"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Mon Sep 21 16:51:08 EST 1998

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:57:23 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
Carter) wrote:

>Todd Miller <todd33 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>AIDS Treatment News / Immunet wrote:
>>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
>>> and found combinations which work for them.  
>>Does anyone know of a reference that supports this statement?
>>Is this statement true because by definition, a "long-term
>>survivor" is a person who HAS taken the establishment's therapy,
>>while a "long-term non-progressor" is a person who has avoided
>>this therapy?
>There is evidence that people with AIDS (who have progressed whether
>they took drugs or not) have better clinical condition and survival
>when they take drugs in combination than those who do not use drugs
>who have progressed to AIDS.
There is evidence to the opposite also, that is, that those taking the
immunosuppressive "AIDS" drugs have worse clinical conditions and
poorer survival when they take drugs(I assume you are speaking of the
usual poisons, AZT and PI's)in combination than those who do not use
drugs(again I am assuming the same thing) who have progressed to AIDS.
Really poor sentence structure and definitely a circular argument,
kind of HIV=AIDzey(pronounced like 'sy' in easy)
>This is a separate question of whether there is a value in using the
>drugs for people with HIV who are progressing at fairly slow rates
>toward AIDS.  It is probably best to wait for some period, but not
>until T cells drop much below 100.  Indeed, some people can be HIV+
>for 10 years without developing AIDS--but may still be progressing in
>terms of continually but relatievly slowly declining CD4 counts.  As
>time passes, the risk for opportunistic infections occurring rises.
No really, if you're going to "knock those bad boys out", why not
start early?  For that matter, why not take a cocktail with your
multivitamin each day, especially if you want to be "absolutely sure"
that HIV doesn't have a chance to go, mutate, waltz, swing dance...
>By contrast, there is a group of about 10-12% of people with HIV who
>are either extremely slow or non-progressors (for all intents and
>purposes).  Their CD4 count does not diminish.  There is no rationale
>for treating these people.
I agree, if we could just get you to see that leaving the other 88 to
90% alone!
>So your question needs to be clarified.  The reality is, most infected
>people WILL progress to AIDS.  Not treating at a certain point in the
>progression is a fatally stupid mistake.
What reality?  Maybe in your fairy land.  The reality is that you need
a reality checkup.  Treating a person past a certain point, the moment
whenever you make the decision to start treatment with your killer
drugs IS a stupid mistake.  Call HEAL, quickly.  Don't listen to this
guy, he's missing some parts from his last trip to the garage.  jb
>		George M. Carter

More information about the Immuno mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net