"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote...

That has got to be the poorest graph I've ever seen.  What the hell is the
difference between "Classic AIDS" and "AIDS '93"?  And why are there two
bars for each year (i and ii)?  Also, no mention is made of where the data
came from.  While I still don't completely trust the CDC (I think they're
deliberately obsfucating the statistics for political reasons), they are
still the most comprehensive source of HIV/AIDS data for the U.S., if not
the entire world.  Here's what CDC Surveillance Report 2002 shows for the
number of "AIDS" deaths (it does refer to a new definition starting in
1993):

1985:  6,000
1986: 12,000
1987: 16,000
1988: 20,000
1989: 26,000
1990: 30,000
1991: 35,000
1992: 40,000
1993: 45,000
1994: 50,000   (clinical trials of protease inhibitors begun)
1995: 56,000   (approval of protease inhibitors and general use begun)
1996: 36,000
1997: 20,000
1998: 18,000
1999: 17,000
2000: 16,000
2001: 16,000
2002: 15,500

I'm too tired to crunch the numbers now, but look at the numbers above and you
see that the number of AIDS deaths literally "fell off a cliff" beginning in
1995, immediately after the new drugs were introduced.  Also keep in mind that
AIDS deaths plummeted despite an ever-steady increase in new HIV infections.
But also note that from 1997 onwards, the number of AIDS deaths remained
almost constant, the decline stopped, but that is deceptive as the number of
new HIV infections continued to increase, so even a constant annual number
of deaths means a much lower percentage of total HIV patients were dying each
year.

I don't know what sort of trip you're on or where you get the bizarre
statistics to support your crackpot theories.  The HIV virus IS the cause
of AIDS (though Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome might be caused by
other agents in extremely rare cases, such as toxic chemical exposure).
If you assert that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS, I happily
invite you to inject yourself with it to prove it.

Not really. Saquinavir and Indinavir were approved in I think 1994 and
1995, respectively. Prior to that, there was
a) a lot of clinical studies people got involved in;
b) greater awareness in the late 80s, early 90s resulting in MUCH more
 i) self-care
ii) protected sex
c) use of dual nuke agents was also more common (e.g., AZT/3TC,
AZT/ddI)

I remember those years quite clearly. The deaths were horrific
particularly in 1992, 1993, and 1994. But once more people started
getting PIs and ARV therapy came into the picture--well, MANY more of
my friends are alive. People are STILL dying however. Some who were
living with AIDS for a long time who have died over the past year but
who had gone through sequential monotherapies in the early days and/or
had suffered a number of opportunistic infections.

ARV toxicities remain a horrific problem. No question. Better
therapies are needed. A VACCINE that works is needed. In the meantime,
methods to offset toxicities exist and need evaluation.

And for most of the world, pharma wants to keep people off generics
and have the FDA and USTR wrapped around their fat, greedy, murdering
fingers.

These are the realities.

You will probably discover them yourself if you are having all the
unprotected sex you claim to be! LOL. Probably that is all in your
mind too, tho.

        George M. Carter

Idiot. Approval and widespread use are very different things. I have posted
article after article showing wide spread use was not achieved until as
late as 1998 or 1999.

I can poblish the State by State figures if you like.

I challenged you to post any article contradicting me and you have failed
to do so.

Approval in Dec. 1995 is the best you can do. Pathetic!

The decline started in 1992.

YOU ARE A LIER SIR. A bald faced lier.

HAART was indeed adopted by Britain in 1997, even though Saquinavir
was released in the US in 1995.  Saquinavir was available in the UK in
mid 1996 but wasn't considered a "standard of care" for nearly a year.

Time lags between the UK and the US are frequent, and can go both
ways.  One must always be careful about comparing papers from
different countries... ;-)

Of course as a keen dissident, fully informed about the epidemic and
all the accompanying science, surely Paul must have been aware of the
date PIs were introduced...  Even as a benchmark everyone here knows
mid-90's, not late 90's.

As an illustration, Cunningham et al (based in California!) saw over
50% of those recieving care were on HAART by January 1998, and over
70% had ever recieved HAART.  Additionally, even by Dec 1996 37% had
recieved HAART.  Not bad for the first year of introduction!

And besides, if (say) only 17% were initially recieving HAART, but
that 17% were among the highest risk of dying (low CD4 count, previous
OIs) then you'd see a disproportionately large effect on mortality!
And contrary to dissident statements (as is usual) treatment is
largely based on the individual's status.

But the 17% rate is bollocks anyway.  Complete and utter.

Cheers

Bennett

Cunningham et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000 Oct 1;25(2):115-23.
"Prevalence and predictors of highly active antiretroviral therapy use
in patients with HIV infection in the united states. HCSUS Consortium.
HIV Cost and Services Utilization."