Web MD writeup on HIV/AIDS/STD

[dick_nyc]

Better AIDS Treatment but More Risky Sex

 

HIV Seen as Less Threatening with New Drug Advances, Leading More to Unsafe Sex

 

By Sid Kirchheimer

WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

on Tuesday, September 16, 2003

 

 

Sept. 16, 2003 -- Advances in the treatment of AIDS have lulled many people -- HIV infected or not -- into a false sense of security, but there's a very real risk of danger.

 

 

Two new studies published this month suggest that more people are engaging in unsafe sex and other behaviors, under the mistaken belief that newer medications make HIV infection less lethal.

 

 

In one report, a review of six previous studies assessing how newer HIV drug treatments have impacted behavior, researcher Craig Demmer, EdD, CHES, finds that more people now believe having unprotected sex is less risky. As a result, they're less likely to practice safe sex.

 

 

"And we see very little difference in this attitude, whether they are HIV-infected or uninfected," he tells WebMD of his analysis, published in the September issue of Health Promotion Practice.

 

 

"People believe that HIV is less fatal and not as easily transmissible because of the new treatments. But what they don't realize is that these new treatments have failure rates of anywhere between 15% and 60%."

 

 

Risky Sex Becoming More Common

 

After reviewing six previous studies -- including two of his own -- Demmer finds that overall, about one in three people surveyed admit to no longer practicing safe sex because they believe newer drugs will protect them from the devastation of AIDS.

 

 

"In researching other studies, I'm finding an even higher occurrence of unsafe sex and `condom fatigue' among infected gay men. Some estimates are that up to half of those infected with HIV have not used condoms in the last six months," says Demmer, associate professor of health education at Lehman College of the City University of New York.

 

 

In the other study, published in the Sept. 5 issue of the journal AIDS, a survey of 930 intravenous drug users produced remarkably similar findings: One in three admit to Johns Hopkins researchers that they are "tired" of having to always practice safe sex or make sure they don't share needles to shoot up. In fact, this "fatigue" was slightly higher among HIV-positive addicts than those without the AIDS-causing infection.

 

 

"We did our study because we heard on the street that people were relaxing their AIDS prevention strategies because they think they are safer because of the improved treatments," says researcher David D. Celentano, PhD, director of infectious disease epidemiology at Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health.

 

 

"Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the HIV-infected folks were as likely, or even a little more likely, to demonstrate these shifts in attitudes. But the general opinion is that people think that HIV is becoming something of a chronic disease that can easily be managed with medication. In reality, these drugs make you sick as a dog."

 

 

 

Better AIDS Treatment but More Risky Sex (continued)

 

 

 

While there's no denying that newer treatment drugs developed since the mid-1990s have slowed the skyrocketing AIDS-related death rate, these two studies suggest they're getting more credit that they have shown, resulting in a need for revamping the current mindset that serves as the cornerstone of most HIV and AIDS prevention programs.

 

 

"The emphasis in the last 20 years has been to prevent HIV with safe sex and needle use, but everybody knows they should wear a condom and not share needles," says Demmer. "Yet knowledge and behavior are two different things. What these people really need is to get accurate facts about treatments.

 

 

AIDS Deaths on the Rise

 

"These newer drugs have slowed the mortality rate, but it's starting to increase again. They are not a cure-all, and we know they never were. But the general population doesn't know that."

 

 

AIDS has already killed close to 500,000 Americans in the past two decades, and over 800,000 have been infected with the AIDS virus. Even with these newer drugs, about 20,000 people die from AIDS in the U.S. each year.

 

 

"There definitely have been changes in terms of risk behaviors -- groups that have been practicing safer sex are lapsing into unsafe patterns of behavior. And there definitely needs to be changes in AIDS prevention messages," says Seth Kalichman, PhD, social psychologist and longtime AIDS researcher at the University of Connecticut.

 

 

"There is a misbelief that people aren't likely to get infected and if they are, it's not as big a deal. And there are other misconceptions and false beliefs about being protected, like that they're OK because their partner looks healthy or that they've known this person for six months, so there's no way they'd have HIV. I think the problem is that HIV and AIDS has moved from the front burner. We have to revamp the message and get AIDS prevention back on the front burner again."

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SOURCES: Demmer, C. Health Promotion Practice, September 2003. Waimar, T. AIDS, Sept. 5, 2003; vol 17: pp 1953-1962. Craig Demmer, EdD, CHES, associate professor, health education, Lehman College of the City University of New York, New York City. David D. Celentano, PhD, professor, director, infectious disease epidemiology, Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md. Seth Kalichman, PhD, professor of psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs-Mansfield, Conn.

 

 

 

1 | 2

© 2003 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sexually transmitted diseases, commonly called STDs, are diseases that are spread by having sex with someone who has an STD. These are serious diseases that require treatment. How much do you know about STDs?

Please enter your Gender and Date of Birth before proceeding with the Quiz.

 

 

 

Gender: ChooseFemaleMale

Birthdate: (mm/dd/yyyy)

 

 

 

All STDs can be cured with appropriate treatment. True or false?

True

False

 

Which of the following is a possible symptom of an STD?

Bumps, sores, or warts near the mouth, anus, or vagina

Skin rash

Painful urination

Painful sex

All of the above

 

What are the chances that the average American adult or adolescent has genital herpes?

1 in 1,000

1 in 100

1 in 50

1 in 10

1 in 5

 

If you believe you have an STD, you should stop having sex and seek treatment from a doctor. True or false?

True

False

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 1995-2003 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All STDs can be cured with appropriate treatment. True or false?

Your answer: False

The correct answer: False

Though there are treatments to address the symptoms of many STDs, unfortunately there are still no cures for many STDs.

 

Which of the following is a possible symptom of an STD?

Your answer: All of the above

The correct answer: All of the above

Sometimes, there are no symptoms. If symptoms are present, they may include such things as bumps, sores, or warts; skin rash; painful urination; and painful sex, among others.

 

What are the chances that the average American adult or adolescent has genital herpes?

Your answer: One in 1,000

The correct answer: One in 5

Almost 50 million Americans have genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

 

If you believe you have an STD, you should stop having sex and seek treatment from a doctor.

Your answer: True

The correct answer: True

To avoid further spreading an STD, it's important to seek treatment and ensure your sex partner or partners are also treated.

 

 

Sources:

Copyright 2002 content, The Cleveland Clinic

[Guest Texas Ted]

I love someone very much who has been positive for 20 years but is otherwise quite healthy. Am I being foolish to think he’ll go the rest of his life without AIDS? What’s the likelihood of being positive for 50 years but healthy?

 

It hurts to even ask the question. I’ve tried to not think about it but I need to know the reality of the situation.

[Guest sniper]

>I love someone very much who has been positive for 20 years

>but is otherwise quite healthy. Am I being foolish to think

>he’ll go the rest of his life without AIDS? What’s the

>likelihood of being positive for 50 years but healthy?

>

>It hurts to even ask the question. I’ve tried to not think

>about it but I need to know the reality of the situation.

>

 

Well, is he SURE he's HIV+? I was only a teenager at the time, but seem to recall reading that the early tests had a fairly high false positive rate(and a high false negtive rate too) - meaning the tests were wrong a relatively high percentage of the time. If he had one postive test 20 years ago, hasn't been taking any meds, and still has no symptoms, maybe he should get tested again.

[woodlawn]

>HIV Seen as Less Threatening with New Drug Advances, Leading

>More to Unsafe Sex

 

>Two new studies published this month suggest that more people

>are engaging in unsafe sex and other behaviors, under the

>mistaken belief that newer medications make HIV infection less

>lethal.

 

Yes, we seem to have people who harbor this very same "mistaken belief" right here on this message board. What is worse, they are trying to persuade others to share it.

 

>"People believe that HIV is less fatal and not as easily

>transmissible because of the new treatments. But what they

>don't realize is that these new treatments have failure rates

>of anywhere between 15% and 60%."

 

Oh? One poster here recently told me I didn't know what I was talking about because I mentioned that the new drug regimes have significant failure rates.

 

>David D. Celentano, PhD, director of infectious

>disease epidemiology at Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public

>Health.

>

>"Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the HIV-infected folks

>were as likely, or even a little more likely, to demonstrate

>these shifts in attitudes. But the general opinion is that

>people think that HIV is becoming something of a chronic

>disease that can easily be managed with medication. In

>reality, these drugs make you sick as a dog."

 

Again, we have some posters on this board who don't seem to understand this rather unpleasant fact.

 

>AIDS Deaths on the Rise

>

>"These newer drugs have slowed the mortality rate, but it's

>starting to increase again. They are not a cure-all, and we

>know they never were. But the general population doesn't know

>that."

 

Well, at least some of us do know that. But some keep spreading the false impression that these drugs ARE a cure-all. I do hope they stop doing that before they convince others.

[Guest Texas Ted]

Sniper,

 

Yes, he's sure he's positive for 20 years now. He has been on meds for years and gets regular check-ups.

 

The heart-rending question is the same: "Can someone live 50 years being positive but otherwise healthy?" This is like waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>Sniper,

>

>Yes, he's sure he's positive for 20 years now. He has been on

>meds for years and gets regular check-ups.

>The heart-rending question is the same: "Can someone live 50

>years being positive but otherwise healthy?" This is like

>waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

 

A loved one could be run over by a bus tomorrow. People die at all ages of life. The shoe can drop for any of us at any time.

 

Will someone survive with HIV for 50 years. Who knows? Who really knows anything that WILL happen to TOMORROW. We can theorize; we can predict; we can guess. But we don't *know*.

 

My partner is HIV+. I am negative. He has been on drugs for over 10 years. He is not always that healthy because the drugs do make him very sick at times.

 

I don't know if he will be alive next year, let alone fifty. He is here now, today; make that count for both of you. Do the same tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Do it for as many todays as you have together.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>

>>HIV Seen as Less Threatening with New Drug Advances, Leading

>>More to Unsafe Sex

>

>>Two new studies published this month suggest that more people

>>are engaging in unsafe sex and other behaviors, under the

>>mistaken belief that newer medications make HIV infection less

>>lethal.

>

>Yes, we seem to have people who harbor this very same

>"mistaken belief" right here on this message board. What is

>worse, they are trying to persuade others to share it.

 

 

I would strongly suggest you copy the original message (or find the article yourself on the web) and copy it to your hard drive.

 

Whenever someone posts these false claims, you can then repost the entire article and prove they are wrong.

 

I think this would be a good thing to do for them and for everyone who reads these boards.

[Guest Jocoluver]

here is url for the article: http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/73/89019.htm?printing=true

[woodlawn]

>I would strongly suggest you copy the original message (or

>find the article yourself on the web) and copy it to your hard

>drive.

>

>Whenever someone posts these false claims, you can then repost

>the entire article and prove they are wrong.

>

>I think this would be a good thing to do for them and for

>everyone who reads these boards.

 

 

That is a good suggestion, thank you.

 

I can understand why people want to believe that HIV has been beaten. Who doesn't want that to happen? No one.

 

Just a few days ago I was harshly criticized by two regular posters on this board for making the same point about HIV infection as is made by this article. These people have been peddling EXACTLY the same false impression about the new drug treatments that the scientists quoted in the article are warning against -- one of them actually said that HIV patients he knows are even "healthier now than before they seroconverted."

 

Whether they are acting from ignorance or from other motives I do not know, but if even one person who reads this board believes them and acts on that belief the consequences could be tragic.

[Doug69]

>Yes, we seem to have people who harbor this very same

>"mistaken belief" right here on this message board. What is

>worse, they are trying to persuade others to share it.

 

It's really sad - just pitiful - that you're so desperate to proclaim yourself "right," and equally desperate to bolster your AIDS and sex neuroses, that you just lie about what others who disagree with you say in order to proclaim yourself the winner. Just pitiful.

 

I'm not engaging in this discussion with you again, because doing so requires one to submerge oneself in your afflications, but I will just note the following:

 

First, nobody disputed that HIV can still be fatal, or that the drug regimens fail, or that there are side effects (sometimes quite nasty ones) to these drugs. That is the principal point of this article, and it contradicts nothing which the "two regular posters here" said. So one is left bewildered by your glee (masquerading as disturbed concern) over this article.

 

Second, the responses which WERE made to correct your false AIDS hysteria whereby you screeched that people who get HIV will die from HIV -- namely, that HIV is no longer invariably fatal; that the drug regimens often prolong life and even prevent HIV-releated death; that these drugs can actually eliminate detectable levels of HIV from one's bloodstream -- are not contradicted by this article. To the contrary, these points are CONFIRMED by it.

 

The article says that HIV drugs have "failure rates of anywhere between 15% and 60%". Leaving aside the fact that this is a rather extreme range, what it means is that these drugs have a success rate of between 40% and 85% -- a rather impressive and notable success rate which negates the 1985 view that you try to fear-monger that anyone who has HIV is sure to die from it. That is just a lie, as this article makes clear.

 

Third, you obviously want to propagandize about AIDS, whereas the "two regular posters" were interested in the facts about AIDS. Those facts are set forth in this article, and it - along with countless other facts - reveals that MANY people with HIV live healthy, normal lives thanks to these drugs, and that many have done so for years and years with no end in sight. You may think it's better to pretend this isn't so, but your desire to propagandize doesn't make it any less factual.

 

Finally, it's amusing how you latch on to some randomly posted Internet article by an uncredentialed doctor who provides no sources for his assertions. But here is a published medical journal article making clear that, as we said, HIV is now more akin to chronic, treatable illnesses such as diabetes than it is to the immediately fatal disease of 1985:

 

______________________________

 

Antiretroviral Therapy 2002 )http://www.tpan.com/publications/positively_aware/jan_feb_02/antiretroviral_therapy.html)

 

by Carlos H. Zambrano, M.D.

 

Antiretroviral therapy has been one of the major advances in the fight against Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HAART has improved morbidity and mortality, decreasing the risk of disease progression and prolonging life in HIV-infected patients (between 1996 and 1997, the number of AIDS-related deaths dropped 42 percent). Multiple studies have demonstrated virologic control and immune restoration (measured as an increase in CD4 count and antigen-specific response to opportunistic pathogens) with the advent of HAART. Clinical trials have shown durability of antiretroviral activity of up to 5 years. Combination therapies have also raised concerns about toxicities, tolerability, adherence and resistance. There are now 16 antiviral agents that have been formally licensed for the treatment of HIV infections.

 

We need to recognize the need for lifelong therapy. Drug cocktails have failed to eradicate the virus in chronically infected individuals. HIV/AIDS has become a chronic disease, comparable to hypertension or diabetes. It has become very difficult for patients to show perfect adherence to the regimens. However, a failure to do so could result in devastating complications, resulting in death. More convenient drug regimens are being developed (fewer number of pills, once or twice daily).

 

<I class=byline>Carlos H. Zambrano, M.D. (Infectious Disease Specialist) is affiliated with the Erie Family Medical Center in Chicago, IL; with two centers located at: West Town, 1701 W. Superior, Chicago, IL 60622, (312) 666–3494 and Humboldt Park, 2750 W. North Avenue, Chicago, IL 60647, (773) 489–6060.

_______________________

 

Carry on with your hysteric campaign, and don't let the facts deter you. There is, after all, a moral point to be made, and that trumps the truth every time.

[woodlawn]

>It's really sad - just pitiful - that you're so desperate to

>proclaim yourself "right," and equally desperate to bolster

>your AIDS and sex neuroses, that you just lie about what

>others who disagree with you say in order to proclaim yourself

>the winner. Just pitiful.

 

You are the one who is lying. Are you going to lie yet again and deny that one of the two posters I referred to claimed that the HIV patients he knows are "healthier now than before they seroconverted"? Are you really going to lie about that? It's right there on the board for everyone to see.

 

>I'm not engaging in this discussion with you again, because

>doing so requires

 

 

. . . that you continue to tell lies that are easily exposed?

 

 

one to submerge oneself in your

>afflications,

 

What is an "afflication"? Is it anything like an "application"?

 

>First, nobody disputed that HIV can still be fatal, or

>that the drug regimens fail, or that there are side effects

>(sometimes quite nasty ones) to these drugs. That is the

>principal point of this article,

 

Did you miss the article's statement -- in its very first paragraph -- about "the mistaken belief" that new drug treatments "make HIV infection less lethal"? Do you deny that those words are there? If not, do you say the article is wrong -- that HIV infection IS "less lethal" now? You can't tell us the article is correct and wrong at the same time. Which is it?

 

>and it contradicts nothing

>which the "two regular posters here" said.

 

Not even that HIV patients are "healthier now than before they seroconverted"? What kind of blithering idiot could read the article posted above and still affirm the truth of that statement?

 

 

>Second, the responses which WERE made to correct your

>false AIDS hysteria whereby you screeched that people who get

>HIV will die from HIV -- namely, that HIV is no longer

>invariably fatal;

 

So you are saying the article above is WRONG to state that a belief the new drugs have made HIV infection "less lethal" is a "mistaken belief"? Well? The words are there in black and white. Are you going to pretend they are not?

 

>these drugs can

>actually eliminate detectable levels of HIV from one's

>bloodstream -- are not contradicted by this article. To the

>contrary, these points are CONFIRMED by it.

 

 

So why does the article state that anyone who thinks the drugs have made HIV infection less lethal is mistaken? Well?

 

>you try to fear-monger that anyone who has HIV

>is sure to die from it. That is just a lie, as this article

>makes clear.

 

Once again, the article warns against "the mistaken belief" that new drugs have made "HIV infection less lethal." How is that different from what I have said?

 

 

>Those facts are set forth in this article, and it

>- along with countless other facts - reveals that MANY people

>with HIV live healthy, normal lives thanks to these drugs, and

>that many have done so for years and years with no end in

>sight.

 

I defy you to point to any such statement in the article posted in this thread. There is none.

 

>Finally, it's amusing how you latch on to some randomly

>posted Internet article by an uncredentialed doctor who

>provides no sources for his assertions.

 

The article posted in this thread specifically states the name and credentials of the MD who reviewed it, gives the names and credentials of scientists whose work is cited in it, and at the end provides a bibliography of scholarly papers supporting it. Why did you lie about that?

 

 

> But here is a

>published medical journal article

 

Okay, let's take a look at it.

 

 

>Antiretroviral therapy has been one of the major advances in

>the fight against Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HAART

>has improved morbidity and mortality, decreasing the risk of

>disease progression and prolonging life in HIV-infected

>patients (between 1996 and 1997, the number of AIDS-related

>deaths dropped 42 percent). Multiple studies have demonstrated

>virologic control and immune restoration (measured as an

>increase in CD4 count and antigen-specific response to

>opportunistic pathogens) with the advent of HAART.

 

So far this sounds great. Let's read on.

 

 

> Clinical

>trials have shown durability of antiretroviral activity of up

>to 5 years.

 

Wait a minute. "Up to 5 years"? I thought you said above that the effects of these drugs last "indefinitely"? What happened?

 

 

>Combination therapies have also raised concerns

>about toxicities, tolerability, adherence and resistance.

 

All points that I have made in my posts.

 

 

>There are now 16 antiviral agents that have been formally

>licensed for the treatment of HIV infections.

>

>We need to recognize the need for lifelong therapy. Drug

>cocktails have failed to eradicate the virus in chronically

>infected individuals.

 

Yes, that is the problem I repeatedly pointed out -- no treatment regime can eradicate the virus.

 

 

>HIV/AIDS has become a chronic

>disease, comparable to hypertension or diabetes.

 

That's the one sentence in this article that supports your point. But it seems to contradict what is said elsewhere in the same article about the effectiveness of the drug regimes, such as this:

 

> It has

>become very difficult for patients to show perfect adherence

>to the regimens. However, a failure to do so could result in

>devastating complications, resulting in death.

 

See what I mean?

 

 

>More convenient

>drug regimens are being developed (fewer number of pills, once

>or twice daily).

 

 

Let's hope so.

 

>Carry on with your hysteric campaign, and don't let the facts

>deter you. There is, after all, a moral point to be made, and

>that trumps the truth every time.

 

The truth is that you have repeated over and over and over what the article first cited in this thread calls "the mistaken belief" that HIV infection has been made "less lethal"? What motive could you possibly have for doing this?

[Doug69]

>You are the one who is lying. Are you going to lie yet again

>and deny that one of the two posters I referred to claimed

>that the HIV patients he knows are "healthier now than before

>they seroconverted"? Are you really going to lie about that?

>It's right there on the board for everyone to see.

 

Devon did say that there are people who are healthier after they get HIV than they were before they were before they got HIV. And you know what, asshole? THAT'S TRUE. It's factually indisputable.

 

It is certainly the case that many people are less healthy after they get HIV than they were before, but some are healthier afterwards, becuase for the first time ever, they pay attention to their diet, exercise, vitamin intake, etc. and so they are in much better physical health as a result of their newfound concern for their health.

 

Too bad that this fact contradicts your diseased need to see anyone who has sex as sick and dying, but it's still a fact.

 

>Did you miss the article's statement -- in its very first

>paragraph -- about "the mistaken belief" that new drug

>treatments "make HIV infection less lethal"? Do you deny that

>those words are there? If not, do you say the article is

>wrong -- that HIV infection IS "less lethal" now? You can't

>tell us the article is correct and wrong at the same time.

>Which is it?

 

This is the same stupid point you make over and over. HIV is not "less lethal" because it can still kill those who get it, and it's therefore still just as lethal as before. A disease is either lethal or it's not. What the fuck does "less lethal" even mean? It's incoherent.

 

HIV kills a FAR FEWER PERCENTAGE of those who get HIV than it used to, because - as the article points out - the available treatments are successful in between 40-85% of those who get HIV.

 

Do you actually deny that a smaller percentage of HIV-positive people die now due to HIV than was true in, say, 1985? If so, you are beyond reason.

 

>>Those facts are set forth in this article, and it

>>- along with countless other facts - reveals that MANY

>people

>>with HIV live healthy, normal lives thanks to these drugs,

>and

>>that many have done so for years and years with no end in

>>sight.

>

>I defy you to point to any such statement in the article

>posted in this thread. There is none.

 

It said that HIV drugs have a success rate for between 40-85% of the HIV-positive people who take those drugs. What the fuck do you think that means?

 

>>HIV/AIDS has become a chronic

>>disease, comparable to hypertension or diabetes.

>

>That's the one sentence in this article that supports your

>point. But it seems to contradict what is said elsewhere in

>the same article about the effectiveness of the drug regimes . . .

 

LOL!!! This published journal article, written by a medical doctor, says that, thanks to these new drug regimens, HIV is now akin to hypertension or diabetes. This is so becasue HIV - like those afflictions are -- is now a treatable, chronic illness. And you're still trying to claim that it's no better than 1984!

 

Yet again, your neuroses trump medical facts. You'll just have to accept that there have been great advances in medicine since 1984 which enable people with HIV to live healthy, normal lives. Sorry to disappoint you.

[LovesYng]

Hear we go again with all the bull shit

[Doug69]

>Hear we go again with all the bull shit

 

Yeah - some day we'll try to contribute the esoteric, highly informative substance that you contribute to this forum. I'll practicing my one-line cooing.

 

Until we perfect the fascinating high art of making bubbly cute one-liners, I guess we'll have to stick with the "bullshit" of engaging in discussions of such unimportant, petty topics as the efficacy of HIV treatments.

 

And you should really call 911 and tell them about the person holding that gun to your head forcing you to read what we write.

[ted]

I believe I've read somewhere that there are individuals with certain genetic markers who are resistant to HIV, and while they become infected, they don't develop full blown aids. Hopefully, your loved one is one of those genetically resistant.

[woodlawn]

>Devon did say that there are people who are healthier after

>they get HIV than they were before they were before they got

>HIV. And you know what, asshole? THAT'S TRUE. It's

>factually indisputable.

 

What is it about you that prevents you from having a conversation about any issue without stooping to the kind of namecalling that usually characterizes fifteen-year-olds?

 

>It is certainly the case that many people are less healthy

>after they get HIV than they were before, but some are

>healthier afterwards, becuase for the first time ever, they

>pay attention to their diet, exercise, vitamin intake, etc.

>and so they are in much better physical health as a result of

>their newfound concern for their health.

 

So you are saying that someone who is now taking drugs that not only cause severe and chronic disruption of the digestive system but also can cause damage to the heart and liver are HEALTHIER than before they took the drugs because they go to the gym and take vitamins? Are you out of your mind?

 

 

>Too bad that this fact contradicts your diseased need to see

>anyone who has sex as sick and dying, but it's still a fact.

 

More childish insults.

 

 

>>Did you miss the article's statement -- in its very first

>>paragraph -- about "the mistaken belief" that new drug

>>treatments "make HIV infection less lethal"? Do you deny

>that

>>those words are there? If not, do you say the article is

>>wrong -- that HIV infection IS "less lethal" now? You can't

>>tell us the article is correct and wrong at the same time.

>>Which is it?

 

>This is the same stupid point you make over and over. HIV is

>not "less lethal" because it can still kill those who get it,

>and it's therefore still just as lethal as before. A disease

>is either lethal or it's not. What the fuck does "less

>lethal" even mean? It's incoherent.

 

You have a real problem with the English language. A disease is either lethal or it's not? SARS can be lethal, but in most cases it is not. The same is true of diabetes. And malaria. The article's point is that HIV infection has not been made less lethal than before by the new drugs. What part of that do you not understand?

 

>HIV kills a FAR FEWER PERCENTAGE of those who get HIV than it

>used to, because - as the article points out - the available

>treatments are successful in between 40-85% of those who get

>HIV.

 

And "successful" means what, exactly? That those for whom the treatments are successful need not worry about dying of HIV-related illness? Or merely that the virus is temporarily suppressed? We all know it's the latter. The article YOU quoted clearly states that the virus cannot be eradicated.

 

 

>Do you actually deny that a smaller percentage of HIV-positive

>people die now due to HIV than was true in, say, 1985? If so,

>you are beyond reason.

 

You have a problem with reasoning. And with the truth. The truth is that a smaller percentage of HIV patients die during the same period of time as was the case in 1985. That's all.

 

 

>>>Those facts are set forth in this article, and it

>>>- along with countless other facts - reveals that MANY

>>people

>>>with HIV live healthy, normal lives thanks to these drugs,

>>and

>>>that many have done so for years and years with no end in

>>>sight.

 

>>I defy you to point to any such statement in the article

>>posted in this thread. There is none.

 

>It said that HIV drugs have a success rate for between

>40-85% of the HIV-positive people who take those drugs. What

>the fuck do you think that means?

 

I know what it means. "Success" in this context means the virus is suppressed for a time. The article YOU quoted mentioned "up to 5 years." What now, are you going to pretend those words aren't there?

 

 

>>>HIV/AIDS has become a chronic

>>>disease, comparable to hypertension or diabetes.

 

>>That's the one sentence in this article that supports your

>>point. But it seems to contradict what is said elsewhere in

>>the same article about the effectiveness of the drug regimes

>. . .

 

>LOL!!! This published journal article, written by a medical

>doctor, says that, thanks to these new drug regimens, HIV is

>now akin to hypertension or diabetes. This is so becasue HIV

>- like those afflictions are -- is now a treatable, chronic

>illness. And you're still trying to claim that it's no better

>than 1984!

 

And it also says several other things that you choose to omit in your response. Such as that the viral suppression effect lasts "up to five years." I guessed right -- you are going to pretend that sentence isn't there. Amazing.

 

>Yet again, your neuroses trump medical facts. You'll just

>have to accept that there have been great advances in medicine

>since 1984 which enable people with HIV to live healthy,

>normal lives. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

What disappoints me is that you are peddling EXACTLY the same misinformation that the scientists quoted in the first article are warning us against: the "mistaken belief" that HIV infection is now less lethal. I think you must have some personal reason for doing so.

[ted]

Last time I looked both hypertension-high blood pressure- and diabetes were two of the leading contributing factors to fatalities in the US. So while people can live with these diseases for a long time, it doesn't make their life any easier, and hastens their departure. I know nobody, who, given the choice, would choose to have diabetes, or choose to have hypertension.

 

And while most people will respond to drug therapies, how would you like to be one of the x% who won't.

 

Why anyone would knowingly put themselves at risk is beyond me.

 

I'm not a virologist, but right now we seem to have the upper hand vs HIV. These new treatments are effective for a period of time, but the virus becomes resistant and treatment regimens must be changed. Unless there is a continuing flow of new treatments, which there well may be, but also there may not be, a few years down the road the virus may well be giving us a run back up the mortality scale.

[Guest sniper]

>Sniper,

>

>Yes, he's sure he's positive for 20 years now. He has been on

>meds for years and gets regular check-ups.

>

>The heart-rending question is the same: "Can someone live 50

>years being positive but otherwise healthy?" This is like

>waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

I'm sory to sound dense, it's just that I'm negative and am not close to anyone with HIV, so I'm not terribly familiar with the treatment regimen. But has he had his levels of virus tested? 20 years ago they could only test for the antibodies. If he went on drugs right away and never bothered to test again since he "knew" he was positive, is it POSSIBLE he is negative, or has he been rechecked as part of his treatment?

Medical errors do happen - it wouldn;t be the frist time something like that happened.

As for the gentic marker, I've heard about that too. Do those people need to be on drugs if they;'re not going to get sick from the virus?

 

As for the "will he be healthy for 50 years?" - well, we don't know because AIDS hasn't been around that long(well, it was around, but nobody knew anything about it or was able to track it effectively). But there are pletny of people with other medical conditions that they know might shorten their lives and might not - heart defects, aneurysms, diabetes. But you can't live your life waiting for bad things that might or might not happen. Enjoy and make the most of what you have today.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>HIV kills a FAR FEWER PERCENTAGE of those who get HIV than it

>used to, because - as the article points out - the available

>treatments are successful in between 40-85% of those who get

>HIV.

 

 

So you are saying you are willing to have unprotected sex knowing if you get HIV there is a 15%-60% chance it might kill you in 5 years?

 

I value my life and my partners' much more than you.

 

I think you desire a Darwin Award nomination, gay or otherwise:

 

http://www.darwinawards.com/

[Doug69]

>>HIV kills a FAR FEWER PERCENTAGE of those who get HIV than

>it

>>used to, because - as the article points out - the available

>>treatments are successful in between 40-85% of those who get

>>HIV.

>

>So you are saying you are willing to have unprotected sex

>knowing if you get HIV there is a 15%-60% chance it might kill

>you in 5 years?

 

I'm saying nothing even remotely close to what you just asked about, and it's difficult to imagine what could cause someone to take the bizarre leap that you just took. I am pointing out a FACT - a MEDICAL FACT - about the efficacy of AIDS treatments. The fact is that these AIDS drugs have a very impressive success rate, and that -- unlike as was the case 15 years ago - many people with HIV live healthy, normal lives indefinitely with these drugs.

 

Do you think it's better to pretend this fact doesn't exist? And how, in that "brain" of yours, have you equated pointing this fact out with a willingness to have unprotected sex? To describe what you just did is to illustrate its absurdity.

 

>I value my life and my partners' much more than you.

 

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You have no idea how much I value anything. What I have done is point out the medical facts in response to someone who was denying them in lieu of hysteria. As a result of detailing the efficacy of AIDS treatment, I get accused of being a Darwinist who doesn't value my own life and wants to bareback. God, I love this place.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Long Term Non-Progressors

 

Actually, there is an entire body of research being dedicated to a number of individuals (a significant number) who have tested positive world-wide for the HIV virus but have not moved at all to full blown AIDS (the various and sundry illness which arise from a suppressed immune system and thus lead to a premature death). With all other pandemics, such as the black plague, influenza (which use to cause high mortality), etc., there were always individuals who, due to genetics and a variety of other factors, either only minimally were impacted by the illness or not at all.

 

At this time, researchers do no understand what is happening with this "long term non-progressors," although a variety of theories have been speculated. Unfortunately, not all these theories can apply to all the individuals (i.e., some have certain gentic blood markers, lack certain gentic factors, have certain environmental or inherited factors, and so forth), and thus most of these theories have neither been scientifically proven or disproven.

 

The hope, at least for the group being studied at U.C.S.F. and Australia, is that it might be possible to determine what confers immunity on these individuals to form a protective vacine. There are a lot of reasons, too numerous to get into in this type of forum, why they do not hold out serious hope, that it will prove effective for the entire planet.

 

However, as to you specific question, as to you partner, assuming he is a long term non progressor, there is as much reason for you to hope that he will die a "normal" death as there is to believe he might prematurely leave you.

 

Good luck to you both.