HIV identified as the cause of AIDS 30 years ago today

[AusShep]

An excerpt from the article below

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_WAS_THERE_AIDS_CAUSE

On April 23, 1984, the Department of Health and Human Services held a press conference to announce that the probable cause of the disease had been found - a virus that was eventually called the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. At the meeting, government scientists said the discovery could spur work on a preventive vaccine, which could be ready for testing within two or three years.

There is still no cure or vaccine. But drugs emerged in the mid-1990s that have turned HIV from a death sentence into a manageable chronic disease for people who stick with them.

An estimated 36 million people have died of AIDS since 1981, according to the World Health Organization.

[Joe K]

An excerpt from the article below

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_WAS_THERE_AIDS_CAUSE

On April 23, 1984, the Department of Health and Human Services held a press conference to announce that the probable cause of the disease had been found - a virus that was eventually called the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. At the meeting, government scientists said the discovery could spur work on a preventive vaccine, which could be ready for testing within two or three years.

There is still no cure or vaccine. But drugs emerged in the mid-1990s that have turned HIV from a death sentence into a manageable chronic disease for people who stick with them.

An estimated 36 million people have died of AIDS since 1981, according to the World Health Organization.

On this anniversary it is imperative to fully understand the comments I highlighted.  HIV is not a chronic illness for many folks who are strictly adherent in taking their meds.  I know, I've lost a couple of dear friends who were the epitome of a proactive patient, including meds, yet they still died.  While it may be a chronic disease for many of us, not all are so lucky and blanket statements like this, do nothing to acknowledge that fact.

I cannot relate to you the horrors my friends experienced, being told that if they did everything right, HIV would be a chronic disease for them.  They did everything right... sadly they died anyways.  Chronic indeed.

Joe

[AusShep]

I couldn't agree more Joe.  Chronic tends to downplay that it's still a fatal disease.  With the new meds you may be able to live to a ripe old age until something totally unrelated to HIV takes you out, many still do not.

[pittman]

On this anniversary it is imperative to fully understand the comments I highlighted.  HIV is not a chronic illness for many folks who are strictly adherent in taking their meds.  I know, I've lost a couple of dear friends who were the epitome of a proactive patient, including meds, yet they still died.  While it may be a chronic disease for many of us, not all are so lucky and blanket statements like this, do nothing to acknowledge that fact.

I cannot relate to you the horrors my friends experienced, being told that if they did everything right, HIV would be a chronic disease for them.  They did everything right... sadly they died anyways.  Chronic indeed.

Joe

I totally get the biological concept of variability in response, after all, a bell curve has both an upper and a lower end to it. People die from the flu as well. You could say many do in fact, depending on how you look at it in absolute numbers or in percentage.  But with HIV there is always this dichotomy or tension between "it's a manageable, chromic condition that when treated, you can live a normal life" and "it's a serious disease that even with treatment often leads to poor outcomes including early death".

For any particular individual or their loved ones it's only important how they are responding, not how "everyone else" is doing.  But when anecdotal situations are presented in contrast to the expected norm, I always wonder about the context.

So I am curious.  I am assuming that you bring this up in the context of HAART being what your friends were on rather than older regimens. Did they have other risk factors like presenting for treatment later, or starting on the older regimens before switching?  Poor response to meds due to resistance? Complications due to serious side effects?  I ask because some of these are biological, while others are more situational.

[Jeff G]

Hi Pittman . I have had a number of friends who just didn't respond to any medications that did everything they were supposed to do . One dear friend was a doctor himself and I never saw a man more full of life or with a stronger will to live . Up until the last few months of his life he was still volunteering at health clinics he set up . They treated the uninsured out of an old Winnebago and every other weekend they had inner city clinics for transgendered people ... he felt they were medically undeserved and misunderstood in the medical community .

The few people I know who died after 96 all where doing everything in their power to live and there were no co-factors other than resistance issues and a failure to respond to treatment .

I remember that press release in 84 very well and it made me hopeful for a time . Within 5 years 9 of my close friends or the pack as we called it would be dead and I would be living in Chicago as a medical refugee seeking treatment . I cant count the people I knew and still love that died as a result of HIV even when they were responding well to meds . There was too much damage done from years living with this virus and they floundered and died .