Cigarette smoking and its dangers

[Janic]

Obamot hello

Janic wrote:
Like what if it turns to confrontation, there is misunderstanding or distortion.

It's not impossible, but you see how it bothers!

No, it does not annoy me, it's part of the game! What annoys me and see, these are value judgments on individuals, but I also cultivated my zen side.

Janic wrote:

Obamot wrote:
And I told you that this is a total failure (in all countries that penalize consumption).

That's what I said about the American prohibition. The French prohibition (I do not know what it is in Switzerland) is more progressive to spare goat and cabbage, but with the same purpose: to eliminate the smoking bypassing the obstacle and therefore direct confrontation: fiscal, banned from public places, etc ...

And in the process, to offer drug-consuming "clients" (in Geneva and Zurich were the first), injection centers under medical supervision ... (After that I am not passing judgment on this measure, it is on a case-by-case basis, but there were some encouraging results!)

This is actually a case-by-case measure especially in the use of so-called hard drugs where I have no lived experience. However, in "our" approach it is not the type of drug that matters, but the individual and his desire to stop.

I apologize for insisting on this, but these words seem "misunderstood", I understand what you are saying, but you cannot "get rid of an addiction". One can, (and it is desirable) to get rid of an addiction in which case one is not yet "dependent".

Precisely not! When a person smokes two packs a day (see, albeit rare) for several decades and after many attempts of stops. This is the true addiction! and amazing it is to see that from the first or second day the person no longer feels no urge to smoke.
(Surprisingly, I found that they were light smokers (2 5 to cigarettes per day had the most difficulty stopping, while above a packet that went more easily, which can be explained elsewhere.)
An anecdote among others:
A participant, a sales representative, must make a tour the next day with his heavy smoker also. So the next evening he tells you about the day or, he says, not only did I not feel like smoking, but his mate's smoke didn't even bother him. the peculiarity is that he had had a loss of voice which disappeared in the evening, and which was repeated the next day. Not being "equipped" to explain the phenomenon, we advise him to see his doctor as astonished as we are and who therefore advises him to smoke again: "doctor but I have no desire, I just stop". The phenomenon disappeared around the 3rd or 4th day and this participant could not see himself choosing between resuming tobacco or giving up his job. Yet we did nothing more or less than for the others and that also worked well.

Getting out of addiction would be more like "withdrawal" in toxicology, and

Call it as you want! Except that this withdrawal does not extend over long periods as with nicotine replacement or vapomachins, but only a few days. After this longer asks for the usual mechanisms look like his cigarettes, his lighter, etc ...

(and since you speak of a "definitive treatment").

No (it is still a question of vocabulary can be) but there NO TREATMENT of some kind would be to the illegal practice of medicine: guarded land and undermined!

Janic wrote:
At the time, no medical organization really cared about the fate of smoking

Example of a "trustworthy" site (and without any proselytism):
http://www.stop-tabac.ch/fra/

I can not say anything on the internet, nor the rest elsewhere. For this site, the difference (briefly considered) still taking medication, but it's their choice. Thousands of participants over many years have never had need of these palliative! except pathology which then depends on the doctor

Janic wrote:
NO armamentarium used unlike the current medical system that holds participants in dependency (which is strange for individuals came to get rid of!)

Don't understand what you mean?!?! There is necessarily a "therapeutic arsenal", a simple coach can be one of the elements, it is not necessarily only drugs, or methadone ...

Of course, we do not gather people in a room to look in the whites of the eyes until it is done alone. If you consider that changing your lifestyle is therapeutic, where to eat or drink becomes therapeutic too (dixit Hippocrates) then yes!

Then it's on a case-by-case basis. Impossible to say without knowing the patient, the relationship he has with his doctor, to say if it is necessary to give him an analgesic (or not), a "substitute" (or not) etc.

Ca, it is done in the case of ownership by medical procedures as do addictologists doctor with patients, it is their job and their health care habits.
So being outside the system, I do not have to judge whether it is better or worse, but just to point out the differences in processes. No drugs, no substitute, moreover unnecessary in this case.

Choosing your universe of dependence, I think you will agree that it is better not to place your destiny in the hands of a guru or other "manipulator" ...

Difficult answer because one defines a guru to the extent that many "charlatans" are holders of the most beautiful official diplomas and at the pinnacle of the recognition of their peers. Example Gallo with his supposed HIV! On the other hand Wakefield having received the highest English honors will be thrown in the trash as soon as he will question the MMR vaccine and thus considered as a manipulative guru. (I have already quoted some French guru striped from the order of doctors for unlawful healing because off the official zebra crossings.)

Moreover, what differentiates an "approved care network" is the free services, in principle.

Volunteering is also free benefits! (There was some time in our pocket for that matter)

In this context, one can perfectly assimilate a dealer to a guru! This is why there remains this ambiguity of "State dealer", since it would tolerate the sale of certain narcotics (but this point disappears when one accepts the sociological context in which we live, its laws, its customs, and the respect of the "personal will" which it supposes in a democratic state ... Which one also calls "freedom")

The French state is not really as dealer does not manufacture cigarettes, he dropped Seita because they can not criticize one side and the other dealer. Let's say that his role is more of maquereautage by recovering some of the business by taxes like prostitution. Not easy to be the ass between two chairs or on the branch that we saw!

Janic wrote:
Except that we do not have the same concept of quality or should more precisely define what you mean. Indeed if the cities were poorly supplied, (the famous swedes and the equally famous black bread) campaigns had no concern qualitative and rural life was more important than at present.

That's why I put the word in quotes. I sometimes refer to the Demeter label (if we are talking about "absolute" quality). Mébon, that's another debate ...

Demeter is the luxury that can not compare with the rest of the food. No more than a Rolls with a 2CV, apart from being cataloged in the same family automobile.

Janic wrote:

Obamot wrote:
except that the industrial tool was already there after the end of the war, and no one thought to change it then, because it was ...

Effectively! not only it has not been subject to change then, but instead, he was so powerful quantitatively (to the detriment of the intrinsic quality of food) that was increased (as any industrial process) but industrialists are not philosophers or philanthropists.!

I have not talked to industrialists, but the tool.

Apart from being still the millstone or false, the following tools accompany the desires and needs of manufacturers (it encompasses large and small at the same time). Without drawer metal rollers between its grain and seed; do not we talk deficiencies white bread generator of heart disease among others. Neither of sale, at exorbitant prices, the super complementary food that is the wheat germ and incidentally her against constipation caused by this white bread. Y are crazy !!! humans [quote

Janic wrote:

Obamot wrote:
Bein just shows the example, I will follow you gladly ... ;-)

Not hard ! Completely eliminated the implicated individuals (it is their right to have different opinion from yours as mine.

and it is you who is teaching us on this point ...! But why not after all. [/ Quote] I do not lecture, you make a request and I answer:
rebuke ALL my actions and you will notice that there NEVER I am questioning individuals without having been nominally caused. So and only then I return the ball by making the same for a very short time, a few passages of arms and back to MA philosophy not to question the systems and not individuals who belong.

Janic wrote:
Changes your derogatory formulas by "this is not my opinion," "I think differently than you" etc ... and more isms in shambles even if they are justified in your eyes isms.

Here I have to admit that I find it difficult not to express myself "my way" as everyone tries to do theirs.

We are like us on that one!

Seriously, when you fall on some excesses, there pafrois no other way than to exaggerate or put one of cynicism (and especially of humor)!

What some call other excesses consider them normal, it's a matter of perspective over its own references. This is why I avoid (except to be caused) to underline the excesses of the other, which would be a shame if I did not accept the same from others.

It is not forbidden in a debate.

This is according to the sensitivity of the speakers! You have character and knowledge that are different (s) of others, including me and some times this cynicism can go wrong. I'm rough around the edges (it is easily perceived), and I know this is not always either going round corners and this is not my thing (it has advantages as well as disadvantages. As said my wife : " you could say differently! ")

And inevitably, when answers and positions become very "personal", the answers can become so too. I do not see how to avoid it: but I will take into account what you say!

Hard hard !!!! It is precisely denying that it becomes personal, you have to stay on the subject, not on those who give their views.

Janic wrote:
In harmony (as much as possible with human weakness) with this biblical formula "everyone will be measured with the measure he used" and elsewhere "that you will judge the world, you might jugerles things of this world"

OK!

Janic wrote:
Sometimes change is to lose its specific character and exchange a blind for the blind.

Above, you gave us advice on what would be good to do, and it seems to me it seemed to be going in the opposite direction! ;-)

Seemingly yes! As we are human, we can not (normally) not be a woman or vice versa, but we can try not to be macho by example and try to understand the mechanisms that differentiate the sexes as there are differences between interlocutors .
(Whatever for women, it is an impossible challenge. How is a macho thinking!)

PS: you have no idea how many times - already - I re-edit my texts to make them less incisive, remove smiley's etc, precisely in order not to shock certain "sensibilities" too much! While trying to keep the intention of the text ... It's not a simple exercise.

We do the same thing! Often I type a text (Word) and re-read, (as text), the next day to water it down some formulations with sharp corners, before editing. I have written three books and my reviewers made me shave the corners of many incisive texts too.

[Obamot]

However, in "our" approach is not the type of drug that matters, but the individual and his desire to stop.

I will not say the opposite. And besides, it is on this kind of "pragmatic" things that my reasoning is based.

I apologize for insisting on this, but these words seem "misunderstood", I understand what you are saying, but we cannot“ get rid of an addiction. ”We can, (and it is desirable) to get rid of an addiction in which case we are not yet“ addicted ”.

Precisely not! When a person smokes two packs a day (see, albeit rare) for several decades and after many attempts of stops. This is the true addiction! and amazing it is to see that from the first or second day the person no longer feels no urge to smoke.

I would like to see that, if you have an explanation and details, it must be of interest to more than one (you've been out of the business for a long time, there is a prescription and it's "public domain ").
But in the meantime, you still haven't understood (and the reason is because you haven't or possibly couldn't understand for lack of element / s, again reason why we talk about "prerequisites", which I wouldn't want to make fun of, since I explained them above, and that it didn't" hit ".)

In other words: I am not saying that the person is not "dependent" I am saying that you are talking about dependence and not addiction (when you talk about addiction) and I maintain that it is terminologically not correct. So if we ignore this semantic "detail", what you say would be correct. Phew!

(Surprisingly, I found that it was the small smokers (2 5 cigarettes per day who had the most trouble to stop, while above a package it passed more easily, which can be explained elsewhere.)

Not knowing what "method" you are talking about ...? ...

An anecdote among others:
A participant, a sales representative, must make a tour the next day with his heavy smoker also. So the next evening he tells you about the day or, he says, not only did I not feel like smoking, but his mate's smoke didn't even bother him. the peculiarity is that he had had a loss of voice which disappeared in the evening, and which was repeated the next day. Not being "equipped" to explain the phenomenon, we advise him to see his doctor as astonished as we are and who therefore advises him to smoke again: "doctor but I have no desire, I just stop". The phenomenon disappeared around the 3rd or 4th day and this participant could not see himself choosing between resuming tobacco or giving up his job. Yet we did nothing more or less than for the others and that also worked well.

There is only one possible explanation (if we speak of generality), in the small of my knowledge, and if one speaks of the annihilation of the toxicological effects on receptors involved! But I expect that you want to develop well. Thank you.

Getting out of addiction would be more like "withdrawal" in toxicology, and

Call it as you want!

A spade a spade.
Addiction is something really special, otherwise we do not understand the tipping phenomenon (at least it helps to understand it, as already explained above).

Except that this withdrawal does not extend over long periods as with nicotine replacement or vapomachins, but only a few days.

oho, suddenly should be generalized? But anyway, I have not talked about that, so ...

After this longer asks for the usual mechanisms look like his cigarettes, his lighter, etc ...

Not knowing what you mean (you mean the TOC inherent in the conso)?

(and since you speak of a "definitive treatment").

No (it is still a question of vocabulary can be) but there NO TREATMENT of some kind would be to the illegal practice of medicine: guarded and minefield

The establishment of a treatment does not necessarily require the taking of medication (but the opposite yes). But that's not what I meant by using the word "definitive", I meant that you were claiming that said method did not provide "recurrence" (otherwise call it whatever you want.)

Or do you mean "care", or both?

At the time, no medical organization really cared about the fate of smoking

Example of a "trustworthy" site (and without any proselytism):
http://www.stop-tabac.ch/fra/

I can not say anything on the internet, nor the rest elsewhere. For this site, the difference (briefly considered) still taking medication, but it's their choice.

No, it's an option. And case by case.

wi, wi, wi ... and you wouldn't have missed a BIG passage on "Scientologists", by chance:

At the time, no medical organization really cared about the fate of smoking

Yes, that's why small groups like "Scientologists" had embarked on this niche (and still are) to recruit flocks. With mind-boggling methods like using (their electrometer and lie detector). Other real coaches, without ulterior motives, also arrived at certain results with fortunately other methods!

The problem for those who wish to attend these coaches is to know who they are dealing with. There is, however, an effective method to sort websites and find out if they have "real" health professionals in front of them, the "HON code",



(HONcode principles) those who apply them are part of the "network", and can affix the logo on their web page, as a "token of confidence", and are required to respect the charter. They are periodically checked (even if that does not guarantee that the Doc will clean the windows well so that the car is dapper, we are at least sure that he will replace the brake pads correctly, it is already that compared to a "sect "from gurus).

Example of a "trustworthy" site (and without any proselytism):
http://www.stop-tabac.ch/fra/

Well, well, I think I'll stop for now!

Going to sleep there

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
Precisely not! When a person smokes two packs a day (see, albeit rare) for several decades and after many attempts of stops. This is the true addiction! and amazing it is to see that from the first or second day the person no longer feels no urge to smoke.

I would like to see that, if you have an explanation and details, it must be of interest to more than one (you've been out of the business for a long time, there is a prescription and it's "public domain ").

meetings are public, free and open to all in France, but I do not know if it exists in Switzerland!
Of course he ay explanation: lifestyle, food chosen, an accompanying "psychological" minimal and enough! why make it complicated when it can be simple (eg Kousmine method!)

In other words: I am not saying that the person is not "dependent" I am saying that you are talking about dependence and not addiction (when you talk about addiction) and I maintain that it is terminologically not correct. So if we ignore this semantic "detail", what you say would be correct. Phew

!
The use of the term "accutumance" is that rounding of angles that we are talking about earlier. No need to attack the participant, he knows it depends just as we do not say to someone who is overweight obese, he knows it and he took it for elsewhere.

Janic wrote:
(Surprisingly, I found that it was the small smokers (2 5 cigarettes per day who had the most trouble to stop, while above a package it passed more easily, which can be explained elsewhere.)

Not knowing what "method" you are talking about ...? ...

(That is to prolong the suspense!)
I guess that is the case irrespective of the method in question. Small smokers themselves almost never as drug addicts, but are bothered by this bad habit. They do not cough, have no vascular alert, etc ... Heavy smokers and so stop them becomes imperative, it is a big, very big motivation that does not exist in the first. Or, in our case as in other forms, it is the motivation which is the main engine shutdown. The methods are only more or less effective aid to achieve this.

Janic wrote:
An anecdote among others:

There is only one possible explanation (if we speak of generality), in the small of my knowledge, and if one speaks of the annihilation of the toxicological effects on receptors involved! But I expect that you want to develop well. Thank you.

Nothing to develop, I have indicated the essential which surprises by its simplicity! We just see that it is effective and these anecdotes are there only to reinforce the fact that it works, independently of this "will" so often invoked. " it's just a matter of will!"Completely wrong idea as shown, too, this other anecdote:
the wife of a participant, smoker herself, accompanied her husband, but office tells us that she will not stop and forgo this pleasure, but said-she was told that your diet is great to lose some weight and here, here interested. At the end of our meeting it was also stopped smoking and did not understand why!
Another ? An early participant, municipal police of her condition, had just, for the Nth time, try stopping smoking which put him in the same state as the other times at point " want to shoot his colleague with whom he had no missing links "So he came disbelief, expecting the same results as the other times.
From the first day, he does not touch any cigarette and, according to his words, he is on a small cloud, calm, relaxed, without any desire to smoke, or to attack anyone and it lasts until the end and on the few years that will follow until the day when, on vacation in Corsica, he shares friendly products that he had abandoned following the advice provided and at once an irrepressible desire takes him to want to smoke and he did not resume because that his wife supported him during the bad passage by reproaching him besides for having forgotten the advices brought during our meetings. The next day, it was over and he found his "normal" state of no smoking and this continues to last the news.

Janic wrote:
Except that this withdrawal does not extend over long periods as with nicotine replacement or vapomachins, but only a few days.

all of a sudden it would be necessary to generalize? But in short, I did not talk about that, so ...

This is not to generalize our experience in a particular method allows for comparisons by smokers themselves and shows that without drugs or substitutes, the elimination of the drugs of the cigarette is very fast unlike the taking of nicotine by patches, vapomachins which maintain the dependence. Elementary my dear Watson !

Janic wrote:
After this longer asks for the usual mechanisms look like his cigarettes, his lighter, etc ...

Not knowing what you mean (you mean the TOC inherent in the conso)?

Yes and no! These are reflex mechanisms, not thought out, involuntary, like looking for keys and remain on the hard disk and memory fade gradually and in some it lasts a long time

But that's not what I meant by using the word "definitive", I meant that you were claiming that said method did not provide "recurrence" (otherwise call it whatever you want.)

Indeed it can be called "final" as the person concerned does not return to the conditions that cause it to smoke as the example above. All former smokers are warned that they are not non-smokers but former smokers registered with the program on their hard drive that asks only work again.

Or do you mean "care", or both?

Another matter of language! The word care, for meEvokes an independent therapeutic natural mechanisms that should regulate without outside intervention agency. Drug use is unnatural and requires outside intervention to reorient towards a return to this "natural" in question. Are they care? language issue, I call it a help as it helps a person, who needs to cross the street in the passages provided for this purpose and function of elements known as traffic lights, etc .. .! (no question of forcing people to go through despite them!)

and you wouldn't have skipped a BIG passage on "Scientologists", by chance:

I'm not referring to Scientology any more than other systems. If they are effective, it is worth taking. If their goal is to make converts, everyone does the same. Re vaccination! the sect of fanatics of the needle injecting poisons in the body, does not seem to me less dangerous than some 'sects' religious or not! Especially if Scientologists (who are not considered as a cult in the US) or seek to influence other individuals, the vaccine sect managed to introduce to policy makers to create a consumption requirement of their poisons and make pognons pile transforming the doctors by drug dealer which hardly bother anyone on the contrary! And here it concerns millions of people whose first victims are the children, parents conditioned by the sect to leave poison them.
Which is more dangerous?
NB: when one is not sure, it is enough to inquire with the authorities like the police, the repression of frauds, to question his entourage, the internet now, etc ... or, why not, to continue smoking!

[Christophe]

Interesting study: http://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/20 ... lcool.html

Increasing tobacco taxes decreases ... (also) alcohol!

Is the converse true?

[Obamot]

Excellent!

Increasing tobacco taxes decreases ... (also) alcohol!

With that I think everything is said among possible links with (and from) our psyche, our moods compared to what we live and what we eat! Really good pick, thank you and bravo.

[Janic]

Christophe hello

Increasing tobacco taxes decreases ... (also) alcohol!

Is the converse true?

Not really and not at all!
Tobacco companies add additives (between 600 and 1000) some of which are addictive to increase tobacco consumption.
The presence of additives also induced by unpublished German laboratory work a significant increase of ammonia, gas strongly suspected to increase the rate of absorption of nicotine into the body.
http://sante.lefigaro.fr/dossier/tabac/ ... s-additifs
Tobacco companies deny having sworn it did before the congress, were recognized as false witnesses and have lost their lawsuit with hundreds of millions of dollars to the key (we are from France with its symbolic franc)
Which is not (hopefully naively) the case of alcoholic drinks. However, reducing the mix of drugs and its amount reduces the synergetic effect, with unconscious effects on others. More as Obamot says, the psychological dimension that will accentuate or reduce the phenomenon.
Then why not wine?
The time of plonk three balls is almost gone and consumption of wine is turning more and more towards quality products says (in reality fame) which is a form of social success expression (they are usually open with social or professional relationships.) while the beer brand image of football fan (largely fueled by advertising and popular movie characters) which are not representative of a social class above the usual lot. (This is also the case of the consumption of butter and ham Gammon comparing beer with a steak frit or more class tournedos Rossini accompanied by a "good" madeira, not from a can.)
More insistent campaigns against spirits and particularly on youth in search of sensations, only reinforces his drink image for strong men and women released (like James Bond and the other characters, constantly trying to booze and smoke, course between two exploits)
Societies change and as their referents.

[Obamot]

My little finger tells me that there could be "something else" in the method of weaning you describe, such as a "moral or spiritual support"that people could find there and to cling to?

But maybe I'm wrong?

[Janic]

obamot hello

My little finger tells me that there might be "something else" to the withdrawal method you describe, such as "moral or spiritual support" that people could find there and cling to?
But maybe I'm wrong?

Even though it may be in the mind of any organizer, the rule is just to never use it. No moralism or spiritualism (believers can always add their own model of faith, their value system, everything is good to use) any more than a doctor facing an STD which hands a patient problem and one and this factor must be taken into account. Ditto for the method as it is for all age groups including refractory to any reference to these two criteria. This is why it has been included as such by doctors addictologists unless a particular point which made the distinction and efficiency. Beware of imitations!
PS: about STDs, a client of mine was suffering from recurrent STDs and he and his wife were unable to have children (according to medics course). At his request, I advised him a few simple tricks and a few months later, the MST was gone and he told me the lady of pregnancy. What connection (not sexual, ah, ah, ah !!!)? These tips were a few specific points, the same as those given to participants smokers and not far from the KOUSMINE method.

[Obamot]

Hello Janic,

Oh you know, Kousmine I had met her, and even interviewed her for the radio ...! She made no secret of the links between mental health (in which spirituality has a consequent importance for many) and physiological health! Moreover in this word there is "logic".

So for me, it would not be excluded, and by no means.

But just as you just said, even if it was implicit, she knew very well how to separate the scientific process from her own convictions! Yet in the end she joined the idea that there would be a strong and superior bond ...! Not bad is not it? (So ​​even if this had been the case concerning you, it would not matter - and as you suggest, it is implicitly - since for my part, I consider (but it is very personal) that a "good and healthy spirituality ", is probably a decisive element in keeping people healthy! This is a point I dare to make, without any problem, without restraint and without doing any proselytizing.)

To bounce on the link given by Christopher and what you say STD, I found this (I post it here, because this is the trend of this thread):

HIV / STD, in particular, would be the effect of a central cause that would be caused by violence against women ...!

And the one who says it is nothing other than the current President of the Confederation (raise his courage), and reported by the very "official" Swiss Teletext, not bad no (?):



I specify well "to certain women", since not all the physiologies react in the same way vis-a-vis certain "stress" of which this one.

Here we therefore have a direct and accepted causal link between way of life (and even "culturally" going as far as the rejection of a way of life, or rejection of the existence of a person's right to live: since in a context war) with its disastrous effects on health!

And even if this situation is caricature, it demonstrates our fragility and the consequences that stress can have on our state of health. Afterwards, the use (or the renunciation) of "stimulants" such as tobacco, or the change of the lifestyle for a better one, often depends just on the vagaries of the existence ... This is why the responsibility of the authorities sanitary facilities should be full and complete, and that we change the paradigm of that of "post-war" (again the war ...)

Yet I see a barrier, if by the conclusions that are drawn, we managed to eradicate HIV by 2030 should be gradually formalize what are the causes: "violent stresses previously experienced by all those who are victims of it!" And especially to admit legally speaking!

If society succeeds, it would be a total questioning of the current theoretical model and a major breakthrough in the field of early prevention! (I speak about it in the columns of this forumfor almost five years now, and I'm not the only one, hoping that there will be some sort of censorship on the part of some stakeholders, so that it can stay in peak, while is still in a lot of areas ...)

In the state we are still in a vast hypocrisy ... On the one hand the political and judiciary who close their eyes, and other researchers have scientifically implemented the said interaction ...

[Janic]

However, I see an obstacle there, if by the conclusions which are drawn from it, one succeeds in eradicating the HIV by 2030, it would be necessary gradually to officialize what are the causes: "of the violent stresses lived previously by all those which are there victims!" And above all to admit it legally!

Except that very high level of scientific DES refuse this amalgam of HIV (the virus or suspected virus) and AIDS in Africa, covers a lot of diseases unrelated to HIV but are actually IDA significant immune deficiency.
So violence (and I think the article is referring to rape that can actually be an STD transmission vector, but it is not new, it has existed for millennia) against women during wars and outside them, weakens physiologically and psychologically them. As for its eradication ... in a few thousand years?
So it would be nice, so that the confusion does not persist, that everyone is clear to distinguish all these IDA and a supposed HIV never located. (all representations of it are images of syntheses or simple drawings.)
But this issue is not about HIV that is reviewed elsewhere!