|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 16, 2008 10:23:55 GMT -5
By the way....
diabetes can be controlled with diet and exercise.... That's most definitely not the case with HIV.....
People that have diabetes can get to the point of not having to take medications.... Not the case with HIV either.....
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Nov 16, 2008 11:43:58 GMT -5
By the way.... diabetes can be controlled with diet and exercise.... That's most definitely not the case with HIV..... People that have diabetes can get to the point of not having to take medications.... Not the case with HIV either..... Kitty and as a diabetic, I say AMEN to that! |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 17, 2008 21:31:46 GMT -5
Since y'all think I'm just pulling all of this out of thin air, allow me to post just one source, dated July 24, 2008:
HIV drugs 'add 13 years of life'
Life expectancy for people with HIV has increased by an average of 13 years since the late 1990s thanks to better HIV treatment, a study says.
Researchers said it meant HIV was now effectively a chronic condition like diabetes, rather than a fatal disease, the Lancet reported.
The team, involving Bristol University staff, looked at over 43,000 patients.
The study found a person now diagnosed at 20 years old could expect to live for another 49 years.
But the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration, which includes scientists from across Europe and Northern America, warned this was still short of the life expectancy for the wider population which stands at about 80.
Antiretroviral treatment for HIV consists of drugs which work against the infection itself by slowing down the replication of the virus in the body.
This method of therapy was introduced in the 1990s, but has since become more effective and better tolerated.
The researchers looked at life expectancy during three time periods after the introduction of the drugs - 1996-9, 2000-2 and 2003-5 - in high income countries.
Just over 2,000 patients died during the study periods.
They found that while patients aged 20 diagnosed in the 1990s could expect to live another 36 years, that had increased by 13 years by 2003-5.
During the middle time period, life expectancy stood at an extra 41 years.
Success
Researcher Professor Jonathan Sterne said: "These advances have transformed HIV from being a fatal disease, which was the reality for patients before the advent of combination treatment, into a long-term chronic condition."
He added the development was a "testament" to the success of the anti-HIV drugs.
But the researchers warned those diagnosed later in the course of the infection had a much shorter life expectancy.
Marc Thompson, deputy head of health promotion at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "HIV medication has become much more effective since the early days.
"There has been great progress, but research needs to continue, especially for those who have developed resistance to some drugs and are running out of options."
But he added the study also highlighted the need for early diagnosis, pointing out an estimated a third of people with HIV do not know they have it.
Deborah Jack, of the National Aids Trust, said: "Hopefully, this study will encourage more people to come forward for testing but we need to better educate doctors about the signs and symptoms to look for.
"Society also needs to catch-up with the fact that HIV is a long-term condition that thousands of people in the UK are living with everyday.
"HIV is not deserved of the fear or stigma that still surrounds it."
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 17, 2008 21:40:56 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what is more scary... The idea that HIV is compared to diabetes or the suggestion that more people that are HIV + are dying from illness such as heart disease rather than complications from HIV.... Trust me... those with heart disease are better off! LOL What I meant, but may not have communicated clearly, is that more HIV patients are starting to die from other conditions like heart disease, not that more HIV patients die from heart disease and other conditions than from HIV/AIDS-related illnesses. And I wouldn't go as far as to say that people with heart disease are better off--not by a long shot. After all, if you die, does it really matter what you died of? And let's not remember that heart disease still remains the leading cause of death for African Americans in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 18, 2008 7:12:53 GMT -5
Hi KrazeBoi,
As a person who has studied medical science for many years I would most definitely make this claim based on medical facts and knowledge....
I would much rather have heart disease or diabetes than HIV....
I don't doubt that medical science and drugs can add 13 years to a HIV person's life... You have no argument with me there. But i most definitely disagree with the statement and the idea being presented that HIV is simply a chronic disease and not a death sentence... I also WILL go as far as to say that those Claims made in the Study are their HOPES and not fact... And that on some level IRRESPONSIBLE by trying to equate the level of seriousness of HIV to heart disease or diabetes.
I've known serveral people that have heart conditions and are diabetic and they are still here... The people that I have known that had HIV are all gone...
There is only one left... and the effects that HIV has had on her body is horrible....
Krazeboi... I have seen the study that you made reference to... There is a few problems with it..... When it comes to backing up a claim that HIV is simply a "chronic illiness".
First it seems to stand alone with making the claim that those with HIV have a near normal life expectancy... You won't see too many other studies or ANY OTHER study making that claim. Do some quick research.... all articles making this claim still go back to this one study. There are a lot of research claims out there... Some are true some are false which is why I go by what is posted by the Center of National Disease Control... They are only concerned about facts...
Second... The research can only honestly make the claim that drugs currently are adding an average of 13 years to the lives of those with HIV...
Krazeboi... 13 years...and a normal life expectancy are 2 different things... Plus that's adding 13 years to whenever the person starts taking the drugs... adding 13 years to a 20 year old, and 30 years old, or even a 50 year old isn't adding much.... In fact by these standards... a person had to live longer than 13 years to beat the odds or to be better than average.... Trust me when I say that diabetic and heart patients have no problem beating that number.... My grandmother had heart disease in her 50's.... she is now in her 90's... My father was a diabetic in his 30's he lived to be in his 60's and it was medical errors that caused his death...
4th... The research that you stated backed up it claims with these two precursors.
1. That the person had to have an early diagnosis... Most people don't even think to have an HIV test unless they are already ill and looking to find an cause or by chance it is suggested by a doctor... less than a 50% chance that it will be caught early.....
2. The study makes the claim that it is based on wealthy countries... Meaning that th people in the study had money to have access to the drugs needed...
This second precursor is very important Krazeboi.... Why?
Because ANTIVIRAL DRUGS COST AN AVERAGE OF 2k (TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS) A MONTH!!!
Well Krazeboi... that right there is going to eliminate many people from getting the extra 13 years because most can't afford the drugs... And recall this study is making the claim that the 13 years are based on early diagnosis AND having the access to the drugs... Both of these precursors have a small chance of occuring in reality.
Trust me... those of us in the African American community can't foot that kinda bill...
I have more things to state in regards to this study but I will come back for that...
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 18, 2008 7:31:11 GMT -5
Krazeboi....
By the way.... Did you notice that the research you are referring too is looking at studies of people from 1996 to 2000?
At 2008 the only claim that they could make that is near factual is the 13 years... Because they can only look at the number of people from 1996 til now...
That is also why I am making the statement that their claims of nromal life expectancy are only based on their HOPES..........
Not enough time has passed for them to claim that a person in their 20's will live to be 49 or that an extra 36 or 41 years can be added... Those are their HOPEFUL PREDICTIONS... NOT FACTUAL. It has to have already occured to be a fact...
Again...this is why I go by the Center of Disase control...
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 18, 2008 21:06:51 GMT -5
I would much rather have heart disease or diabetes than HIV.... LOL, ok; I'd choose "none of the above." But suffice to say that I believe that a person who was diagnosed with HIV early and is really taking care of him/herself has a better chance of living a longer life than a person with heart disease or diabetes who is not as vigilant in taking care of him/herself. The article is from a peer-reviewed journal and the study was done by researchers who are highly respected in their fields. A medical journal as highly regarded as Lancet would in no way risk its reputation by allowing irresponsible and misleading claims to be made within its pages. It would be a really big deal otherwise. There are several things to note here. Firstly, the stigma that surrounds HIV means that you know or have come into contact with several people who may be positive but you don't know it. So you may very well know people who are positive who are still here. A lot of times we don't know the status of people who are positive until they are in their last stages, and thus that's really the only association a lot of us have with HIV+ folks whereas we've long known that Big Momma and Aunt Flossie have diabetes. This one particular article is rather recent, there's no doubt about that. But even before this article was published, there have been others that have demonstrated that due primarily to the effectiveness of new drugs, HIV patients are living longer. This is simply the first study to really quantify that. You misunderstand. The study shows that since the introduction of combination antiretroviral drug therapy for HIV in 1996, the average life expectancy has increased from 36.1 years in 1996-1999 to 49.4 years in 2003-2005. This means that a 20-year-old who started treatment between 1996 and 1999 is expected to live, on average, to age 56, whereas a 20-year-old who began treatment between 2003 and 2005 can expect to live, on average, to age 69. That's just shy of threescore and ten. But make no mistake, it's still short of normal life expectancy; I don't want that to be misunderstood. Now that HIV-testing is becoming more common as a part of routine doctor visits, you can definitely expect the number of earlier diagnoses to increase. Secondly, for many people, when they first get their initial symptoms and get tested, that falls into the "early" category. Thirdly, a recent report from the CDC shows a decrease in the number of persons unaware that they are infected. How can you say that Blacks in general can't afford HIV medications? Do you have any statistics to back that up? I can't believe you're painting all HIV+ Blacks with such a broad brush here. Of course there are those without health insurance or with subpar insurance, and there are those who live in poor states (particularly in the South) who don't have all of the funding in place for prevention and treatment; that is not being denied. But right here you've essentially said that if you're Black and HIV+, you're going to die very soon because you are poor by virtue of being Black. I'm not understanding how you can say that. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 18, 2008 21:22:42 GMT -5
Krazeboi.... By the way.... Did you notice that the research you are referring too is looking at studies of people from 1996 to 2000? No, it is looking at three groups of HIV-positive people in Europe and North America who began antiretroviral drug therapy in 1996-1999, 2000-2002, and 2003-2005, respectively. Based on their data, the researchers constructed scientific and mathematical projections to arrive at their conclusions. This is basic to scientific research and is done in all fields, and no specialists in the field of HIV/AIDS research has publicly repudiated the researchers and/or their findings. Again, this is elementary to scientific research. Please understand, I'm HARDLY saying that being HIV+ is just like being HIV-, except that you have to take a whole bunch of pills--far from it. It is still a very serious disease. However, it is far more manageable today than it was at the outset to a large degree. It is no longer the immediate death sentence it used to be. As a matter of fact, in 2006, a book was published by the World Health Organization entitled HIV/AIDS in Europe: Moving from death sentence to to chronic disease management. Surely you wouldn't call the World Health Organization, on the front lines of public health battles across the world, irresponsible? |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 18, 2008 23:35:09 GMT -5
Krazeboi, There are a few things that I want to make clear... The first is this... I'm not in any way denying that antiviral drugs are increasing years in people's lives.... But it is still a death sentence because their lives are based on the idea that there will still be a drug around to keep the virus at bay... When the person runs out of drugs to try... death is still around the corner... That's not the case with heart patients or diabetics... Also when they are stating that the life "expectancy" for some in their 20's is to live into their 50's. That's what I refer to as a "hopeful prediction" because they don't currently have people surviving HIV+ status that long YET... Them saying that expect people to live that long doesn't make it a fact. Secondly... you want to make the claim that you aren't in any way saying that HIV + is like being HIV -... But technically you are when you want to make the claim that is seriousness is the same as Heart disease and diabetes... But the reality is that being HIV+ could never be seen in the same light because as I posted before... those who are diabetic and even those who have heart disease can get to the point of living without medication... That can NEVER happen in the case of HIV... Lastly... I will make a prediction here... people that come down with Hiv in their 20's will not likely live to be in their 50's.... WHY? Because those studies still aren't dealing with the fact that by that time period most of the people in their study will most likely become resistant to the drugs that they are taking... Which is likely to happen over the course of 20 years or more... This is why doctors have even stopped giving out antibotics... Because over the years different disease have become resistant to the antibotics out there. So the study is also made based on the idea that these people would be able to have optimal health care ava. to them.... If you want to see what the average cost of living with HIV is currently then check out this article www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55870.php This shows the cost of the drugs being a average of 2k a month and up til now the cost being about 300,000k as an average in a lifetime... Krazeboi... don't for a second doubt that there are people that are being denied medication... It happens all the time... Drug companies in fact didn't want these drugs to be sold at cost to people in Africa even through they knew that the people there simply couldn't afford it... In fact many pharm. companies wanted international laws to prevent companies in Africa from selling it at cost... By the way I am very familar with with WHO... I have their booklet for goals for 2010... And no I wouldn't call them irresponsible... But WHO isn't comparing HIV status to diabetic and heart patients either.... Cancer can be considered a "chronic illiness' too... Be we are all aware that cancer is more serious that diabetes... Kitty |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 18, 2008 23:50:24 GMT -5
Kraze,
I know we have gone back and forth here for a minute.... But I would like to take this discussion back to the vein of the original discussion here...
The original question on this topic was about the idea of whether or not a person would choose to enter into a marriage with a person that was HIV+...
As a part of the discussion the dangers of cathing HIV from a partner did come up... One of the dangers that was discussed and observed is the fact that it can be very dangerous to become infected with HIV from a person who was already taking the antiviral drugs...
There is a real danger to receiving a form of HIV that is resistant to antiviral drugs because the original partner has already been treated with them... Then the newly infected person is looking at having to start off with 2nd and 3rd line drug treatments and a immediate shorter life expectancy...
This was one of the reasons that it really isn't wise to be involved sexual with an HIV+ person...
So ultimately the stigma will always be there... Because having sex with those individual could cause death to you personally.... There no way around that...
At least having sex with a person that is diabetic or has a heart problem won't possibly kill you... There no way around denying that! LOL
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 18, 2008 23:56:06 GMT -5
Oh Yeah...
My bad... the current cost for treating HIV in a lifetime is currently around 600,000K! They Hope it might go down to 300... But it ain't there yet....
Still think Black folks are getting that kind of money Kraze?
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 19, 2008 4:31:05 GMT -5
Krazeboi, There are a few things that I want to make clear... The first is this... I'm not in any way denying that antiviral drugs are increasing years in people's lives.... But it is still a death sentence because their lives are based on the idea that there will still be a drug around to keep the virus at bay... When the person runs out of drugs to try... death is still around the corner. From all of the research I've done, both in school and as it concerns the subject here, I've not seen drug resistance as something that presents an immediate concern to the majority of patients, although it's clearly a concern for a percentage; the only figure I've seen for this is 10%-30% of all new infections involving strains of the virus resistant to at least one drug. This is why there is genotypic and phenotypic testing for resistance, and adhering to the prescribed regimen on a consistent basis is important because if a person starts taking their medication and stops for a certain period of time, the virus may indeed develop a resistance to those drugs. And this is also why thingytails are often prescribed because they involve different types of medication that interfere with viral replication in different ways, thus drastically reducing the potency of mutants. As I've stated before, these are scientific projections that are made in accordance with the data collected. Mathematical models are constructed for any and all relevant factors, including viral mutations. Again, this is elementary to scientific research. Two researchers have essentially said that the calculated average life expectancies from the study might actually be understated since almost of half of all patients are diagnosed with advanced HIV infection, so the life expectancy could be higher for those diagnosed early. I'm not making that claim. I merely reported what researchers have said about HIV infection in light of new therapies. Even then, there are several things key to living longer, healthier lives with all three diseases: early diagnosis, overall health (diet and excercise), adhering to prescribed regimen, etc. Take all of those out of the equation, and you've got a death sentence for any of those three. Never say never, especially in light of this recent, yet very premature, development. It's still early for this guy and the procedure he underwent ( especially for the procedure), but he hasn't been on any meds for two years according to the article. You say "most likely." Do you have any statistics that say approximately what percentage of patients this might be the case for? Certainly this is the case for some patients, but apparently it isn't for the majority since HIV/AIDS has already been around for at least 20 years now and there are more people living with the disease and there are increasing numbers of HIV patients dying from other things than the disease itself (notice that I said increasing, not a majority). Third world countries are just a different case entirely in terms of health care in general. My point was that WHO does not consider HIV infection to be an automatic death sentence for those in developed countries. "Chronic disease management" is how they termed it. Not necessarily at the level of diabetes or heart disease, but not an automatic death sentence either. What I've been saying all along is that factors like early diagnosis and access to medical treatment can make all of the difference in the world. In general, we would say that cancer is more serious than diabetes. But, depending on the type of cancer we're talking about (which makes a difference as well), a person who received an early diagnosis, is taking care of himself, and adhering to their prescribed regimen can be a lot better off than a diabetes patient who ignores his symptoms, doesn't take his overall health into account, and isn't following the doctor's orders. And I'm sure we probably know of one or two persons who fall into both categories in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 19, 2008 4:32:44 GMT -5
Kraze, I know we have gone back and forth here for a minute.... But I would like to take this discussion back to the vein of the original discussion here... The original question on this topic was about the idea of whether or not a person would choose to enter into a marriage with a person that was HIV+... As a part of the discussion the dangers of cathing HIV from a partner did come up... One of the dangers that was discussed and observed is the fact that it can be very dangerous to become infected with HIV from a person who was already taking the antiviral drugs... There is a real danger to receiving a form of HIV that is resistant to antiviral drugs because the original partner has already been treated with them... Then the newly infected person is looking at having to start off with 2nd and 3rd line drug treatments and a immediate shorter life expectancy... This was one of the reasons that it really isn't wise to be involved sexual with an HIV+ person... So ultimately the stigma will always be there... Because having sex with those individual could cause death to you personally.... There no way around that... At least having sex with a person that is diabetic or has a heart problem won't possibly kill you... There no way around denying that! LOL Kitty You have a point here, there's no denying that. I just wanted to clear up what I thought were some misconceptions about HIV infection itself. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 19, 2008 4:48:44 GMT -5
Oh Yeah... My bad... the current cost for treating HIV in a lifetime is currently around 600,000K! They Hope it might go down to 300... But it ain't there yet.... Still think Black folks are getting that kind of money Kraze? Kitty You think WHITE folks are getting that kind of money? With a figure that high, race becomes irrelevant. Yet, as I've stated, more people are living longer with the disease due to access to treatment. While our healthcare system here in America is nowhere NEAR perfect (God knows it's not), there's a reason we're not seeing third world infection and mortality rates in this country. And guess what? Medical expenses for diabetes aren't too far behind. According to the state of NY, the average yearly health care costs for a person with diabetes is $11,744. That's roughly half of the yearly health care costs for an HIV patient, but that's still a lot of money. Would you say that those healthcare costs explain, in part, why there is a high level of mortality relative to diabetes among Black women in particular? Personally I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Nov 19, 2008 8:30:27 GMT -5
<<looking at the tennis match>>
|
|
