Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm very sorry for what your daughter and your family went through, but blood clots are a widely-known side effect of birth control pills. I'm 71 years old and have never taken birth control pills but even I know that most birth control pills increase, at least threefold, a woman's chance of developing a blood clot.
It's incumbent on all of us, especially in this computer age, to investigate the side effects of any and all meds that we take.
Thank you. Yes, it was a terrible time, but thankfully she recovered after several months.
I was replying to the poster that included the link to the FDA site where you can report adverse effects. I do believe it's important to know if more people are having problems with the medications, but that link says it's not required and that was our experience.
Tell the HIV patient about how he/she should "avoid those drugs and not take them for a long time" Yeah antiretroviral therapy, what a waste
"Researchers in a 2013 study found that 78 percent of deaths of people with HIV between 1988 and 1995 were due to AIDS. Between 2005 and 2009, that figure dropped to 15 percent." Facts About HIV: Life Expectancy and Long-Term Outlook
Between 1988 and 1995 people were not usually tested for HIV unless they already had AIDS symptoms.
Between 2005 and 2009, lots of people were tested for HIV even if they had no AIDS symptoms.
So of course more HIV patients in the earlier period died.
Last edited by in_newengland; 06-04-2017 at 07:23 PM..
In other words, you are saying the drugs do not work.
AIDS drugs can kill some infections and therefore can prevent death. However they are extremely toxic and interfere with essential life processes, and destroy the body gradually. They cause premature aging, dementia, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, etc. However, these things can always be blamed on normal aging, and/or HIV.
The research on AIDS and HIV has been really pathetic. They jumped to conclusions because they were desperate to find a solution. Also because the drugs became extremely profitable.
Anyone who is HIV positive is now diagnosed with AIDS, even if they have no symptoms. They might get symptoms many years later or never, no one knows. It is very difficult to find out what is really going on with AIDS and HIV.
I just saw an HBO documentary called "Larry Kramer in Love and Anger" about AIDS activist Larry Kramer. AIDS was first observed in the US in 1981, but AZT wasn't released until 1987. From what I have read the multi drug therapies that reduced the death rate by 60% to 80% weren't released until 1996 (15 years after the epidemic started). The documentary depicted the period from 1981 to the release 1987 release of AZT, being an out of control epidemic with no treatments or cure available. Doesn't sound like anyone was in a rush to do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
AIDS drugs can kill some infections and therefore can prevent death. However they are extremely toxic and interfere with essential life processes, and destroy the body gradually. They cause premature aging, dementia, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, etc. However, these things can always be blamed on normal aging, and/or HIV.
The research on AIDS and HIV has been really pathetic. They jumped to conclusions because they were desperate to find a solution. Also because the drugs became extremely profitable.
Anyone who is HIV positive is now diagnosed with AIDS, even if they have no symptoms. They might get symptoms many years later or never, no one knows. It is very difficult to find out what is really going on with AIDS and HIV.
Between 1988 and 1995 people were not usually tested for HIV unless they already had AIDS symptoms.
Between 2005 and 2009, lots of people were tested for HIV even if they had no AIDS symptoms.
So of course more HIV patients in the earlier period died.
The US Preventative Health Services and CDC have for several years recommended that HIV testing be done as a part of routine testing on individuals age 18-64, in addition to testing people at high risk for the disease. Stands to reason that with this testing more people would be diagnosed with HIV, and treatment initiated according to the guidelines, before the virus has destroyed the immune system. The drugs used to treat HIV have absolutely been responsible for changing AIDS from a universally fatal disease (most often from opportunistic infections the patient cannot fight off) to in most instances, a manageable chronic disease. Yes, the drugs can have some pretty severe side effects, which is why their use is monitored, and the benefits vs. risks factors weighed in both the selection and continuing use of these drugs.
But without those drugs, the virus continues to multiply in the host, causing destruction and malfunction at many levels of the immune system. I only have to recall when I worked in healthcare in the early 1980's , and saw a number of patients admitted to the hospital with advanced HIV, manifested by severe wasting, pnemocystis pneumonia, fungal meningitis or encephalitis, and Kaposi's sarcoma and other lesions which piecemeal destroyed the lungs or GI system. This was before the advent of HIV drugs, and there was no way to prevent a relativeky early and miserable death once someone was diagnosed with HIV.
Without those HIV drugs it would still be this way. And no supplements, miracle tonics, or denial will change this.
And for those who state that the advances and research into HIV and AIDS have yielded poor results, or imply that the anti-retroviral drugs do more harm than good for people with HIV, it's clear they have no clue as to what they are talking about.
The US Preventative Health Services and CDC have for several years recommended that HIV testing be done as a part of routine testing on individuals age 18-64, in addition to testing people at high risk for the disease. Stands to reason that with this testing more people would be diagnosed with HIV, and treatment initiated according to the guidelines, before the virus has destroyed the immune system. The drugs used to treat HIV have absolutely been responsible for changing AIDS from a universally fatal disease (most often from opportunistic infections the patient cannot fight off) to in most instances, a manageable chronic disease. Yes, the drugs can have some pretty severe side effects, which is why their use is monitored, and the benefits vs. risks factors weighed in both the selection and continuing use of these drugs.
But without those drugs, the virus continues to multiply in the host, causing destruction and malfunction at many levels of the immune system. I only have to recall when I worked in healthcare in the early 1980's , and saw a number of patients admitted to the hospital with advanced HIV, manifested by severe wasting, pnemocystis pneumonia, fungal meningitis or encephalitis, and Kaposi's sarcoma and other lesions which piecemeal destroyed the lungs or GI system. This was before the advent of HIV drugs, and there was no way to prevent a relativeky early and miserable death once someone was diagnosed with HIV.
Without those HIV drugs it would still be this way. And no supplements, miracle tonics, or denial will change this.
And for those who state that the advances and research into HIV and AIDS have yielded poor results, or imply that the anti-retroviral drugs do more harm than good for people with HIV, it's clear they have no clue as to what they are talking about.
It is not nearly that simple. That is what the medical industry says, but it is extremely confusing. In the 1980s people were not diagnosed with AIDS until they were extremely sick and dying. The latency period for HIV can be very long. If someone is diagnosed HIV positive, but with no symptoms, no one knows if or when they would get sick or die, with or without the drugs.
It is not nearly that simple. That is what the medical industry says, but it is extremely confusing. In the 1980s people were not diagnosed with AIDS until they were extremely sick and dying. The latency period for HIV can be very long. If someone is diagnosed HIV positive, but with no symptoms, no one knows if or when they would get sick or die, with or without the drugs.
This is absolutely not true. Do not try to project your own lack of information about HIV onto the experts.
"Without treatment, people who progress to AIDS typically survive about 3 years. Once you have a dangerous opportunistic illness, life-expectancy without treatment falls to about 1 year. ART can be helpful for people who have AIDS when diagnosed and can be lifesaving. Treatment is likely to benefit people with HIV no matter when it is started, but people who start ART soon after they get HIV experience more benefits from treatment than do people who start treatment after they have developed AIDS.
In the United States, most people with HIV do not develop AIDS because effective ART stops disease progression. People with HIV who are diagnosed early can have a life span that is about the same as someone like them who does not HIV."
"Without treatment, people who progress to AIDS typically survive about 3 years. Once you have a dangerous opportunistic illness, life-expectancy without treatment falls to about 1 year. ART can be helpful for people who have AIDS when diagnosed and can be lifesaving. Treatment is likely to benefit people with HIV no matter when it is started, but people who start ART soon after they get HIV experience more benefits from treatment than do people who start treatment after they have developed AIDS.
In the United States, most people with HIV do not develop AIDS because effective ART stops disease progression. People with HIV who are diagnosed early can have a life span that is about the same as someone like them who does not HIV."
Yes that is what they are saying. But just try to find good unambiguous evidence for it.
Yes that is what they are saying. But just try to find good unambiguous evidence for it.
It's probably ambiguous to you because you don't understand it. There are some individuals who seem to be resistant to HIV, one mechanism is believed to be due to a mutation in a molecule on the CD4+ lymphocyte surface to which the HIV is attached for transport into the cell. There are believed to be other mechanisms for resistance too, but the hypotheses and research is still ongoing, and the findings of HIV resistance is not always consistent with the presence of these mechanisms. Also, it's a small subset of individuals who've been exposed to HIV and have not contracted it. Given those odds, if I were told I tested positive for HIV (presence of the viral antigen confirmed in my blood), I don't believe I would want to wait for my CD4 cell count to dip below 500/mm3 or I start coming down with those nasty opportunistic infections which may well kill me, on the chance that I *might* never come down with full blown AIDS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
