Look in a dictionary: "alternative" has multiple meanings. "alternative" can be a synonym for "choice" or "option" (without the connotation of fringe lifestyles or opposition to mainstream consensus). Why must you impose on others your chosen
definitions the same way you attempt to impose on others your chosen products?

You can attempt to "condense" my messages as much as you want; unfortunately, you don't seem to be READING them. Personally, I would find your "critique" of me much more pursuasive if you could point out things I've said that have actually been INCORRECT rather than simply contradictory to your ideology (just as I've been kind enough to point out things that you've said that were incorrect). A well-informed person would be able to find objectionable and over-simplified statements I've made, but you don't seem to be interested in what I say; you just want to bash those who don't wholeheartedly adopt your pet substance as a matter of faith.

You don't understand where normal ranges come from. For CD4 counts (and many other values), they are the range that 95% of healthy people fall into. That does NOT mean that the ranges follow a normal curve (in which case the range would quite obviously be mn +/- 2 SD - in some cases this is not even possible because of the natural lower bound on the values) or that they are evenly distributed throughout that range (they almost certainly are not!). When you see a range for a lab value that is 500-1500, that does NOT necessarily mean that the median value among healthy people is 1000 (fyi, the median is the number that 50% fall above, 50% fall below) - it also doesn't mean that the average (mean) is 1000, or that the mode is anywhere close to 1000. Look at skewed-right histograms (histograms with long right tails), and you'll see what I mean (or, imagine that the 5th - 90th percentile are all in the range 500-650, but the 91-95th percentiles are spread out from 650-1500, and you'll see why calling something "low end of normal" without knowing where the range comes from and the distribution of healthy people along that range involves flawed logic). Depending on the distribution, you can be at the lower end of the range, and still be above the median because MOST healthy people are "at the lower end". Normal ranges differ by population and sometimes by technique used - without knowing both of those, you also have no way to tell someone their results are "low end of normal" without knowing the normal range for their population and testing technique. Pointing something out implies that it has significance - it is a common charlatan's technique to pretend that they understand something that they do not (i.e. laboratory values), and then generate concern and worry by pointing out that someone is in the "low end" or "high end" of normal ranges. Normal is normal, and you lack the requisite education in such things to be interpreting anyone's lab values.

Also, the poster never said he had "huge CD4 levels". He called his CD4 count "hugh", which was almost certainly a typo for "high", not "huge" (look at your keyboard). If you don't know what a high CD4 count means in the context of HIV, that's really nobody's fault but your own.

As I've told you before, you don't get to dictate what other people write (if you want to do that, stay in your own forum!).

You say people should not listen to me, without pointing out what I've said that is incorrect. I would respond by noting that YOU clearly (1) do not have any basic Science education in immunology or virology (not even the basics!); (2) know next-to-nothing about HIV pathogenesis; (3) do not understand beyond a kindergartener's level what CD4 cells are, what they do, why they matter to people with HIV (not to mention the dozens of other things that matter to people with HIV, that you seem to have no awareness of!); (4) have no understanding of the scientific method or statistics; (5) do not feel any responsibility for ensuring that the information you give out is correct (have you found a reference in JAMA for your made-up statistics on oncologists' attitudes towards chemotherapy? Did you even bother fact-checking Mr. Swanepoel's paper before deciding that he knew what he was talking about and uncritically, unquestioningly accepting whatever he said? Nope!); (6) misrepresent facts to suit your ideology, even after others have brought it to your attention. Why, then, should anyone listen TO YOU?! YOU have never treated anyone with HIV with your love-child (oleander), nor have you seen anyone treated with it with your own eyes. You do not even know anyone with HIV who has taken it that you could refer others to! You have no credible evidence to back up most of your claims. Why, then, are you ANY sort of authority on the treatment of HIV, alternative or mainstream, when you are ignorant about the subject and have no direct experience with it?

I will directly recommend the use of alternative medications when (1) there is credible evidence to support their use, and (2) they are the best option available. When there are no good options (e.g. transmissible spongiform encepalopathies), I'm willing to relax that a bit. If you would have READ my posts (rather than simply skimming them for a reference to Mr. Swanepoel against which you can lash out), you would see that I HAVE recommended alternative medications (something you like to ignore!) - but always with the caveat that they won't work for everyone and that there's (usually) no really good evidence to support their use. Some blowhard was quoted in a recent New Yorker as saying, "The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack". I find it to be an applicable quote to this situation.

"is there anything alternative that anyone has used to keep their hiv under control without meds"?

Absolutely! About a zillion different things! So many things that it would take too long to recount them all! For everything, you'll find some people for whom it seems to be working. Unfortunately, nobody can predict with any sort of accuracy who these people will be (or whether it is even a given product that is causing their good health). The people promoting alternative treatments for HIV generally refuse to test and evaluate them using strict scientific standards. When scientists have been intrigued by supplements that patients said were helping them, the results from the clinical trials have always been disappointing. Interest often falls in a given supplement or alternative healing protocol after its major proponent or poster-child dies of AIDS (this has also happened enough times that it'll take too long to recount!). Having lived with this virus for many, many years, I've seen too many self-promoters selling their own brand of BS in an attempt to garner either income or self-glorification. For that reason, I say "be very careful" when evaluating people's claims about alternative treatments - more often than not, they're simply unsupportable. Supplements often seem to show some short-term benefit that disappears in the long-term.

I would recommend the following forum as a better place for advice on supplements for HIV than this one (since there are so few people with HIV in this forum):

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?board=8.0


Safety of HAART:
Really depends on the combination of drugs you're taking! Some combinations are unsafe (ddI + Viread is a good example), some are more likely to cause severe side effects (d4T, ddI, AZT among the nukes). If you are in the US, you are unlikely to ever take any of these. I have no idea what combination your doctor would be prescribing for you (has a genotype/phenotype been performed for any reason?), but the most popular drug combination in the US today (especially among people who've never taken meds before) is Atripla - a once-per-day pill that contains three different antivirals (tenofovir, emtricitabine, efavirenz). I've never taken it (and will never be able to - I'm resistant to efavirenz), but the reason for its popularity is partially its convenience and partially its tolerability. As with any drug (including the natural ones), there are adverse effects. One major difference between licensed drugs and alternative ones is that you DO know what these adverse effects are, and how commonly they occur (the FDA requires tracking of such things. With alternative medications, no one is keeping track). If I'm reading you correctly, you're concerned about serious injury or death, not about transient changes (e.g. one of the most common side effects from Atripla is "vivid dreams". Some find them annoying, many like them, but I don't think this is the sort of thing you're worried about). If your doctor is competent, he should spend a decent amount of time with you telling you the risks of the medications you're going to be on. One reason for this is because serious injury can usually be avoided IF you know what you're looking for and are being monitored. For example, any drug (natural or alternative) can cause an allergic reaction (although reactions to some drugs can be more common and/or frequently serious than reactions to others). For every HIV med that I can think of where allergic reactions are common, proper monitoring can prevent them from being serious, so your doctor should tell you what is "serious" enough that you need to call/come in if you experience it. Could you be the 1 in 10,000 (the numbers are closer to this than to 1 in 100) who dies from an adverse reaction? Absolutely! However, doing labtests beforehand (because, for example, some people should not be given a particular drug if they have pre-existing kidney disease, liver disease, or other abnormalities) and properly monitoring the person on the drug (to catch any adverse incidents early) will make this outcome even less likely. Even in people with asymptomatic HIV, the risk of death from drugs is far, far smaller than the risk of death for those not on drugs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10597779?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2....
(note that this is an older study; the medications used a decade ago are less tolerable than those used today). But this is a personal decision, and it's really one that should be made with your doctor. There's no doubt that there are people who SHOULDN'T be on HAART.

If you tell me the specific combination that you would be taking, I can give you more specific information about the risks.

If you ever want to know what the risks of a particular drug are, you can always look up the full prescribing information.