 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / February 2006Death rate in HIV patients on HAART may be no different from the norm
Well, as long as you have responded and maintain a CD4 count above 500 that is. http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/1053903F-C1E4-43A2-AB29-2C3EB84DFA6F.asp Data like these blow the denialist claim that drugs = death completely out of the water. "The study analysed the mortality rate of 2279 patients in the Aquitaine Cohort, which comprises patients prospectively enrolled since 1987 in a hospital-based surveillance system of HIV infection in southwestern France. The selected patients had all started protease inhibitor -based antiretroviral therapy between 1997 and 1999 and their mortality rates were followed up until June 2003." So far, so good. "Of these patients, 549 (24%) were defined as Favourable Responders. This meant they had, to quote the study, “at least two CD4 counts over 500, no count under 500 and no viral load over 10,000 in the year preceding the last available data.”" "Of these favourable responders, seven (0.7%) died." Doesn't sound very favourable to me, but let's go on. "When compared to people in the general population of the same gender and similar age, this mortality rate was only 10% above normal – a non-significant difference. This yielded a ‘standardised mortality ratio’ (SMR) of 1.1." Ok, so, they find only 24% of the people in their study are "favourable responders", even the ones that died. ?? Let's not question the logic behind THAT. If HAART is just so super, wonderfully effective then one would think there would be more than a mere 24% that could be classified as "favourable responders". The dead favourable responders' (I don't see how being dead is a favourable response, but let's set that logic aside, it's not allowed in "AIDS science") data is compared with general mortality rates for same gender and similar age and voila...only 10% above normal. Looks like the orthodoxy's doing what they accuse the dissidents of doing...cherry picking data. The researchers (and David) are willfully casting their eyes from looking at the most obvious part of the study. All of the patients are on HAART. On the chart where it says ALL PATIENTS, you'll find that their mortality is 7.8 times greater than the general population. Not much of an endorsement for HAART. Of course, the "party line" is that they died from "HIV". Uh-huh. > The researchers (and David) are willfully casting their eyes from looking > at the most obvious part of the study. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > general population. Not much of an endorsement for HAART. Of course, the > "party line" is that they died from "HIV". Uh-huh. Pre HAART the same size cohort of AIDS patients would have had a mortality rate 90+ times higher then the general population did you forget that pesky little fact. Gary Stein Gary, that sounds terrible. Can you show me the research you're using to support this claim? Does this research include the years before 1993 when the official definition of "AIDS" changed? The fact that an AIDS patient had to have an AIDS-defining illness pre-'93, but not so post-'93. Well, I think you know where I'm going with this. Please show us your supporting research. Its not rocket science, Wile-E. The annual mortality rates of males in their 30s-50s is under 0.5% if I recall correctly. Mortality in HIV/AIDS patients used to be in the order of 10% anually PreHAART. Go figure. In this particular study, of those who had a "favourable response" to therapy (in terms of having a rise in CD4 count over 500, you dork!), only 0.7% died. It was 0.9% for those with a CD4 count between 350 and 500, 1.8% for those with counts between 200 and 350, and 6.8% for those with counts below 200. No cherry picking is required - ALL the data are there to study if you'd bother to look. Clearly overall mortality was much worse in the preHAART era, by an order of about 500%. In the HAART era, the higher one can sustain the CD4 count, the better chance one has of approximating to a normal mortality risk. "Clearly overall mortality was much worse in the preHAART era, by an order of about 500%." 500%, 90+ times...which is it? You and Gary need to compare notes and come back with the same figure for the pre-HAART era if you're going to be believable. I don't know where gary got his 90% - that was his comparator of AIDS mortality to general nonAIDS mortality. My 500% is a comparator of the mortality only among AIDS patients comparing pre and post HAART. Pay attention, will you. Correction:Gary said 90+ I submitted a post hours ago that I have yet to see. Maybe it will magically appear now that I'm posting this. David says: pre-HAART deaths for AIDS patients is 500% (5 times) compared to the general population. Gary says: pre-HAART deaths for AIDS patients is 90+ times (9000%) compared to the general population. Which is it? That's quite a discrepancy. 5 times or 90 times? Where are you guys getting your data? I look forward to seeing the evidence for your wildly varied claims. Like I asked Gary earlier, does this include the years BEFORE the '93 change in definition of AIDS? There's a big difference in what defines an AIDS patient pre-'93 vs. post-'93. Even if David's "right", it looks like things are getting worse according to the study he cited. Let's do the math. The chart shows that for ALL PATIENTS the mortality rate compared to the general population is 7.8 times greater. How much is that in percentages? That would be 780%. Hmm, David says pre-HAART mortality compared to general population is 500%. Pre-HAART AIDS deaths=500% compared to general population. HAART study deaths=780% compared to general population. David, do you want to stick with 500%? Or do you want to go with Gary's number, 9000%? Like I said, pay attention! I said a study showed that in AIDS patients the mortality was 500% higher in the preHAART era than in the era of HAART. I said nothing about the general population. Just a little question: Are the deaths attributed to Hep-C (another non-existing virus) counted as "HIV-related" deaths? Well, I gues not. "Hep-C" is much too useful to syphon off deaths caused by HAARt. "Are the deaths attributed to Hep-C (another non-existing virus) counted as "HIV-related" deaths?" I only have the info linked to in my OP. In the table it looks like deaths "not due to AIDS" were at a rate of 1.1%. The fact that among the 25% who had hep C the mortality was 3.3% makes me conclude they probably put hepatitis deaths under the "linked to AIDS" umbrella. Of course, if you deny Hep C exists as well as HIV, as you do, then you can imagine anything. >"The fact that among the 25% who had hep C the mortality was 3.3% makes me conclude they probably put hepatitis deaths under the "linked to AIDS" umbrella." OK, but then would mean that they count these "hep-C deaths", which are really due to HAART-toxicity to the liver, as AIDS-related deaths. >"Of course, if you deny Hep C exists as well as HIV, as you do, then you can imagine anything." Not really. True, I deny HIV as well as Hep-C (and members of the Virus-of-the-month club such as SARS and West-Nile), but I couldn't possibly deny Influenza virus or the Herpes virus family. >>"The fact that among the 25% who had hep C the mortality was 3.3% makes me >conclude they probably put hepatitis deaths under the "linked to AIDS" >umbrella." > >OK, but then would mean that they count these "hep-C deaths", which are >really due to HAART-toxicity to the liver, as AIDS-related deaths. Except, oh arrogant one, there are lots of people living with hep C alone who have a much higher risk of developing cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. But I'm sure you doubt the existence of the liver as well. George M. Carter Well, of course there are people with a high risk of developing cirrhosis. The town drunk, for example. And aflatoxins (from peanuts) can cause hepatocellular carcinoma. So can other chemicals. But why drag a hypothetical virus named Hep-C into it? You don't need a virus to get sick. >And aflatoxins (from peanuts) can cause >hepatocellular carcinoma. So can >other chemicals. But why drag a hypothetical >virus named Hep-C into it? >You don't need a virus to get sick. I might as well say w.nking causes sores on your dick. You don't need a hypothetical virus (HSV) to get ulcers. >>And aflatoxins (from peanuts) can cause >>hepatocellular carcinoma. So can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I might as well say w.nking causes sores on your dick. You don't need a >hypothetical virus (HSV) to get ulcers. Another poster here will be depressed to learn that according to the great Professor Iconoclusterheadache, syphilis does not exist. >"Another poster here will be depressed to learn that according to the great Professor Iconoclusterheadache, syphilis does not exist." Where did you read that, Mr. Carter? Most certainly not in one of my posts. Somewhere on the web I remember having come across someone who doesn't believe syphilis exists. But it wasn't I. You're starting to confuse your adversaries, Mr. Carter. Could it be a touch of old age? >>"Another poster here will be depressed to learn that according to the >great Professor Iconoclusterheadache, syphilis does not exist." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You're starting to confuse your adversaries, Mr. Carter. Could it be a >touch of old age? LOL. Not in the slightest. I'm just surprised to see you think any infectious disease exists. George M. Carter >"I might as well say w.nking causes sores on your dick. You don't need a hypothetical virus (HSV) to get ulcers." In your case I'll gladly believe that, Master David. But HSV hypothetical? At least HSV can be (and has been) isolated from the lesions. Your pet viruses, HIV and HCV don't even come close to be taken seriously by real scientists who have not sold their soul to Big Pharma. >>"I might as well say w.nking causes sores on your dick. You don't need a >hypothetical virus (HSV) to get ulcers." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >taken seriously by real scientists who have not sold their soul to Big >Pharma. Really? How odd. Yet they use PCR to isolate HSV: http://www.doaj.org/abstract?id=81030&toc=y Culturing techniques are also used: http://www.who.int/std_diagnostics/literature_reviews/Issue_7/issue7_sum_Wald_9.htm They note: "Authors' Conclusions HSV was detected more frequently by PCR than by viral culture regardless of whether samples were obtained from HSV lesions, or from genital or oral secretions during a period of subclinical shedding. Yield of virus positivity is 4 times greater by PCR than by culture, and the results are more reliable, especially in settings in which transport or climate may interfere with the yield from viral culture. Health planners and regional reference laboratories should consider using their resources for PCR-based detection methods rather than for virus isolation." PCR seems to be preferred as a technique. How remarkable. George M. Carter > >>"I might as well say w.nking causes sores on your dick. You don't need a > >hypothetical virus (HSV) to get ulcers." [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > PCR seems to be preferred as a technique. How remarkable. Just what you would expect for an imaginary virus. HSV has never been isolated. http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm I'll believe in HSV when you manage to prove to Stefan Lanka that it exists. Chris Noble |
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
|
©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.