Aids HIV FAQ

HAART Lies!!!

Question:

> Fewer deaths from AIDS has NOTHING to do with HAART: > One-third of individuals with low CD4+ lymphocyte counts remain > clinically AIDS-free three years after their CD4+ lymphocyte count > declines below 200 (Semin Immunol 1997 Dec;9(6):381-388), and they were > administratively classified as having AIDS. > Perhaps this may also help to explain why AIDS deaths have decreased > since many people that do not have clinical AIDS (1987 CDC definition) > are now classified as has having AIDS.

We have been over this before.  Fred is correct that the 1993 revision of the aids case definition shifted the definition to include those who were at risk for opportunistic infection (primarily PCP) instead of limiting it to those who had already developed such an infection. He is wrong as to the impact of this on deaths from aids in as much as deaths from aids are not measured on a denominator of persons with aids but on the denominator of the total population.  The discussion is available from dejanews by searching on "case fatality rate".

Response:

>>  Another claim is that total number of AIDS deaths are down. >Sure, that’s because the total number of HIV infections plunged >over a decade ago. Even a dimbulb like Harris should be able >to play that scenario out in his hypothermized surviving neuron.

    And all this time we thought you were arguing that HIV didn’t cause AIDS.  Did we miss something? > That’s total number per year per country in both the US and Britain. > About the same % drop in both countries. >Same drop in infections much, much earlier.

   So why the drop at the same time in both countries, in 1993-4? >No, grasshopper, Shirley wouldn’t be caught dead peddling >that Life Truncation Foundation swill on the internet >like grasshopper does… >fred

    Where do I peddle Life Extension Foundation stuff on the internet, Fred?                                    Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Stupid grasshoppers Harris and Holzman try to smokescreen. >Dumb, dumb grasshoppers. >The claims being made include "people with AIDS are living longer" >or "fewer people are getting AIDS" or "fewer people are dying of >AIDS". In ALL cases, the comparison IS NOT TO THE GENERAL POPULATION, >it is limited to those with AIDS and, as a humorous and >clownish example of junk science thinking, the cocktails are ALWAYS >the convenient reason. >    Nope.

Yep! Harris’ proctologist just found his head again! >  Another claim is that total number of AIDS deaths are down.

Sure, that’s because the total number of HIV infections plunged over a decade ago. Even a dimbulb like Harris should be able to play that scenario out in his hypothermized surviving neuron. > That’s total number per year per country in both the US and Britain. > About the same % drop in both countries.

Same drop in infections much, much earlier. >Profoundly low-wattage grasshoppers are also dishonest grasshoppers. >fred >    Profoundly ignorant Fred things that everying he doesn’t know > already is a lie.  Too many Shirley McLaine books, Fred?

No, grasshopper, Shirley wouldn’t be caught dead peddling that Life Truncation Foundation swill on the internet like grasshopper does… fred

Response:

> >It seems complete gibberish. What on earth does he mean? >The more healthy people you falsely declare "Aids cases", surely, >the fewer "Aids deaths" there will be amongst them. >    You seem unusually stupid today, JohnBull.  Explain to us in detail > how the above sentence is true.  

In Britain, we no longer have "Aids deaths", as the superstition is redundant. The last few cases of medical poisoning dwindle away. So diagnosing thousands of robust healthy people as "Aids cases" will not change that. They will not die to order. By the time they die of old age, "Aids" will be a footnote in criminal history. (And you will be just coming up for parole.)  John —   "The city’s health managers are planning to dismantle HIV services in the capital… [..] The plans under consideration propose that buddying, befriending, housing, legal and welfare rights advice services be substantially cut, and respite and pastoral care receive no government funding… [..] London’s thirty drop-in centres will be closed.. [..]"                                              ’Pink Paper’, Sept. 1997

Response:

>Stupid grasshoppers Harris and Holzman try to smokescreen. >Dumb, dumb grasshoppers. >The claims being made include "people with AIDS are living longer" >or "fewer people are getting AIDS" or "fewer people are dying of >AIDS". In ALL cases, the comparison IS NOT TO THE GENERAL POPULATION, >it is limited to those with AIDS and, as a humorous and >clownish example of junk science thinking, the cocktails are ALWAYS >the convenient reason.

   Nope.  Another claim is that total number of AIDS deaths are down. That’s total number per year per country in both the US and Britain. About the same % drop in both countries. >Profoundly low-wattage grasshoppers are also dishonest grasshoppers. >fred

   Profoundly ignorant Fred things that everying he doesn’t know already is a lie.  Too many Shirley McLaine books, Fred?                                    Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Fewer deaths from AIDS has NOTHING to do with HAART: > One-third of individuals with low CD4+ lymphocyte counts remain > clinically AIDS-free three years after their CD4+ lymphocyte count > declines below 200 (Semin Immunol 1997 Dec;9(6):381-388), and they were > administratively classified as having AIDS. > Perhaps this may also help to explain why AIDS deaths have decreased > since many people that do not have clinical AIDS (1987 CDC definition) > are now classified as has having AIDS. > We have been over this before.  Fred is correct that the 1993 revision of the aids > case definition shifted the definition to include those who were at risk for > opportunistic infection (primarily PCP) instead of limiting it to those who > had already developed such an infection. > He is wrong as to the impact of this on deaths from aids in as much as deaths > from aids are not measured on a denominator of persons with aids but on the > denominator of the total population.

Smokescreening. Aerosolized bullshit, Holzman-style. Be specific Holzman. Point out precisely where I’m supposedly "wrong" in terms of the research cited. No more smokescreens. Back up your statement. fred

Response:

> > We have been over this before.  Fred is correct that the 1993 revision > of the aids case definition shifted the definition to include those > who were at risk for opportunistic infection (primarily PCP) instead > of limiting it to those who had already developed such an infection. > He is wrong as to the impact of this on deaths from aids in as much as > deaths from aids are not measured on a denominator of persons with aids > but on the denominator of the total population. > Smokescreening. Aerosolized bullshit, Holzman-style.

It seems complete gibberish. What on earth does he mean? The more healthy people you falsely declare "Aids cases", surely, the fewer "Aids deaths" there will be amongst them. That will be reported as if it was a real change, given the corrupt ambience of "Aids medicine". It is getting very difficult to winkle out the kernel of deception lurking within Holzman’s responses. They are becoming increasingly surreal.  John —   "They note that many of their patients chose to stop their therapy due to the fat distribution changes, and not due to the risk of vascular disease associated with insulin resistance or hyperlipidemia.  They suggest that "these issues are likely to be of greatest concern in people with early HIV-1 disease for whom protease inhibitor therapy has no proven survival benefit, and are also likely to be increasingly common with long-term therapy."      ’Abnormal Fat Distribution and Use of Protease Inhibitors’                            Lancet (06/06/98) Vol. 351, No. 9117, P. 1735

Response:

> >It seems complete gibberish. What on earth does he mean? >The more healthy people you falsely declare "Aids cases", surely, >the fewer "Aids deaths" there will be amongst them. >    You seem unusually stupid today, JohnBull.  Explain to us in detail > how the above sentence is true.

You speak too soon, profoundly retarded grasshopper. >    To understand how things work, it’s sometimes helpful to use an > extreme case.  Suppose there was total craziness in AIDS definitions, > and the entire population of the earth was misdiagnosed as having AIDS, > all 5 billion of us.  Would the total yearly number (not the fraction) > of "AIDS deaths" officially recorded then likely go up, or down?

Stupid grasshoppers Harris and Holzman try to smokescreen. Dumb, dumb grasshoppers. The claims being made include "people with AIDS are living longer" or "fewer people are getting AIDS" or "fewer people are dying of AIDS". In ALL cases, the comparison IS NOT TO THE GENERAL POPULATION, it is limited to those with AIDS and, as a humorous and clownish example of junk science thinking, the cocktails are ALWAYS the convenient reason. However, when one considers the dropping infection rate years ago, everything makes perfect sense and the evidence illustrates that the antivirals are killing people sooner and thus the death rate would be LOWER without the cocktails. Profoundly low-wattage grasshoppers are also dishonest grasshoppers. fred

Response:

>It seems complete gibberish. What on earth does he mean? >The more healthy people you falsely declare "Aids cases", surely, >the fewer "Aids deaths" there will be amongst them.

   You seem unusually stupid today, JohnBull.  Explain to us in detail how the above sentence is true.      To understand how things work, it’s sometimes helpful to use an extreme case.  Suppose there was total craziness in AIDS definitions, and the entire population of the earth was misdiagnosed as having AIDS, all 5 billion of us.  Would the total yearly number (not the fraction) of "AIDS deaths" officially recorded then likely go up, or down?                                            Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

Fewer deaths from AIDS has NOTHING to do with HAART: One-third of individuals with low CD4+ lymphocyte counts remain clinically AIDS-free three years after their CD4+ lymphocyte count declines below 200 (Semin Immunol 1997 Dec;9(6):381-388), and they were administratively classified as having AIDS. Perhaps this may also help to explain why AIDS deaths have decreased since many people that do not have clinical AIDS (1987 CDC definition) are now classified as has having AIDS. Hoover DR, Rinaldo C, He Y, Phair J, Fahey J, Graham NM. Long-term survival without clinical AIDS after CD4+ cell counts fall below 200 x 10(6)/l. AIDS 1995 Feb;9(2):145-152. Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Quantify and study cofactors of long-term survival without AIDS in HIV-1-infected individuals with CD4+ cell counts < 200 x 10(6)/l. DESIGN: Comparison of 579 participants who could be longitudinally evaluated for at least 3 years after the earliest date of first reaching a CD4+ cell count < 200 x 10(6)/l or an AIDS-defining illness (1987 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition). SETTING: Ongoing 9-year cohort study with data collected at 6-month intervals. PATIENTS: HIV-1-infected homosexual men. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the men, 20% did not develop an AIDS illness within 3 years following a confirmed CD4+ cell count < 200 x 10(6)/l; 29 and 28% were diagnosed with a first clinical AIDS illness from 1-3 and < 1 years, respectively, beyond their first CD4+ cell count < 200 x 10(6)/l; 23% were diagnosed with a clinical AIDS illness prior to their first CD4+ cell count < 200 x 10(6)/l. Slower decline of CD4+ cell count (P < 0.001) and presence of higher body-mass index during the period prior to the first CD4+ cell count < 200 x 10(6)/l (P < 0.001) predicted longer time to an AIDS illness once this threshold was reached. Most men had rapid loss of CD4+ cells, total T cells, and hemoglobin during the period after CD4+ cells declined below 200 x 10(6)/l. However, those remaining free of AIDS illnesses the longest arrested their decline in CD4+ cell counts and hemoglobin levels and increased total T cells during this period. Although antiretroviral therapy and Pneumocystis carinii prophylaxis extend AIDS-free survival, 45% of the group who were AIDS-free > or = 3 years after CD4+ cells fell below 200 x 10(6)/l had not used these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of individuals remain free of illnesses and AIDS symptoms > or = 3 years after CD4+ cell counts drop below 200 x 10(6)/l. This occurs even in the absence of treatment. The associations seen here suggest that host and viral factors play important roles. Thus, further studies are needed to determine the biological basis of long-term survival without AIDS illnesses in HIV-1-immunosuppressed patients.

Response:

Filed under: HIV