POZ Community Forums
Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits => Research News & Studies => Topic started by: Miss Philicia on November 22, 2011, 01:04:47 pm
-
click for full story (http://www.aidsmap.com/Virulence-of-HIV-has-increased-since-first-reports-of-AIDS/page/2145156/)
Virulence of HIV has increased since first reports of AIDS
HIV may have evolved to become more virulent over the course of the epidemic, according to the results of a meta-analysis published in the online edition of AIDS.
The study estimates that six months after infection, the CD4 cell count of a person infected with HIV in 2010 was likely to stabliise at a level approximately 150 cells below that of a person infected in the early 1980s. This implies that HIV transmitted in recent years is likely to lead to more rapid development of illness compared with HIV transmitted 30 years ago.
US investigators analysed the results of studies conducted between 1984 and 2010 to see if two key prognostic markers - CD4 cell set point and viral load set-points (the level of CD4 cells and viral load immediately after primary infection) - had changed. All the studies involved patients from North America and Europe and most individuals were therefore infected with HIV-1 subtype B.
Increasing virulence of the virus was suggested by an annual fall in CD4 cell count of approximately 5 cells/mm3 and an increase in viral load set point of 0.013 log10 copies/ml.
-
My AIDS is stronger than your AIDS ;D
-
My AIDS is stronger than your AIDS ;D
I have uberaids. :P
-
I have uberaids. :P
Your AIDS is getting on in age, sweetie.
-
Eeeh. I don't believe this. And this can go tip for tap considering people were getting tested like crazy during the 80's vs. now people aren't getting tested much at all. The media doesn't cover AIDS/HIV much anymore. So the "scare tactics" are no longer there.
-
So you don't believe it or you don't want to believe it?
-
Your AIDS is getting on in age, sweetie.
Yup, it's as old as them thar hills. Conversely, I'm getting younger every day. Oh wait, no, I'm just reverting to my second childhood. Big difference I 'spose.
-
Eeeh. I don't believe this. And this can go tip for tap considering people were getting tested like crazy during the 80's vs. now people aren't getting tested much at all. The media doesn't cover AIDS/HIV much anymore. So the "scare tactics" are no longer there.
What exactly were we geting tested for like crazy for in the 80's?
-
My AIDS is getting old and tired and don't pack the punch they once had. Probably too worn out to even infect anyone. ;D
-
My HIV/AIDS is only 1 part of my SSDI Disability, the other parts or my mind (cognitive dysfunction) and my failing health issues associated with all of this, so YES Miss P the next time you make fun of me, and tell me I have a learning disability, you aren't really correct, my cognitive dysfunction & short-term memory are very much a part of my SSDI Disability since 1997 :-*
-
My CD4 was down to 353, 6 months after seroconversion and I decided to start taking medicine.
My doctor told me that most people came with CD4 < 200. :o
Sexually active HIV- people should get tested every 6-8 weeks.
An HIV counselor told me people here don't test at all.
(They had to pay people to get tested in order to get 1000 people for a survey, otherwise
the results wouldn't be statistically significant).
-
Sexually active HIV- people should get tested every 6-8 weeks.
6-8 weeks? A bit excessive don't you think? Unless you're taking raw loads up your ass 5 times a night.
-
I would have been offed easily by the wimpiest and feyest of aids.
-
The sensitive nature of tests has evolved over the years = under 50 used to be undetectable now under 20 so really cannot compare tests 20 years apart or even 5 years ( I am NOT a DR) in my opinion.
-
6-8 weeks? A bit excessive don't you think? Unless you're taking raw loads up your ass 5 times a night.
It is. If a person is using condoms consistently, once or twice a year would suffice. You'd only need testing more often if you don't always use condoms.
People who don't get diagnosed until their numbers are in the 200s (or end up in hospital with PCP or similar) usually have either never tested before that point, or haven't tested in years.
edited because I said tested when I meant diagnosed. Slight difference in nuance, ya know.
-
The sensitive nature of tests has evolved over the years = under 50 used to be undetectable now under 20 so really cannot compare tests 20 years apart or even 5 years ( I am NOT a DR) in my opinion.
This observation does not have anything to do with the virulence of the HIV virus.
-
i was about 2 years past my last neg test when i was dx'd. had cd 4 of around 224. i was surprised it was so low s o soon so maybe there is something to this .
-
The behavior of the virus is not new.
Recently I participate in a study where patients were investigated (who do not have begun with treatment) to see that type of ARV is better for the HIV (resistant test). The HIV becomes resistant; this is something that is known for 15 years.
The Dr. Fauci comes fighting to eradicate the HIV and recognizes as they are the problems since it does in an article published in 1999.
Chun TW, Fauci AS. Latent reservoirs of HIV: obstacles to the eradication of virus :o. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 :o Sep 28;96(20):10958-61. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.20.10958 PMID 10500107o
In other words, ARV are better than nothing
Nevertheless according to the Dr. Fauci there is a great success with the “New” treatment of the HIV… clearly taking into account that before ARV people died,
It surprises the declarations of the Dr. Fauci to put money and time in curing other diseases that do not have good treatment to cure, since for the HIV very good treatments exist.
-
I dunno if I buy it or not. I could have gone 7+ years w/o getting tested and my VL was still under 50k and CD4 avg 450-600, as it was when I first getting my labs done, while a friend of mine was under 350 after getting first infected. Everyone's different.
-
Do you people realize the difference between statistics and anecdotal formation?
-
Why do researchers believe this is happening so quickly? Just the natural course of the virus or due to environmental factors--being exposed to hard-hitting meds that are causing it to react by becoming more virulent?
This may sound like a stupid question and it may be--- Could the immune systems of the older generation be stronger, because they were exposed to more illnesses? When I talk to my mom, aunts and uncles, I hear how they had the measles, mumps, and even polio. All of them had hepatitis A at one point growing up. I believe all my grandparents had TB. The worst thing most of the younger generation has been sick with is the flu. Or, would that have no bearing on how well ones immune system is primed for a fight against something like HIV?
-
Evolution!!
(http://caveofknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Darwin.jpg)