 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2004Orthodox AIDS Journal Challenges "Long Term" Benefits of HAART
Orthodox AIDS Journal Challenges "Long Term" Benefits of HAART It appears the rationale for HAART is finally under question by the AIDS orthodoxy. An article published earlier this year in the very mainstream medical journal AIDS concludes that HAART has no effect on viral load after three years of use and confirms that T cell count gains taper off after just 18 months on the meds. Interestingly, authors regard taking drugs for 18 months to 2 years as "long-term treatment." The paper actually goes so far as to "question the benefits of a life-long treatment for HIV infection." Authors note that "given the side effects...such as lipodistrophy, metabolic disturbances, increased cardiovascular risk, mitochondrial toxicity and altered quality of life...it is more and more difficult to imagine anti-HIV treatments as life-long prescriptions. The inconvenience of long-term treatment may outweigh the benefit of maintaining the CD4 cell count at a high level considering that treatment beyond 2 to 4 years will not result in a significant reduction of viral load." The characterization of heart attacks, deformities, and cell death as "inconviences" is also rather alarming. For more information, see AIDS, Volume 18 (1) 2 January 2004 >Orthodox AIDS Journal Challenges "Long Term" Benefits of HAART > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >journal AIDS concludes that HAART has no effect on viral load after three >years of use ... You have not provided a title for the article, nor provided an author's name, nor quoted any text from the abstract. You have provided nothing that could be used to find this article in a web search. >For more information, see AIDS, Volume 18 (1) 2 January 2004 And you have provided no easy way to identify which article in AIDS vol 18 (1) you are talking about. Given your long history of misrepresenting the contents of articles that you cite, and given your long history of misrepresenting what your opponents had said when you were responding to them, there is no reason to assume the AIDS article really says what you claim it says without checking. You have made it difficult to find the article that you claim supports you. Honest people try to make it easy to track down their information sources. They're not afraid of having their facts checked. Why are you?  SignatureDavid Canzi > Given your long history of misrepresenting the contents of articles > that you cite, and given your long history of misrepresenting what > your opponents had said when you were responding to them, there is > no reason to assume the AIDS article really says what you claim it > says without checking. Viard et al. "Impact of 5 years of maximally successful highly active antiretroviral therapy on CD4 cell count and HIV-1 DNA level." AIDS. 18(1):45-49, January 2, 2004. It says nothing of the sort. Paul copied and pasted from the BMJ "Rabid Responses" from a question posed by a person who hadn't read the article either. > You have made it difficult to find the article that you claim > supports you. Honest people try to make it easy to track down their > information sources. They're not afraid of having their facts checked. > Why are you? Because he hadn't read the article either. Not sure Paul could understand it even if he had... Bennett >> You have made it difficult to find the article that you claim >> supports you. Honest people try to make it easy to track down their >> information sources. They're not afraid of having their facts checked. >> Why are you? > >Because he hadn't read the article either. What mind-boggling intellectual carelessness! Who knows what somebody this stinking clueless might do next -- cite science articles from Pravda? SignatureDavid Canzi > What mind-boggling intellectual carelessness! Who knows what somebody > this stinking clueless might do next -- cite science articles from > Pravda? Old joke from even the '50s I think it was... Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (Light). I first heard it in the '60s. Translated: "There is not Izvestia in Pravda, and no Pravda in Izvestia." B/ >> What mind-boggling intellectual carelessness! Who knows what somebody >> this stinking clueless might do next -- cite science articles from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Izvestia (Light). I first heard it in the '60s. Translated: "There is >not Izvestia in Pravda, and no Pravda in Izvestia." ISTR that izvestia means "news". The joke makes more sense to me that way. SignatureDavid Canzi >>Old joke from even the '50s I think it was... Pravda (Truth) and >>Izvestia (Light). I first heard it in the '60s. Translated: "There is >>not Izvestia in Pravda, and no Pravda in Izvestia." > > ISTR that izvestia means "news". The joke makes more sense to me > that way. You're right. It's been a while and my Russian is rusty. B/ That is a complete fabrication. I challenge you to prove your outright lie. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.