 'AIDS', since he was one of the FIRST doctors treating 'AIDS' patients, and he also happens to be a qualified microbiologist) and I'm sure that anyone would defer to his views rather than someone lay person with no experience.

I have known several people with classic 'AIDS' illnesses who survived without AZT, and subsequently without most anti-HIV drugs too. But as with your comment, it is merely observation and meaningless.