Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Maryland AIDS boards confirms what I have been saying

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 03 Jan 2005 05:56 GMT
"The number of incident (new) AIDS cases diagnosed within each quarterly
period increased through 1995, with an artificial rise around 1993 due to
changes in the AIDS case definition."

http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/AIDS/epictr.htm

As I have been saying the 'AIDS' statistics were distorted by the change
in the CDC definition in 1993 giving the false impression that HAART was
the reason for the decline. The decline happened before HAART was
introduced.
Gary Stein - 04 Jan 2005 01:58 GMT
> "The number of incident (new) AIDS cases diagnosed within each quarterly
> period increased through 1995, with an artificial rise around 1993 due to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the reason for the decline. The decline happened before HAART was
> introduced.

You have been claiming that AIDS deaths increased due to the change in case
definition not that the number of people deemed to have AIDS increased which
is the difference that you just don't seem to understand Paul.

Gary Stein
PaulKing - 04 Jan 2005 10:47 GMT
The number increased BECAUSE of the change in case definition. How
difficult is that to undertand?

Are you really so thick or is it your way of trying to confuse readers.

I am not sure as both fit your profile.
PaulKing - 04 Jan 2005 11:03 GMT
Why people live longer now

To address the claim "that the new meds extends (sic) many of the lives
who are hiv+ or have aids", one need look no further than that bastion of
orthodox "AIDS" think, The Journal of the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. Publishing their data in 1997, orthodox
"AIDS" researchers claimed that "combination antiretroviral therapy with
protease inhibitors clearly improves survival", yet they also state that
their own analysis showed "that San Francisco would have experienced a
significant decline in AIDS cases, due to the decrease in HIV
seroconversions, even if combination antiretroviral therapy had not been
developed." (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997,
16(3):182-189.)

The changed definition of AIDS is also a major factor. For further
verification the 1993 revision of the definition of "AIDS" skewing
survival data, please click on

http://healtoronto.com/rrsurvival.html

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).

So much for making "AIDS" a "managed disease" through "better"
medications!
Gary Stein - 04 Jan 2005 18:43 GMT
     Posted on Mon, Jan. 03, 2005

     Americans with AIDS living longer, but it's not easier

     By MARY SANCHEZ

     Kansas City Star

     KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Americans with AIDS are living longer than ever,
defying the virus' early image as a quick death sentence.

     But this is living long term with AIDS:

     Taking a fistful of pills each day, pills that can cause vomiting and
diarrhea so extreme that leaving home is impossible.

     Losing health insurance as physical strength ebbs and the ability to
work ends.

     Wearing out the sympathy and patience of friends as health
deteriorates but life goes on.

     "It's very frustrating for those of us who have been positive (with
the HIV virus) for some time," said Don Carrel of Mission. "People think,
`Oh, you have HIV, well you can just take a few pills and be fine.'"

     Since 1996, more effective drugs have curbed AIDS deaths, but not the
spread of the AIDS virus in the United States. That has remained relatively
constant, with about 40,000 new HIV infections annually.

     Today, more Americans than ever are living with AIDS - at least
385,000 people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the
number of Americans with either HIV or AIDS at 850,000 to 950,000.

     Some, like Dan Campbell of Kansas City, have been living a very long
time.

     Campbell has been HIV positive for 15 years and has had AIDS for 12.

     His world keeps shrinking. Every few years, as finances tighten, he
moves into a smaller place, shedding more possessions. Now he lives in a
midtown studio big enough only for a bed, a television and a few personal
items.

     "I have a few friends, but not very many," Campbell said. "Most
anybody who has cared for me has gotten tired of the process. People just
get worn out."

     He stretches $600 a month from Social Security to cover his expenses.
Medicaid helps pay for his medication, 14 kinds of pills.

     Campbell, 53, hasn't been healthy enough to work for more than six
years.

     He has no living relatives. The last, his mother, died in 1975.

     "It's dumbfounding," Campbell said. "I've now outlived everyone and
everything."

     An unpublished, ongoing study by the CDC found that before the
availability of more effective AIDS drugs, the average time from infection
with the virus to developing AIDS was about nine years.

     And the time a person usually spent with AIDS before dying was 1.5
years, said Karlie Stanton, a CDC representative.

     Those time periods are now extended.

     People now often live with the virus for at least 11 years before
reaching an AIDS diagnosis. And the time from being diagnosed with AIDS to
death is about six years.

     That people are living longer with AIDS is obviously a good thing,
said Kathleen Cooper, the executive director of Kansas City's Good Samaritan
Project, which celebrates its 20th year in 2005.

     Cooper began working at Good Samaritan in 1993.

     "In those first few years I would go to so many funerals," she said.

     But then people began living longer. The funerals tapered off.

     Now, the funding has as well.

     "It is harder and harder to raise money at events," Cooper said.

     Good Samaritan manages the cases of about 450 clients, overseeing
back-to-work programs, transportation to and from doctor's appointments and
help getting medicine and groceries.

     In recent years, the rate of new infections has grown the most in
black and Hispanic communities.

     African-Americans accounted for more than 50 percent of new HIV cases,
according to one study by the CDC.

     But cultural taboos in those communities make preventing the disease
difficult, she said.

     Fear of being labeled homosexual causes gay and bisexual black and
Hispanic men to hide their sexuality from wives and girlfriends. But the men
might then infect the women with the virus after sexual contact with other
men.

     A CDC study in 2003 found that HIV infection rates are up about 5
percent in 29 states compiling data. Many of the new infections are in the
black and Hispanic communities.

     But experts also think the rate of new infections may be rising again
in the gay white male population as well.

     "AIDS is still here and it affects every population," Cooper said.

     Patients who have lived a long time with the AIDS virus credit their
relative good health to many factors.

     Several spoke of having an "intentionality" about living.

     Campbell tries not to focus on the negative. A former minister, he
attends church regularly and volunteers at a food bank for AIDS patients.

     Carrel has continuously sought other reasons for living, volunteering
his time to put meaning to his existence.

     When he was first diagnosed in 1986, he considered suicide. Driving
home from the Topeka doctor's office where he learned he had HIV, he
contemplated running the car off the highway.

     But Carrel realized he wanted to see his youngest son, then 8,
graduate from high school.

     He had no symptoms for years.

     In May 1995, his son graduated from high school. By November of that
year, Carrel was in the hospital, near death with pneumonia. He was
diagnosed with AIDS.

     The disease also began claiming his friends.

     "At one point in my life I literally had to throw my address book
away," Carrel said. "I couldn't turn a page without finding someone who had
died."

     But Carrel, 53, decided to do volunteer training about the disease at
area high schools. He estimates he has spoken with more than 100,000
teenagers about the dangers of unprotected sex.

     The longer Carrel lives with the AIDS virus, the more diseases he
develops. The latest threat is anal cancer. His immune system is too weak
for chemotherapy or radiation.

     He found a doctor in San Francisco who specializes in treating AIDS
patients developing this form of cancer. After consulting, Carrel opted for
a surgical procedure akin to searing his insides.

     He also is participating in a study, as part of the control group, of
new drugs to treat AIDS patients.

     He gets regular massages, has a loving partner and tries to control
the stress in his life.

     "I really don't make long-range plans," he said. "I operate my life
day to day on how I feel today and what I want to do today."
GMCarter - 05 Jan 2005 10:24 GMT
>Why people live longer now

With what? This is more of your abject cognitive dissonance.

If there is no HIV, or it is harmless (which do you subscribe
to?)--then people will be living longer just because. But then, if you
believe it is because of the toxic drugs that people die, then they
are taking MORE of them, shouldn't the death rate have climbed
dramatically in places where ARV is available?

By contrast, the only way your argument makes sense is to presume HIV
exists and causes AIDS. Then you can argue whether or not the 93
change in the definition had any effect on survival rates. As has been
explained previously, it doesn't.

        George M. Carter
 
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.