 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004HAART KILLS. The distortions of Mr. Canzi are silly tricks.
The decline in AIDS took place in 1992 but was distorted by the CDC revised guidelines. By increasing the definition of 'AIDS' to include healthy people with low T-Cell counts a false impression of reduced mortalities was created. HAART was only in 19% use at the time of the decline showed by Mr. Canzi's distorted figures showing that even if you accept this figures HAART could not be the reason for the decline. 'AIDS' infections rates ALSO dropped. Clearly no one takes HAART before being tested so called positive. Don't buy the CDC/ Canzi lie. The facts are clear. HAART simply causes liver failure and heart disease and has no positive effects.....except profit. 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults Summary CDC has revised the classification system for HIV infection to emphasize the clinical importance of the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count in the categorization of HIV-related clinical conditions. This classification system replaces the system published by CDC in 1986 (1) and is primarily intended for use in public health practice. Consistent with the 1993 revised classification system, CDC has also expanded the AIDS surveillance case definition to include all HIV-infected persons who have less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/uL, or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte percentage of total lymphocytes of less than 14. This expansion includes the addition of three clinical conditions * pulmonary tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and invasive cervical cancer -- and retains the 23 clinical conditions in the AIDS surveillance case definition published in 1987 (2); it is to be used by all states for AIDS case reporting effective January 1, 1993. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm "ONLY 1% TAKING HAART IN 1996" - FOUR YEARS AFTER DRAMATIC DECREASE IN MORTALITIES STARTED. The proportion of patients receiving HAART changed significantly over the course of VATS…In January 1996, only 1% of 83 active patients were taking HAART. This proportion increased to 52% on 1 January 1997, 69% on 1 January 1998, and 79% on 1 January 1999. At the time of enrollment, 31% of patients were taking no antiretroviral medication, 44% were taking antiretroviral medication other than HAART, and 24% were taking HAART. " Murphy EL et al. Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Decreases Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Advanced HIV Disease. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jul 3;135(1):17-26 . In short, when the changing definition of "AIDS" (see the CDC's MMWR 1992; 41:1-19) was compared to the old pre-1993 version of the definition in which people were diagnosed SOLELY upon clinical considerations (i.e. ACTUAL sicknesses), researchers found, lo and behold, an increase in survival of almost 2.5 times just by controlling for the revised definition! They published their findings in the VERY mainstream Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994 (Vella S, et al. JAMA 1994; 271:1197-9). The below has absolutely nothing to do with the actual number of people who died which is available on the CDC website from 1983 to the present, not as a percentage of those with an AID's diagnosis but an actual count of the number of real people who died. When are you going to understand this simple truth Paul. The number of people who died from AIDS steadily climbed until 1996 these numbers have nothing to do with how many people were diagnosed with AIDS under the new 1993 AIDS definition never have and never will. Gary Stein > In short, when the changing definition of "AIDS" (see the CDC's MMWR 1992; > 41:1-19) was compared to the old pre-1993 version of the definition in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > American Medical Association > in 1994 (Vella S, et al. JAMA 1994; 271:1197-9). Give it up. I have showed again and again and again that the revised CDC definition skewed the figures. The truth is clear and the figures I presented are a true reflection of the facts. Even if your assertion was true (it is not) the decline still happened when a mere 11% of Americans were first taking HAART. Quite impossible. The below has absolutely nothing to do with the actual number of people who died which is available on the CDC website from 1983 to the present, not as percentage of those with an AID's diagnosis but an actual count of the number of real people who died. When are you going to understand this simple truth Paul. The number of people who died from AIDS steadily climbed until 1996 these numbers have nothing to do with how many people were diagnosed with AIDS under the new 1993 AIDS definition never have and never will. Gary Stein > 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded > Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm Give it up. I have showed again and again and again that the revised CDC definition skewed the figures. The truth is clear and the figures I presented are a true reflection of the facts. Even if your assertion was true (it is not) the decline still happened when a mere 11% of Americans were first taking HAART. Quite impossible. >Give it up. I have showed again and again and again that the revised CDC >definition skewed the figures. Only in your sad, twisted little mind ..and of any sane person who can add two and two and get the product of four. You are so 'AIDS' obsessed that you cannot see even the most basic truth if it does not fit your agenda. I am quite happy to let the reader review all the facts presented and come to their own conclusion. snip >I am quite happy to let the reader review all the facts presented and come >to their own conclusion. Me too. Of course, when they read your posts, they'll have to realize that you have a history of playing with the facts, cutting and snipping posts, distorting information and in general playing a rather sad little game. Because HIV doesn't give a damn how much you lie to others or to yourself. Or to your partners. George M. Carter > Give it up. I have showed again and again and again that the revised CDC > definition skewed the figures. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Quite impossible. No what you have done is said "Give it up. I have showed again and again and again that the revised CDC definition skewed the figures." That's the only proof on this issue that I have ever seen you post Paul. I see you are starting to realize that you can't prove your claims about 1992 being the start of the reduction. By giving your self the out by saying "Even if your assertion was true (it is not) the decline still happened when a mere 11% of Americans were first taking HAART". Just admit it Paul people did not come back from the dead from 1992 through 1995 just so your fantasy could be true, they really did die when the CDC said they did. As to your 11% number you have claimed so many figures for HAART use in 1995 and 1996 it's hard to keep them clear sometimes you claim 19%, in this post it's 11% bellow I list all of your various claims on the issue that David Canzi researched for us. Bellow that I will address your claims that low HAART use can not explain the 1996 reduction in deaths. Here I quote things Paul says in some of his articles, and point out contradictions and evasions. (Paul King's words are indented.) The proportion of patients prescribed HAART increased from 19% during the first half of 1996 to 68% in the first half of 1999. [5] So HAART usage reached 19% in the first half of 1996. as late as 1997 only 19% of 'AIDS' patients in America were on HAART. [4] HAART was only in 19% use at the time of the decline showed by Mr. Canzi's distorted figures [2] Now Paul applies the 19% figure from the first half of 1996 to 1997 without any justification. The proportion of patients receiving HAART changed significantly over the course of VATS. In January 1996, only 1% of 83 active patients were taking HAART. This proportion increased to 52% on 1 January 1997, [3] Based on this, HAART usage climbed from 19% to 52% in the second half of 1996. So HAART usage was high enough in 1996 to shoot down Paul's arguments that HAART was not being used by enough people to account for the observed decline in mortality in 1996 and 1997. HAART was not in wide spread use until at least 1998. [1] 52% at the end of 1996, but not widespread until 1998. Uh huh. "11% will make a great difference" [7] Paul is apparently responding to an article in which I said that 19% was enough to make a big difference in mortality, but he posted this reply as a follow-up to an unrelated article, and magically changed the percentage to 11%. He repeated this new 11% figure in other articles: 11% is 11%. End of story. [6] Even if your assertion was true (it is not) the decline still happened when a mere 11% of Americans were first taking HAART. [8] It was Paul himself who previously said this: HAART was only in 19% use at the time of the decline showed by Mr. Canzi's distorted figures [2] When 19% no longer served his purpose he changed it to 11% and acted as if it had always been 11%. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. [1] <f224e47e9a5e995be5a8f6f2740fb913@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [2] <cd54dc6a357234df1c96378bb46a5628@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [3] <70a6c6625ae0b0517001994be92552f4@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [4] <648650028c0d3d788df1152c3e7d0bf9@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [5] <1cde1f37033db5d96c1c1ac8a6350754@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [6] <81fcdab2033a9503b1dde84c8720914f@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [7] <6e098f24e45a3f042138b5f10b21ba8f@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> [8] <5d098c1b51bbe0e388d248f7ab27eda2@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> Regrettably, Google has broken the ability I once had to make these references clickable.  SignatureDavid Canzi I took the 19% number as a point of argument and explain to you that it is entirely reasonable to see the 28% drop in deaths that showed up in 1996 could in fact be due to a 19% rate of Protease Inhibitor treatment and the 1995 increase in the number of patients taking two drug treatments rather then the single drug treatment that had been standard before 1995. Also one needs to understand that the 19% that received PI's in 1996 were the sickest AIDS patients mainly those in the hospital near death at the time they started treatment. You probably are not aware that HAART treatment shows it's greatest impact during the first few weeks of treatment but this is a fact thus again showing that indeed the impact is highly likely to have occurred. In my case in 1996 I was in the hospital days away from death when I started HAART and the doctors tell me that was significant in my surviving. I know of many others in the same situation (there were 50 other AIDS patients in the AIDS ward at Georgetown University Hospital at the same time I was then and they all received HAART as well. So yes a 19% use of HAART could indeed count for a similar decrease in AIDS deaths at that time. Gary Stein |
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
|
©2009 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.