Ask yourself this

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

PaulKing - 25 Dec 2004 02:44 GMT

A SIMPLE QUESTION AND A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE HAART DEBATE.

If Haart is really saving lives THEN WHY HAS NO ONE COMPARED 'AIDS'
PATIENTS WHO TAKE HAART WITH THOSE WHO DON'T.

Clearly such a simple survey would provide a definitive answer to the
question of the benifits or risks of HAART.

"The CDC estimates there are about 450,000 Americans who are on HAART but
still have detectable viruses in their blood. And another 360,000 are
going untreated."

If HAART really is saving lives NOT taking them, I cannot believe the CDC
or the billion dollar drugs companies would not prove their point by
comparing mortality figures in the two groups.

The fact no such study exists leads one to draw ONLY ONE CONCLUSION.

The result (of a complete study) is known, beyond any doubt, to prove
HAART kills and not that it saves lives. This is based on local studies
and reports.

Provide another explination, if you don't agree.

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 25 Dec 2004 10:50 GMT

>A SIMPLE QUESTION AND A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE HAART DEBATE.
>
>If Haart is really saving lives THEN WHY HAS NO ONE COMPARED 'AIDS'
>PATIENTS WHO TAKE HAART WITH THOSE WHO DON'T.

Right. You go right ahead and fund such a study. Presuming it got by
ethics boards, ask yourself, who would enroll?

Patient inclusion: CD4 < 300. Detectable viral load.

Randomization; Placebo or ARV.

Who do you think will enroll? Maybe David Pasquarelli? Oops. Sorry.
He's missed xmas this year because he died of AIDS.

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

Gary Stein - 25 Dec 2004 17:59 GMT

>A SIMPLE QUESTION AND A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE HAART DEBATE.
>
> If Haart is really saving lives THEN WHY HAS NO ONE COMPARED 'AIDS'
> PATIENTS WHO TAKE HAART WITH THOSE WHO DON'T.

Actually the EURO SIDA study did have a small number of study participants
who discontinued treatment during the course of the years long study and who
were followed for the entire study. Guess what they DIED while those
receving treatment had a hugely higher survival rate. Now I know you so you
will proabley say that they died because the took the drugs not because the
stopped taking the drugs. Well if that is the case what does that do your
dissident claim (like Kelly's) that there are thousand of people out there
who stopped taking anti-viral meds and are alive and well? You can't have it
both ways no matter how much your deluded little mind wants to.

Gary Stein

> Clearly such a simple survey would provide a definitive answer to the
> question of the benifits or risks of HAART.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> or the billion dollar drugs companies would not prove their point by
> comparing mortality figures in the two groups.

Because the vast majority of those going untreated are those who have either
not been tested for HIV and thus don't know they need treatment, or those
who because of drug or alchol addiction are unable to sustain a living
situation that allows them to follow treatment regimines. Got it now Bozo?

> The fact no such study exists leads one to draw ONLY ONE CONCLUSION.

That no such study is possiable unless one wants to find some dictator some
were willing to sentance the untreated group to death simply to make a bunch
of delusional dissidents happy. Mebki is trying to be your man in that
regards but thankfully the medical community if SA and the compassionate
memebers of his own polotical party have been able to restrain him to some
extent.

> The result (of a complete study) is known, beyond any doubt, to prove
> HAART kills and not that it saves lives. This is based on local studies
> and reports.
>
> Provide another explination, if you don't agree.

Provide the citation the 'complete study' you reference above and I am
postive I can show that you are again misrepresenting what the study
reported to suit you personal delusions about HAART and HIV/AIDS.

Reply to this Message

KellyJonLandis - 25 Dec 2004 20:18 GMT

"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:

>A SIMPLE QUESTION AND A CLEAR ANSWER TO THE HAART DEBATE.
>
> If Haart is really saving lives THEN WHY HAS NO ONE COMPARED 'AIDS'
> PATIENTS WHO TAKE HAART WITH THOSE WHO DON'T.

"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> Dec 25, 2004 at 05:59 PM

> Actually the EURO SIDA study did have a small number of
> study participants who discontinued treatment during the > course of the

years long study and who were followed for > the entire study. Guess what
they DIED while those

> receving treatment had a hugely higher survival rate. Now > I know you

so you will proabley say that they died

> because the took the drugs not because the stopped taking > the drugs.

Well if that is the case what does that do

> your dissident claim (like Kelly's) that there are
> thousand of people out there who stopped taking anti-
> viral meds and are alive and well? You can't have it
> both ways no matter how much your deluded little mind
> wants to.

> Gary Stein

Gary, it depends how long they were on the drugs and which drugs as some
are worse, and at what dosage. AZT is worse than others and it was given
at a much higher dosage earlier in the socalled 'epidemic' [...of
ignorance, arrogance, fear and greed]

And yes, a true placebo-controlled study would not have allowed those on
the drug previously-- for who knows how long-- to be considered placebos
as soon as they go off?! I can't believe you would even suggest that is a
placebo?!

Dear, the thousands I refer to are those supposedly 'HIV' positive who are
not in socalled "HIV Specialist Care" and that's at least half to
two-thirds of those socalled living with an 'HIV/AIDS' [mis]diagnosis in
the US where we have access to these socalled "life-saving" drugs if we
want them... but the fact is most of us do not.

WHOSE ACCESS TO CARE?! [HHS estimates 50%-2/3 of those 'HIV/AIDS'
diagnosed in the West who have access to the drug cocktails are not in
"HIV Specialist" Conventional Care. ATTN: AIDS-Mart Shoppers or HIV
Consumers! It appears that many of those 'HIV disaffected' are shopping
around and not for conventional care. Introducing a model of competition
between conventional and alternative in our current model of monopoly in
health care, would help compare clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness.
Non-profit 'consumer' clients could sue for misrepresentation of claims of
serving the needs of all those 'HIV/AIDS' [mis] diagnosed]
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=812.1

Why People Diagnosed with 'AIDS' Are Living Longer Now
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=490.1

Who Counts as Socalled "Long-Term Non-Progressors?"
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages?msg=180.1

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Kelly Jon Landis
Santa Monica, CA USA

Reply to this Message