Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Carter admits taking ArkoPharma money to push SPV-30 poison (from Sept 7 2005 post)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Life - 20 Nov 2006 20:49 GMT
>Carter WAS paid to promote SPV-30.

As to this comment, no, I was not ever paid by Arkopharma to promote
anything. I have never been in their employ.

As I had mentioned previously, three of us went on a trip to a
conference in Rennes and as well to a visit at their office in Nice.
Arkopharma subsidized only a portion of that trip.

I made that clear in my original reports some 10+ years ago! LOL.

               George M. Carter
GMCarter - 21 Nov 2006 11:50 GMT
Yep. I wrote the email below. It's what I wrote in my original public
report.

SPV-30 is not a cure and may represent a treatment. It had a modest
effect on progression at the standard dose.

It is not poisonous taken at the dosages provided.

It doesn't work that well, certainly not as a monotherapy.

        George M. Carter

>>Carter WAS paid to promote SPV-30.

As to this comment, no, I was not ever paid by Arkopharma to promote
>anything. I have never been in their employ.

As I had mentioned previously, three of us went on a trip to a
conference in Rennes and as well to a visit at their office in Nice.
Arkopharma subsidized only a portion of that trip.

I made that clear in my original reports some 10+ years ago! LOL.

               George M. Carter
Death - 21 Nov 2006 16:56 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> Yep. I wrote the email below. It's what I wrote in my original public
> report.
>
> SPV-30 is not a cure and may represent a treatment. It had a modest
> effect on progression at the standard dose.

Lets go through this tap dance slowly. Lets see, you say:
...not a cure and MAY represent a treatment? Really!?
Well now, peanut butter is not a cure and MAY represent a treat-ment.

You go on by saying: ...a modest effect? on progression at the standard dosage.
The implacation being, a higher dosage will increase progression above modest.

> It is not poisonous taken at the dosages provided.

That was covered above

> It doesn't work that well, certainly not as a monotherapy.

No problem, neither does peanut butter.
GMCarter - 22 Nov 2006 02:14 GMT
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> SPV-30 is not a cure and may represent a treatment. It had a modest
>> effect on progression at the standard dose.
snip

>> It doesn't work that well, certainly not as a monotherapy.
>
>No problem, neither does peanut butter.

There are no randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of
peanut butter in HIV infection.

There is one for SPV-30.

        George M. Carter

***
Durant J, Chantre Ph, Gonzalez G et al: Efficacy and safety of Buxus
sempervirens L. preparations (SPV30) in HIV-infected asymptomatic
patients: a multicentre, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled
trial. Phytomedicine 1998; 5(1):1-10.

Described best here:
www.catie.ca/pdf/supple-e/spv30.pdf

They note: "Those taking SPV30 were less likely to develop symptoms of
AIDS or AIDS-related illnesses. The results were better for people
taking the low dose of 990 milligrams of SPV30 per day than for those
taking 1,980 mg.
Death - 22 Nov 2006 02:37 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> There are no randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of
> peanut butter in HIV infection.

Who told you that?
Go to any grocery, walk down the isle blind-folded.
Pick out any jar of peanut butter at random. Take it to the counter
and pay for it. You just got your-self one jar of placebo
treatment.

Now go to another grocery store and do the same thing.

A (double) blind placebo-controlled study.

....and it May be a treatment if eaten in recommended dosages.
GMCarter - 22 Nov 2006 11:30 GMT
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> There are no randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of
>> peanut butter in HIV infection.
>
>Who told you that?

Please provide the data then to show that there  have been such
studies!

Pity your satire is so lame.
Death - 22 Nov 2006 16:46 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> Please provide the data then to show that there  have been such
> studies!

Just eat the peanut butter....it MAY be a treatment, your words.
Why argue with yourself?
GMCarter - 22 Nov 2006 18:22 GMT
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Just eat the peanut butter....it MAY be a treatment, your words.
>Why argue with yourself?

No, that was your Rovian twist to my words. The basis for my saying
that Buxus sempervirens may be a useful treatment for HIV infection is
based on one clinical treatment. The "may" is a caveat since only that
one study was conducted.

Some people I know still swear by it. Usually, though, as part of a
regimen including antioxidants and other botanicals that have
similarly shown some modest efficacy against HIV.

Peanut butter has no data on it in any way, shape or form to suggest
that it MAY be a treatment for HIV.

That you are too obtuse to understand the distinction is completely
within your character.

        George M .Carter
Death - 22 Nov 2006 19:13 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net>

>  " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
>
> >Why argue with yourself?

> No, that was your Rovian twist to my words.

Really!

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> Yep. I wrote the email below. It's what I wrote in my original public
>> report.
>>
>> SPV-30 is not a cure and may represent a treatment.

snip
Death - 22 Nov 2006 19:20 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> No, that was your Rovian twist to my words. The basis for my saying
> that Buxus sempervirens may be a useful treatment for HIV infection is
> based on one clinical treatment.

That's a good point to bring up days later. Nothing like an after-excuse,
errrrr after-thought.

I saw no clinical test result in the original post, heck I don't see one now.
Death - 22 Nov 2006 19:23 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> No, that was your Rovian twist to my words. The basis for my saying
> that Buxus sempervirens may be a useful treatment for HIV infection is
> based on one clinical treatment. The "may" is a caveat since only that
> one study was conducted.
>
> Some people I know still swear by it.

I know people who swear by peanut butter.
Death - 22 Nov 2006 19:26 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

> Some people I know still swear by it. Usually, though, as part of a
> regimen including antioxidants and other botanicals that have
> similarly shown some modest efficacy against HIV.

Some people I know still swear by {peanut butter}. Usually, though, as part of a
regimen including antioxidants and other botanicals that have
similarly shown some modest efficacy against HIV.
Life - 22 Nov 2006 19:59 GMT
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No, that was your Rovian twist to my words.

Paranoid - Carl Rove is behind every tree.
Life - 22 Nov 2006 19:41 GMT
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and pay for it. You just got your-self one jar of placebo
> treatment.

A placebo "treatment" is NOT a study, although Carter
desperately wants ... no NEEDS it to be.

LOL!
Death - 22 Nov 2006 20:28 GMT
"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message

> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> LOL!

That was the point. If you are going to use a placebo, use peanut butter.
It is healthy food and has no side-effects.
Carter even said my example was silly. Well......Dah, no sh.t.
It was meant to be an illustration of  ............MAY be a treatment.
Life - 22 Nov 2006 19:39 GMT
Typical George Mary Carter Junk Science.

Both studies cited are a load of crap - lacking a true study
group versus a placebo group.

Fact remains, all the study participants were on all kinds
of toxic drugs (antivirals, antifungals, antibiotics, etc) - as
well as every other herbal treatment available.

> ***
> Durant J, Chantre Ph, Gonzalez G et al: Efficacy and safety of Buxus
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> taking the low dose of 990 milligrams of SPV30 per day than for those
> taking 1,980 mg.
Death - 22 Nov 2006 19:59 GMT
"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message

> Typical George Mary Carter Junk Science.
>
> > Described best here:
> > www.catie.ca/pdf/supple-e/spv30.pdf

much snipped from pdf format,  bad spelling not corrected:

Winter 2000
What is it?
SPV30 is derived from the European boxwood tree Buxus sempervirens. It is produced by
Arkopharma, a European company. The company is not willing to say exactly how the
product is produced or from what parts of the plant SPV30 comes from. Arkopharma uses a
freeze-drying process that it calls "cryogrinding" to extract SPV30 from the plant.

Wha What do HIV-positive people use t this supplement for?
l To limit the body's production of HIV

SPV30 may influence the immune system in a way that slows the production of HIV. Most
of our immune cells are in a latent or restinstate most of the time. However, when the
immune system recognizes that the body has been invaded by a micro-organism, like HIV,
immune cells that guard against this particular infection are activated. HIV can only infect
cells when they are in this activated state. HIV can also only use the cell to produce more
copies of the virus when the cell is in an activated state. When a cell produces more
copies of the virus, the presence of more virus activates more cells. These activated cells
are,
in turn, vulnerable to infection. This vicious cycle allows HIV to perpetuate itself among
the very cells that would normally defend the body.

Internal studies by the makers of SPV30 suggest that this treatment suppresses the
production of activated cells, leaving few cell vulnerable to infection. To date, these studies
have not been published by the peer-reviewe medical press. Additional studies done by the
company also suggest that SPV30 slows the production of HIV in test-tube studies. Again
the data from these studies are not available to the public.

A small placebo-controlled trial of SPV30 was done in the early 1990s. Documents offered by
Arkopharma suggest that the people living with HIV (PHAs) in this study experienced an
average increase of about 100 CD4+ cells after 30 weeks of treatment. Again, these results
have never been published in the peer-reviewed medical press. Based on this study, the
company offered SPV30 free of charge to 400 America PHAs in the mid-1990s. There was no
control arm for this study, and the fact that people knew they were testing SPV30 may
have influenced the results. Data from 173 subjects were presented at the 1996
International AIDS Conference in Vancouver.

It suggested that people using the treatment over a six-month period saw modest decreases
in viral load (more than 0.3 log in 38 per cent of the people) and slight increases in CD4+
counts (41 per cent of people had increases; the median change was 8.5 per cent or five cells).
These differences are small and could be due to chance alone since they are within the range of
variation usually seen with CD4+ and viral load tests. People in the study also reported
feeling better and more energized. As well, an improvement in existing skin conditions was
noted in some people.

A placebo-controlled study of HIV-positive people taking SPV30 was published in 1998.
People in this study did not take any other antiretrovirals or immunomodulators; each had....
Life - 23 Nov 2006 04:13 GMT
> "Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Typical George Mary Carter Junk Science.
>>
>> > Described best here:
>> > www.catie.ca/pdf/supple-e/spv30.pdf

> Internal studies by the makers of SPV30 suggest that this treatment
> suppresses the
> production of activated cells, leaving few cell vulnerable to infection.

Sure - that's what cancer-treatment immunosuppressives do - when the immune
system cell is activated, the drugs suppress it. For a disease of immune
suppression,
this is probably not a good thing to do - suppress the immunity further.
Life - 22 Nov 2006 19:37 GMT
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> The implacation being, a higher dosage will increase progression above
> modest.

Welcome to the world of GeorgeSpeak, where profit comes before
everything...
Death - 22 Nov 2006 20:14 GMT
"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message

> > "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> SPV-30 is not a cure and may represent a treatment.
>
> Welcome to the world of GeorgeSpeak, ...

I won't say honest, but if Carter were more consistant in his opinion
it would be much easier to deal with what he says.

I owe most of what I have learned about hiv/aids, ..... to Carter.
I have to read about everything to see if what he says is true.

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.