The original research article is available from the Lancet.  It is free
to register for access for this article (some Lancet articles are
restricted to paid-up subscribers).

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605670225/fulltext

Of course this is causing a certain degree of consternation among the
dissidents, from what I can read.  Their come-backs are mostly shocking
admissions of their ignorance of how to interpret a scientific
article...

"What the hell is a confidence interval anyway? I wonder if it's a
device
that allows researchers to adjust their data any way they want to
achieve
the desired result. The device of confidence men masquerading as
scientists."

Nuff said.

If anything the study will tend to under-report the effects of HAART,
since it was a kind of intention-to-treat analysis and they assumed
that once someone was started on HAART they remained on treatment
(regardless of side effects, compliance, treatment holidays etc).  This
however (no matter how much the dissidents will thrash and moan) is the
only correct way to analyze the data without introducing an
uncontrolled confounder.  I had this explained to me a little while
back - counter-intuitive at first maybe, but it HAS to be realistic in
order to give you proper results.

The paper also directly addresses and explains (if you can work your
way through the methods section) the confounder of low CD4 counts.
e.g. people started on HAART have lower CD4 counts than others not
(yet) started, and so will be at greater background risk of OIs and
AIDS.  This factor will tend to reduce the apparent effectiveness of
HAART if not controlled for - as many have pointed out here over the
years.  This is demonstrated graphically in the figure on p381.

The raw data is particularly interesting, to those who consistently
deny the meaning of CD4 counts.

Those with CD4 counts lower than 50 (remembering that the average
normal range is 500-2000!) have a 37.7% per annum rate of clinical
progression (AIDS or death) if untreated.  On HAART these people have a
7.2% annual rate.  A similar trend is seen for viral load.

This is a nice two-fer paper, supporting both the therapies and the
scientific basis for initiating therapies - so far I've not seen the
dissidents have even noticed that little fact.  Not surprising for
those who seem to have trouble reading beyond the title without help
from people like the Perth Group to tell then how to interpret it.

Bennett