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 / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

233,000?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GMCarter - 04 Apr 2006 15:00 GMT
Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis abstracted a portion
of. I believe that the larger proportion of individuals with HIV are
those who are unaware of their HIV+ status.

Whether there is a huge number of people rejecting ARV based on
denialist beliefs or for other reasons is not a question I can answer.
From my experience, the answer is no, there is not. Most of the people
that bought that idea, with a few exceptions, have since died of AIDS.

People that don't take ARV nowadays do so because they're on an ADAP
waiting list because of the criminal price of drugs, because they are
in circumstances where it is difficult or impossible to access care or
they just don't give a sh.t about life that much to bother iwth drugs.
They may be worried about side effects.

But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of
life, it is not my experience that there are a lot of people buying
the denialist cant. With a few exceptions like that moron, Celia
Farber.

        George M. Carter

****
http://aidsaction.org/legislation/national_policy_agenda_2002_2003_complete.htm
The Pedro Zamora Public Policy Fellowship    

1. Support and Improvement of the Ryan White CARE Act

The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act is
the largest source of federal funding solely focused on domestic HIV
care, treatment, and medical support services. Adopted by Congress in
1990, it is reauthorized every five years and funded through annual
appropriations; the current authorization is scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2005 and must be reauthorized by Congress. The CARE Act
was created as a safety net that has now become the foundation of
service delivery for HIV care.

Since the first authorization and the rapid development of its
programs, there have been concerns regarding gaps in service delivery,
inconsistent funding, and unmet needs. Both legislators and community
advocates have expressed interest in amending the CARE Act to address
these concerns. However, significant changes could dismantle the
health care system created for people with HIV, putting them at risk
for possible life-threatening health conditions. AIDS Action will work
with its members, Congress, the Administration, and coalition partners
to support the reauthorization, expansion, and full funding of the
Ryan White CARE Act.

2. Access to Care

Access to early medical care and treatment remains elusive for many
people in the United States including those who are of low income and
uninsured. Current treatments are expensive, effective only for some,
and associated with debilitating side effects. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, one half to two thirds of
people living with HIV are not currently in care. Barriers in
accessing quality care result in disparities in health outcomes, which
are most often, experienced by people with low income, women, minority
populations, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT)
populations.

The quality of HIV clinical management has a direct effect on the
outcome of the epidemic. Standards must, therefore, be implemented in
HIV care to ensure that people living with HIV get the highest quality
of care and thus enjoy the best health outcomes possible. As HIV
disease progresses, treating it becomes more complex. Over time, HIV
can be compounded by life-threatening infections and severe conditions
caused by antiretroviral use that must be accurately diagnosed and
quickly treated. Thus, it is essential for all people living with HIV
to have access to qualified and experienced HIV health care providers,
who can successfully address the complex needs of their HIV positive
patients. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the
Administration, and coalition partners to support access to quality
care for all people living with HIV.

3. Access to HIV related medications and treatment options

Current treatment for HIV infection is based on the utilization of
antiretroviral therapies and other medications to treat opportunistic
infections. Access to these medications must be assured for all people
to improve overall health outcomes and quality of life. While certain
private insurance programs cover HIV related medications, severe
limitations exist in accessing life-prolonging medications. To
establish an emergency safety net providing access to medications, the
federal government created the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP)
under the Ryan White CARE Act and, under Medicaid, allows states to
provide optional prescription drug benefits. Currently, ADAP is facing
a budget crisis; Medicaid requires an AIDS defining diagnosis before
access; and Medicare’s outpatient medication benefit will not be fully
implemented until 2006. AIDS Action will work with its members,
Congress, the Administration, coalition partners, and the private
sector to support access to life saving medication for all people
living with HIV.

4. Improved Surveillance Systems through Reporting and Notification

People are living longer without developing a clinical AIDS diagnosis;
therefore, an epidemiological surveillance, based on AIDS cases alone
no longer provides an accurate reflection of the epidemic.

The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization of 2000 directed the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to examine whether HIV
reporting and surveillance could be used to restructure its funding
formulas by 2007. HIV surveillance data must be standardized across
the nation, while individual states may implement HIV surveillance
systems that report names or other unique identifiers,. The U.S. will
never have a true picture of the epidemic without accurate and uniform
HIV surveillance from every state in the country. Further, reliable
data on HIV infection would permit rapid response and long-term
planning by local, state, and federal bodies to impact HIV prevention
and care efforts. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress,
the Administration, and coalition partners to support the development
of an HIV surveillance system that accurately reflects the U.S.
epidemic.

5. HIV and the Faith Community

The American faith community is a trusted and established institution
that has been providing information, support, and services to its
constituencies since the beginning of the HIV epidemic. The diversity
of religions, beliefs, and practices that make up the faith community
offers a wide and far reaching network to distribute prevention
messages and offer care and support services to communities that may
be in need of these resources. When offering HIV prevention, care, and
support services, faith-based organizations that utilize
scientifically evaluated programs and non-discriminatory models will
be well equipped to meet the needs of their communities. As the
federal government continues to implement its faith-based initiative,
new monies must be provided in order to support the initiative’s
additional programs and services. AIDS Action will work with its
members, coalition partners, and the Administration to encourage the
participation of communities of faith in HIV prevention, care and
support services.

6. Improved Testing and Counseling

Everyone should be aware of their HIV serostatus in order to make
decisions about health care and their behaviors that could decrease
the number of new infections. Yet, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, between 250,000 and 350,000 people in
the United States are HIV positive and do not know it.

There are multiple and complex reasons why people do not learn their
HIV status. Many people are unaware of their risk and see no need for
testing. Testing programs may have locations, hours, or costs that
make them inconvenient or inaccessible. Further, not all health care
providers are equipped or prepared to offer counseling and testing
services. Fear and concerns about privacy, stigma, and discrimination
are still significant obstacles to testing. Additionally, the waiting
period between the time of testing and receiving the results
discourages many people from returning.

Advances in testing, including the approval of a rapid HIV test by the
Food and Drug Administration, provide an opportunity to receive fast,
accurate results and expand both testing availability and use in
non-clinical settings. HIV testing and counseling should be bundled
with testing for other sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS Action will
work with its members, coalition partners, and the Administration to
support improved voluntary testing and counseling programs that
encourage all individuals to know their HIV status.

7. Effective Prevention Messages

There is no cure for HIV infection, yet it is 100 percent preventable.
Adhering to effective prevention strategies is the only way to avoid
HIV infection. Factual, culturally relevant, and comprehensive health
information is essential to the development of effective HIV
prevention strategies. HIV prevention messages are most useful when
integrated into broader health promotion efforts such as those found
in educational institutions, correctional facilities, or as a part of
substance abuse and mental health treatment. The U.S. government does
not mandate a systematic, population-wide education program to teach
children and adults about HIV transmission and how to avoid risks for
infection. This lack of information has had serious consequences, even
for our youngest citizens. At least 50 percent of new infections in
the U.S. occur among young people under the age of 25. AIDS Action
will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, and
coalition partners to advocate for factual, comprehensive, culturally
relevant, and scientifically evaluated prevention models to be
developed and implemented across the United States.

8. Research Needs of People Living with HIV

As we understand more about the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
the evolution of infection, and how clinical management affects
patients, new issues arise around treatment interventions and quality
of life. It is therefore important for scientists and researchers to
examine the new questions and challenges that surface for people
living with HIV. Research initiatives must explore the following
subjects: side effects and chronic conditions caused by long term use
of antiretrovirals, drug resistance and viral mutations, adherence and
treatment interruption, primary infection and transmission risk, and
body mass and physiological changes. AIDS Action will work with its
members, Congress, the Administration, coalition partners, and the
private sector, to support the expansion of research efforts dedicated
to examining these and other long-term health issues and the related
needs of people living with HIV.

[back to introduction]

AIDS Action

1906 Sunderland Place NW

Washington, DC 20036
   

Phone: (202) 530-8030
Fax: (202) 530-8031
Privacy Statement
KellyJonLandis - 04 Apr 2006 19:51 GMT
George wrote:
> Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis
> abstracted a portion of. I believe that the
> larger proportion of individuals with HIV are
> those who are unaware of their HIV+ status.

Well, then you choose to see what you believe. Here's what the document
states: "According to the Institute of Medicine Report of 2004 (Public
Financing and Delivery of HIV/AIDS Care), there are a staggering 233,000
Americans who know they are HIV positive, are eligible for antiretroviral
treatment but who still do not receive[or request] it."

This is an exact number, not a rough estimate as we are used to in AIDS
stats. It's not 250,000 or 200,000 but 233,000. Interesting. Noticed that
you included some other document from the AAHIVM website from 2002/2003
whereas I am referencing a document from a few months ago, December 2005.

These are people who "KNOW THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE" and "ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
ANTIRETROVIRAL TREATMENT" [PRESUMABLY THROUGH T-CELL OR PCR "VIRAL LOAD"
MEASUREMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE ARE PERSONS WHO ARE IN "HIV SPECIALIST
CARE"]... "BUT WHO *STILL* [FOR WHATEVER REASON, INCLUDING THOSE WHO
CONCEIVABLY HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH 'TREATMENT']  NOT RECEIVE [OR REQUEST]
IT." [IE: SOCALLED "LIFE-SAVING" AIDS DRUGS].
   
It's a quote of a large-scale government study conducted by the IOM
[Institute of Medicine] as per the request of congress and the HHS[Health
and Human Services Department]. Here's the direct URL from the
AAHIVM[American Academy of HIV Medicine] website, as posted in their
Executive Director's World AIDS Day, December 1, 2005 press release:
http://www.aahivm.org/world_aids_day.pdf

George wrote:
> Whether there is a huge number of people
> rejecting ARV based on denialist beliefs or for > other reasons is not a
question I can answer.

Finally, a little honesty.

> From my experience, the answer is no, there is > not.

Perhaps your experience as an AIDS Industry Apologist would not bring you
into contact with such persons as much as my experience as an AIDS
Dissident would. And I have observed a growing number of the 'HIV'
disaffected to include those sympathetic to AIDS dissent. Most of these
choose not to be AIDS Dissident activists, because they see how kind and
loving persons like you respond to such disaffection and dissent. They
drop out of the AIDS ZONE for the most part and try to live their lives
quietly, many addressing health issues as they arise holistically or from
a multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses' approach based on their
very individual, very unique health history, downplaying the role of 'HIV'
or 'AIDS' labels. You say this "HIV population" must be in denial because
you can't imagine that many might be more informed than you thought and
are not simply apathetic to listending to their own bodies.    

George wrote:
> People that don't take ARV nowadays do so
> because they're on an ADAP waiting list.

Oh, spoke too soon. Now you are insisting you do know why they are not
taking AIDS drugs. The ADAP waiting list isn't nearly that large George.
Any other reasons you can think of?

George wrote:
> ...or they just don't give a sh.t about life
> that much to bother with drugs.

I see, is that the ONLY other reason you can think of?

George wrote:
> They may be worried about side effects.

YOU THINK?! Here's another reason: they may not believe everything you and
the AIDS Industry Apologists are telling them, and not just about the
safety of the AIDS drugs, but about their efficacy too. In fact, they may
question a lot more things than you give them discredit for.

George wrote:
> But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of
> people from all walks of life, it is not my
> experience that there are a lot of people buying
> the denialist cant.

Right, I'm sure it's not your experience. But you may not be having the
kinds of experiences with the kinds of consumers that I would, being a bit
isolated with your AIDS Industry Apologist pals, attending conferences on
a travel expense account.

Whereas, I have heard from the growing masses of the 'HIV' disaffected and
spoken with them and for them for over five years, from all walks of life,
in small towns and big cities all over this world: scientists, doctors,
journalists, consumers
and advocates. Stakeholders who are ignored or patronized by groups like
FIAR who may understand the NCCAM grant application process, and how to
glad-hand those with money and power in the AIDS and Conventional, Medical
Industries, but who don't give a flying flip about their concerns when
they conflict with your own agenda. As a non-scientist, I mainly
communicate with these disenfranchised consumers caught in the middle,
exchanging e-mails, phone calls and sometimes we meet in person. They do
not feel the organizations
claiming resources in their behalf are truly representing their interests.
As well, many thousands of persons working in the Alternative Health field
are sympathetic to AIDS Dissidents. I would challenge you any time to
debate in front of a randomly selected group of such alternative health
practitioners and see whose position they gravitate toward. They are the
'natural' allies of AIDS dissidence and you cannot deny it. And they don't
think it is "denialist cant" as you call it, because, in many ways, we are
saying the same things.

Healthfully and Hopefully,

Kelly Jon Landis

V I R U S M Y T H
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

aids dissenting scientific and alternative health discussion forum with
2,250+ members and 5,000+ messages in a searchable archive
GMCarter - 05 Apr 2006 02:12 GMT
>George wrote:
>> Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Americans who know they are HIV positive, are eligible for antiretroviral
>treatment but who still do not receive[or request] it."

And I see the URL is:
http://www.aahivm.org/world_aids_day.pdf

It references this document:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4814/20147.aspx
which unfortunately costs $50.

>This is an exact number, not a rough estimate as we are used to in AIDS
>stats. It's not 250,000 or 200,000 but 233,000. Interesting. Noticed that
>you included some other document from the AAHIVM website from 2002/2003
>whereas I am referencing a document from a few months ago, December 2005.

This is news to me.  It may indeed mean there is a considerable number
of people who reject ARV. I'd want to see evidence for that.

It would NOT support the notion that these people reflect a pool in
whom to undertake a study of ARV vs. placebo for the reasons I noted
previously. How would you enroll such a study?

>These are people who "KNOW THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE" and "ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
>ANTIRETROVIRAL TREATMENT" snip...

Capitalizing it and screaming it out won't change the fact you have an
absence of ideas.
   
>George wrote:
>> Whether there is a huge number of people
>> rejecting ARV based on denialist beliefs or for > other reasons is not a
>question I can answer.
>
>Finally, a little honesty.

f.ck you.

>> From my experience, the answer is no, there is > not.
>
>Perhaps your experience as an AIDS Industry Apologist would not bring you
>into contact with such persons as much as my experience as an AIDS
>Dissident would.

Perhaps. I'm sure people who would like to believe HIV is harmless
would feel more comfortable speaking to another denialist.

>You say this "HIV population" must be in denial because
>you can't imagine that many might be more informed than you thought and
>are not simply apathetic to listending to their own bodies.    

Nope. I've met one or two who subscribe to these notions. I know one
in Hawaii who is taking a very vigorous approach to managing his
health (and his lover's) with dietary supplements. Will it prevent
AIDS from developing? I rather doubt it.

But I *know* such approaches can slow disease progression. The only
data I can point to that support my contention are the multivitamin
use data that show a 30% reduction in the rate of progression.

>George wrote:
>> People that don't take ARV nowadays do so
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>taking AIDS drugs. The ADAP waiting list isn't nearly that large George.
>Any other reasons you can think of?

Sure. I listed several. Including:

>George wrote:
>> ...or they just don't give a sh.t about life
>> that much to bother with drugs.
>
>I see, is that the ONLY other reason you can think of?

Nope.

I don't argue that there are some folks who do not want to take ARV
because they don't believe HIV causes AIDS. I'll just be surprised if
it represents a signficant proportion of this putative 233,000 figure.

>George wrote:
>> They may be worried about side effects.
>
>YOU THINK?!

You bet.

>Here's another reason: they may not believe everything you and
>the AIDS Industry Apologists are telling them, and not just about the
>safety of the AIDS drugs, but about their efficacy too. In fact, they may
>question a lot more things than you give them discredit for.

LOL. Ain't you a bitch? But then I am too, you nasty little denialist.

There is no doubt in my mind that some people question AIDS drugs.
Everyone should. Questions are good. Most denialists already, though,
are not asking questions but just de facto claiming that there is no
health benefit to ARV and only risks and toxicities.

That is just wrong and there are ample data that underscore that this
is a false notion. NOBODY suggests that there aren't side effects or
dangers associated with ARV...and indeed, REAL clinical care requires
a holistic approach in terms of what combinations will work best for
each individual. Depends on age, gender, etc.

But dear, I asked you a number of questions about the kind of clinical
study or studies you think should be done. You avoided all those
questions. What a surprise. You just want to bitch and scream.

I understand it though. HIV infection f.cking sucks.

>George wrote:
>> But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>isolated with your AIDS Industry Apologist pals, attending conferences on
>a travel expense account.

"Travel expense account." Huh. Shows how f.cking little you know about
me. But I see you spreading a lot of smoke so far but little fire.

As to the rest of your denialist cant and squeal--well that's sad and
depressing, to the extent it is true. I don't trust you or your
opinions any  more than you do mine, so I'd need a bit more evidence.

But no matter how much you might find your denialists pals and buddies
and/or hear what YOU want to hear, it won't change the simple, dismal
fact that HIV exists and causes AIDS.

Like it did to David Pasquarelli. And a lot of the folks in Sydney's
HEAL. They died of AIDS.

Meantime, if you would like to share your regimen that helps keep you
healthy that MIGHT be of some genuine use to people, whether they
believe in HIV or not.

        George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 05 Apr 2006 04:55 GMT
no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600.
GMCarter - 05 Apr 2006 10:20 GMT
>no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600.

Precisely! Enshrined in song stone for eternity.

I actually saw RENT very soon after it opened and about two weeks
after its creator died. I was kinda shocked how it made me cry. I
lived in the East Village in the 80s and there were lots of people on
that stage that were a bit like him, a bit like her...
Brian Mailman - 05 Apr 2006 18:06 GMT
>>no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600.
>
> Precisely! Enshrined in song stone for eternity.

Well, y'know, I really can't take BS all that seriously.... as well, you
know demons just can't stand real laughter.

> I actually saw RENT very soon after it opened and about two weeks
> after its creator died.

That was still pre-PI, right?  Like '93?

> I was kinda shocked how it made me cry.

I didn't cry, but I was certainly affected--very surprised.  Sort of
like the last 2 minutes of "Long Time Companion."  I hadn't paid much
attention to it because of the Boheme knock-off aspect, plus a friend
who has major tendencies to substitute sentiment for logical thought
wanted it sung at his wedding.  But I decided to see the movie because
the trailers looked tuneful and besides part of it was shot here.

> I lived in the East Village in the 80s and there were lots of people on
> that stage that were a bit like him, a bit like her...

Uh-HUH.

B/
leenarose@gmail.com - 05 Apr 2006 07:54 GMT
Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight

A government report suggests the Bush administration's abstinence-heavy
approach to fighting the AIDS crisis overseas is confusing and could
hurt programs serving people most vulnerable to AIDS.
The most serious problem comes from a mandate in the $15 billion
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The plan requires
that a third of the funds earmarked for prevention emphasize
faithfulness to one partner and abstinence until marriage. The GAO
found that the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator was applying the
financial standard more broadly.

for complete story:-
http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm
KellyJonLandis - 05 Apr 2006 11:45 GMT
Lena Spambot wrote:
> "Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight"
> for complete story:-
> http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm

Hey Lena, what are you selling over on yer website? Isn't that one of
those drugs by mail spam sites. And you only post something AIDS-related
to get people to click on your site, huh?

Do you have any opinions about what we are talking about here or just
spamming for EPSDRUGSTORE.COM?
Death - 16 Oct 2006 21:26 GMT
<leenarose@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight
>
> for complete story:-
> http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm

 American misconceptions about Africa account for many of the fears that AIDS will spread
through the heterosexual population in the U.S. the way it has there.

Africa has more than 60 countries with different cultures and varying degrees of urbanization
and development.

The different sexual practices--a higher average frequency of sexual contacts with a greater
number of people--among heterosexuals, as well as homosexuality in Africa, help explain the
different ways the disease has spread.

Among the many other factors leading to an equal distribution of the disease among African men
and women are prostitution, multiple wives, nonsterile injections, a poorly screened blood
supply, high rates of other sexually transmitted diseases, and ritualistic scarring.
Dildeaux - 17 Oct 2006 03:50 GMT
Death, Do you practice abstinence?
Death - 17 Oct 2006 17:45 GMT
"Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message

> Death, Do you practice abstinence?

Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ?

Homosexual Arrested For Injecting Boys With Blood

Summary: Police arrested Mark Randall of Orlando, Florida, in February for drugging teenage
boys and injecting them with blood.

Homosexual Mark Randall is in jail for luring teenage boys over the Internet to come to his
garage for sex orgies. He would drug them, tie them up in sadomasochistic harnesses and then
inject them with blood.

Police found video cameras and hundreds of videotapes in his garage. They also discovered
syringes filled with blood.

Investigators are testing the blood to determine if it is HIV infected. Randall is being
charged for drug trafficking, molestation, and possibly possession of child pornography if the
videotapes show juveniles in sexual situations.
Dildeaux - 17 Oct 2006 20:35 GMT
> "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
>
>> Death, Do you practice abstinence?
>>
> Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ?

Not until you are satisfied, sweetie...

> Homosexual Arrested For Injecting Boys With Blood
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> child pornography if the
> videotapes show juveniles in sexual situations.

How long does it take to test for HIV?

A couple of minutes?

Isn't that about the same amount of time Death needs to
satisfy itself?
Death - 17 Oct 2006 22:57 GMT
"Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message

> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >>
> > Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ?
>
> Not until you are satisfied, sweetie...

Kewl, I'm satisfied, now move your faggot a.s
and get to the tea house. It is called that because
that is where faggots go to lose T cells.
Dildeaux - 18 Oct 2006 02:01 GMT
> "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> and get to the tea house. It is called that because
> that is where faggots go to lose T cells.

Only you could know where faggots go and what
they might do...
Death - 18 Oct 2006 15:51 GMT
"Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message

> Only you could know where faggots go and what
> they might do...

http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/101004.html
Dildeaux - 18 Oct 2006 20:16 GMT
> "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Only you could know where faggots go and what
>> they might do...
>>
> http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/101004.html

I'll bet you got the latest Bob Damron's Men's Guide too...
Death - 18 Oct 2006 21:58 GMT
"Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message

> I'll bet you got the latest Bob Damron's Men's Guide too...

That you lose again is no surprise my little aids monkey.
I'll look it up later, Bob Damron's Mens Guide also...

Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist.
The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count.
Dildeaux - 21 Oct 2006 06:21 GMT
> "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist.
> The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count.

But the gerbil up yours does.

Try rats, start with the homophobic one in the mirror.
Death - 21 Oct 2006 16:18 GMT
"Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message

> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist.
> > The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count.
>
> Try rats, start with the homophobic one in the mirror.

So, you can't produce just one buttfucking mammal
other than the faggot.
You are another example of a shit4brains running its shiteater
who pisses its panties and whines faggotphobic as if that is an
intelligent argument when confronted with reality, LOL.
RJ - 05 Apr 2006 17:08 GMT
I didn't see this thread initially, I guess I should repost this
reponse here too. I can also add that the full IOM report is here:

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4814/20147.aspx

Although they want 37 bucks for it.

Reposted from the TAC unmasked thread:

Kelly Jon Landis wrote:

"Richard and All,

One might reverse the question you asked of Alex. If 'ART's are so
"life-saving" why are a quarter million Americans diagnosed as "HIV
positive" or with "AIDS" who are eligible for such 'treatment'
according to T-Cell Counts and PCR "Viral Load" clinical markers,
choosing not to take them?"

You're misrepresenting the data to support your views.

Nowhere does the IOM state the number of people they estimate to not be

receiving HAART who may "need" it are not receiving it because they're
"choosing not to take them.":The whole point of the IOM report is "to
develop a framework for a system of public financing and delivery of
HIV care capable of meeting the current and future challenges of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic." It's a modeling exercise, Bruce Shackman, who I
know, was one of the reviewers.

The IOM list upfront some of the factors reported to be associated with

non-receipt of ARVs:

By income
odds ratio (OR) of getting ARV if < $25,000
0.60

By insurance status
OR getting ARV if uninsured 0.74
OR getting ARV if Medicaid alone 0.83
OR getting ARV if Medicare-other 0.82
OR getting ARV if HMO insurance 0.90

- These associations offer zero support for your statements, unless
you're arguing that having an income of less than $25,000 a year and
being uninsured make you more likely to agree with Kelly Jon Landis's
views on antiretrovirals.

Here is some more verbiage from the IOM:

"HAART Use Deficit

The estimates are based on an initial finding that there are 950,000
individuals living with HIV and that 670,000 individuals are aware of
their HIV status, of whom 25 percent (167,500) are uninsured and 50
percent (335,000) are insured through a program financed with public
dollars (Table A-2). Among those individuals who are aware that they
are infected, we estimate that 69 percent (463,069) are in need of
combination antiretroviral therapy and that slightly fewer than half in

need of HAART (230,000 individuals) receive antiretroviral medications,

leaving a deficit in HAART use of 233,069 for this cohort. We believe
that an additional 82,000 individuals who are infected but unaware of
their HIV status are also in need of HAART."

- So it's an estimate of CD4 T cell count distribution among the
estimated 670,000 people that are aware of their HIV status which leads

them to estimate that 463,069 people are "in need" of HAART.

So how do they estimate HAART usage among these 463,069 people? The
information is as follows:

"Estimates of the current prevalence of HAART use are drawn from a
number of sources. Studies of HIV-infected populations (AIDS and HIV
non-AIDS) in New York State and in three metropolitan areas used local
data sources (HIV/AIDS surveillance, lab reporting, Medicaid and AIDS
Drug Assistance Program [ADAP] billing claims) from 2001 in a framework

endorsed by the Health Resources and Services Administration HRSA) to
estimate participation in HIV care (Kahn, 2002). Studies of Medicaid
and ADAP populations were conducted for 1998 in four heavily
HIV-affected states (Kahn et al., 2002). Additional older estimates
provide nationally representative data of individuals in care (Bozzette

et al., 1998) and individuals in private and public HIV specialty
clinics (Moorman et al., 1998; Palella et al., 1998). Based on these
data, we estimated that 230,000 individuals are on HAART, including 40
percent of those with a nadir CD4 count between 50 and 199. To
determine the association of HAART use with income level and insurance
status used data from HCSUS (Andersen et al., 2000). Though this data
is from 1996, somewhat more recent nationwide data (from 1997- 1998)
and analyses of data from the state and local levels suggest the
persistence of income and insurance effects found by Andersen et al.
(Bhattacharya et al., 2003; Goldman et al., 2003; Kahn, 2002; Kahn et
al., 2002; Goldman et al., 2001; Hsu et al., 2001). Low-income
individuals (family income < $25,000) were less likely to be on HAART
(odds ratio [OR] = 0.6). The odds of being on HAART also varied by
insurance status, from 0.74 among those with no insurance, to 0.83
among Medicaid recipients, to 0.90 among those with health maintenance
organization (HMO) insurance (reference group is those with private
fee-for-service insurance) (Andersen et al., 2000).

We defined HAART need based on HIV disease stage. All those with AIDS
"need" HAART. Although there are many legitimate reasons not to
provide HAART when someone has AIDS, and many patients may decline
HAART, clinical guidelines suggest offering and using HAART. Among
those with HIV disease with a CD4 count of 200 to 350 (often
symptomatic), we assume that half need HAART, consistent with the
guidelines' suggestion for flexibility in this range. For those even
earlier in disease, we define need as the small percentage estimated to

be currently using HAART, which at that stage is not recommended (DHHS,

2003)."

Before I go into the cites, I note that the report authors do state
here - wihout a cite though - that "many patients may decline HAART."
This is actually the strongest support for your argument that the
report has to offer. In terms of the numbers which you have come to
believe indicate that there 233,000 such people, all of the same mind
as you, these are derived from the cites. The most important being the
Kahn study from 2002:

Public Health Rep. 2002 May-Jun;117(3):252-62; discussion 231-2.

Access to and use of HIV antiretroviral therapy: variation by
race/ethnicity in two public insurance programs in the U.S.

Kahn JG, Zhang X, Cross LT, Palacio H, Birkhead GS, Morin SF.

Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California-San
Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94118,
USA. jgk...@itsa.ucsf.edu

OBJECTIVES: To examine access to and use of HIV highly active
antiretroviral therapy (HAART) by race/ethnicity in Medicaid and the
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) in 1998 in four states. METHODS:
The authors analyzed reimbursement claims and AIDS surveillance data in

California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Study subjects were
identified using diagnostic or medication codes specific to HIV. The
race/ethnicity of program enrollees was compared to representation in
the HIV epidemic to examine access. Claims for antiretroviral (ARV) use

were compared to U.S. Public Health Service treatment guidelines to
assess HAART use. RESULTS: The authors identified 151,000 HIV-infected
individuals in these two programs in the four states. Evidence of AIDS
or symptomatic HIV was present in 78%-88% of enrollees in Medicaid,
versus 31%-48% in ADAP. African Americans participated in Medicaid
10%-53% above and in ADAP 17%-31% below representation in the epidemic.

Non-Latino whites exhibited the opposite pattern, being in Medicaid
5%-38% below and in ADAP 9%-65% above epidemic representation. Latinos
participated more in ADAP (7%-31%), except in New York. HAART use over
90 days (July-September) ranged from 38% to 76% by program and state.
Differences by race/ethnicity were inconsistent and small: African
Americans had lower HAART use by 6%-14% in California and Florida
Medicaid, and Latinos had higher HAART use by 2%-11% in ADAP and in
Texas Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: African Americans were more likely to
access HIV drugs through Medicaid than through ADAP, which may reflect
differences in program eligibility criteria as well as care seeking
later in HIV disease. Differences in the use of HAART by race/ethnicity

within state programs were small.

- The key phrase here is "HAART use over 90 days (July-September)
ranged from 38% to 76% by program and state." The year they are talking

about it is 1998. It is based on these numbers that the IOM estimated
how many people are or are not on therapy. They also used data from the

HCSUS study (Bozzette et al) which is a sample of ~2,500 people whose
antiretroviral usage was assessed in December 1996.

The full text of the Kahn paper is available online at:
http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/117_3/117252.pdf

The discussion includes a long list of caveats to the data, and notes
that no specific information CD4 counts or viral load were available.

The full text of the HCSUS papers are also online e.g.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1089126&blobtyp...

Because they used a survey approach they asked questions like this:

My Health Is Doctor's Top Concern
Agrees completely 1,381
Agrees mostly 864
Agrees somewhat 354
Agrees a little/not at all 177

- Unless you're arguing that most of these people's doctors also agreed

with your views on ARVs, then I don't see any support for your claims
here either. This study was a probability sample, so they extrapolate
that there might be 13,688 nationally that would fall into the category

of agreeing with their doctor a little or not at all. I wouldn't argue
that this is an insignificant number and it does very likely say
something about medical practice in the US, but it in no way suggests
that these individuals are denialists.

So, the IOM estimates may indeed be correct in suggesting that there
are significant numbers of people who meet indicators for HAART that
are not receiving it; however there is zero evidence that a significant

number of these people are not receiving HAART because they agree with
Kelly Jon Landis - just the opposite.
 
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.