POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: roy100 on October 06, 2010, 08:00:32 pm
-
I am reading some new posts from the Just Tested Poz, I am surprise to see how little time it took some people to develop full blown Aids.
I am sure I have had it for 10 or more years, I can recall my skin being dry and start using Dove soap more than 12 years ago, I can recall starting using antibiotics as M and Ms for the last 15 years, as I would easily get and infection. I could get all the prescriptions I wanted since my brother is medical Dr.
Many opportunistic infections in all this years that add up to been sick.
Yet in all these years I thought if I get Aids , I will be just my time to go.
I did never expect to live having Aids, and did not plan for it
Now I see Aids as just another chronic disease , like high blood pressure, diabetes, and so on, I take my medicine and I forget about it. I guess my shrink is proud of me , he says , you have recovered in just 6 months, its to fast, that why he doesn't want me to get off the Antidepressant.
I am just writing this post because I find it so unfair for the people who just got infected and are in drugs now, and I compare to myself.
I know life is not fair , but I still feel bad for all of these young ones.
I am just plain lucky I didn't get it in the 80"s , and I feel OK, I am just starting treatment with all this new medicines, and soon there will be another generation of Aids medicines , as I was reading in the research section.
Greetings Roy
-
1) Genetics
2) Many people don't know their infection date. Progression does not start from the testing date.
-
I agree with half of what MadBrain says. I believe genetics plays a big role and also there are so many different strands out there, that perhaps a combo of a genetically weak immune system combined with an aggresive strain would cause faster progression.
I'm pretty good proof of that. While I just tested POZ in Aug I had cd4s of 73. My last test was 27 months prior and neg, so at the very most I was infected and full blown within 2 1/2 yrs. I was also in a monogomous relationship for almost 2 years during that time. So my Doc tends to just believe I had a stacked deck against me from the get go.
Who knows for sure, but I'm glad that the game has changed both good and bad since it was first discovered. We have learned so much and I'm honestly happy to have started meds, and I would have started right away regardless of my counts.
Thanks for posting Roy- I'm glad that you have been fighting the good fight with such success.
-
I'm pretty good proof of that. While I just tested POZ in Aug I had cd4s of 73. My last test was 27 months prior and neg, so at the very most I was infected and full blown within 2 1/2 yrs. I was also in a monogomous relationship for almost 2 years during that time. So my Doc tends to just believe I had a stacked deck against me from the get go.
Did you tell your doctor about how you'd get plowed by a dozen men up in a sling five nights a week at Club Fort Lauderdale on 5th? That amplifies disease progression because there's a higher volume of teh AIDS going up your crapper all at once.
-
Did you tell your doctor about how you'd get plowed by a dozen men up in a sling five nights a week at Club Fort Lauderdale on 5th? That amplifies disease progression because there's a higher volume of teh AIDS going up your crapper all at once.
Did I ever??? Where do you think I met my Doc? Oh and if your gonna spread all my secrets at least make them accurate it was only 4 nights a week and every other weekend.
-
Did you tell your doctor about how you'd get plowed by a dozen men up in a sling five nights a week at Club Fort Lauderdale on 5th? That amplifies disease progression because there's a higher volume of teh AIDS going up your crapper all at once.
As others said, I think it is genetics and the strain. However, I've wondered whether getting infected by more than one person during the same time could cause some to progress more quickly. Most believe superinfection only occurs when you're first infected. So, I wonder how many are infected more than once and don't know it. And, how much does that impact progression?
-
Genetics and strain certainly have an effect. I think a lot of it is what other bugs one gets after infection. Like a few bouts of the flu, some hep a, maybe a few hhvs can really put a damper on ones tcell count. And how effectively those are treated (before the hiv is discovered) can make a big difference.
-
lifestyle and genes.
if you eat well sleep well and live a sober lifestyle you will generally progress more slowly ,however obviuosly there are always exceptions to the rule as were all made differently
-
lifestyle and genes.
if you eat well sleep well and live a sober lifestyle you will generally progress more slowly ,however obviuosly there are always exceptions to the rule as were all made differently
Reference citations for the above statements please -- Thanks!
-
wiki (as much as some people hate it ;D ) has an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_disease_progression_rates
(with plenty of citations ;) )
rapid progression can be caused by:
continent specific strain
qualitative differences in the cell-mediated immune response
HIV-1 subtype
Age at sero-conversion
genetic susceptibility
co-infections
-
lifestyle and genes.
if you eat well sleep well and live a sober lifestyle you will generally progress more slowly ,however obviuosly there are always exceptions to the rule as were all made differently
Um, no. I was totally sober and working a great job when I got HIV, and progressed to AIDS within a year. My best friend was also working a great job, did not drink, and progressed to AIDS soon after infection.
Look at all the drug-addled sots in this forum who stubbornly remain alive. Seriously.
-
Genetics, says my HIV doc.
-
I know exactly when I was infected, didn't do drugs, didn't have multiple partners following infection, was age 26, didn't have any other infections that I was aware of, ate right, exercised regularly and had an AIDS diagnosis within a year with pneumonia, thrush and other problems. I'm very skeptical about the "lifestyle" component.
-
I'm very skeptical about the "lifestyle" component.
Me too. And it's all so very Louise Hay-ish.
-
I know exactly when I was infected, didn't do drugs, didn't have multiple partners following infection, was age 26, didn't have any other infections that I was aware of, ate right, exercised regularly and had an AIDS diagnosis within a year with pneumonia, thrush and other problems. I'm very skeptical about the "lifestyle" component.
I have always been skeptical about the lifestyle component , although its only anecdotal I'm one of the ones who did all the wrong things for a very long time . Perhaps all the rest I got passed out face down on the floor balanced things out . I also suspect my immune system was on the weak side to begin with .
I feel better these days since I no longer have to recover from a binge but I still get sick as little or as much as I ever did .
-
lifestyle and genes.
if you eat well sleep well and live a sober lifestyle you will generally progress more slowly ,however obviuosly there are always exceptions to the rule as were all made differently
I stated quite clearly GENERALLY and stand by my comment. If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
Obviously there will always be the exception to the rule like with 100 fat people who eat a fatty diet they will have more heart attacks than 100 normal size people who eat a healthy diet , but not all the fat ones will have heart attacks but more than in the nomal group .
Now da ya gettit DUH
-
I stated quite clearly GENERALLY and stand by my comment. If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
Obviously there will always be the exception to the rule like with 100 fat people who eat a fatty diet they will have more heart attacks than 100 normal size people who eat a healthy diet , but not all the fat ones will have heart attacks but more than in the nomal group .
Now da ya gettit DUH
I would like to see the data supporting this. Has there been a study? What, exactly, are you looking for here?
-
I stated quite clearly GENERALLY and stand by my comment. If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
Obviously there will always be the exception to the rule like with 100 fat people who eat a fatty diet they will have more heart attacks than 100 normal size people who eat a healthy diet , but not all the fat ones will have heart attacks but more than in the normal group .
Now da ya gettit DUH
You are still not providing reputable research citations for what you are saying. Was it that difficult to understand my request that if you are going to make a statement such as you made you don't give analogies - you provide the research citations to back up your statements. Perhaps, Dr. Gallant would be able to provide you with the research citations to back up your previous statement?
I will try to put this at a CDC grade level for you --- if you make a statement responding to why some people get AIDS faster than others - provide reference citations to back it up - otherwise, clearly state that is is only YOUR OPINION.
Hope that helped clarify my request.
-
Magic should join the Miami Heat. With the team's current line-up I guarantee he can still put up twenty from the post and feed the no-look pass to D-Wade in the paint. And yes, the groupies would still be there for after the game celebrations.
-
I stated quite clearly GENERALLY and stand by my comment. If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
define: partying like crazy
define: lots of drink and drugs
define: healthy lifestyle
-
define: partying like crazy
Similar to partying like a rockstar
define: lots of drink and drugs
See above
define: healthy lifestyle
Saying your prayers, taking your vitamins, and eating fish on Fridays.
HTH
-
Fish on Fridays! I was so close.
-
6months after infection my immune system was very weak CD4 of 353 (14%), so
I needed to start the therapy...
I was depressed as hell, and it sure did make the whole situation worse... ???
I could feel something was very wrong...My whole body was going to collapse >:(
It was a strange feeling of progressive weakness I cannot describe, sometimes
I felt I couldn't get out of bed because I was feeling too weak... ???
-
Fish on Fridays! I was so close.
Darn it, I've been having my fish on Tuesdays. I guess that's where I'm going wrong. :-\
-
I stated quite clearly GENERALLY and stand by my comment. If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
Obviously there will always be the exception to the rule like with 100 fat people who eat a fatty diet they will have more heart attacks than 100 normal size people who eat a healthy diet , but not all the fat ones will have heart attacks but more than in the nomal group .
Now da ya gettit DUH
To be honest, no I do not get it. What you are stating are your opinions and nothing more. You cannot simply devise an argument, that appears rational, when you have no peer-reviewed science to substantiate your claims. Your example above is nothing more than conjecture and as such, it has no scientific validity, no matter what you may believe. I would also caution you against insulting members of this forum, as your DUH comment suggests that everyone should know that what you say is true... unless they are too stupid to understand your logic.
It is better for the world to think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
-
Many cofactors for speed of progression have been suggested, but the only two which have been reliably connected to this are age and genetics.
HIVInSite (University of California) has a good page on this, with references and discussion:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-03-01-04
Obviously, a healthy lifestyle may be good for your heart, soul etc, but clean living does not slow HIV and partying on does not speed it up, generally.
- matt
-
If you had 100 people who partied like crazy getting little sleep doing lots of drink and drugs and another group of 100 who lived a healthy life style are any of you seriously saying that that would be no difference between the two groups regarding progression.
Drinking alcohol, lacking sleep, and using drugs generally have some negative health effects for everybody, HIV+ or not. Are the effects worse in HIV+ people ? Probably, since in general we already have a depressed immune system on average - we start from a lower ceiling than others. But I don't think those things have been shown to be the key factors in HIV disease progression. In fact, I'm pretty sure drug usage was disproven - denialists tried to claim drugs caused AIDS instead of HIV, but the data just didn't support the link.
Genetics on the other has quite definitely been shown to be a major factor in many studies, such as the ones on HIV controllers.
Just to add to the anecdotal data, my bf and I were infected the same year in 2006, with the same virus, same genotype. But he went to 220 tcells within 8 months of his last negative HIV test. He had a very healthy lifestyle - never drank, never did drugs, and a swimmer. He had to go on meds very quickly.
You can check my numbers in my signature - I have never gotten that low. And I drink moderate amounts, don't do drugs. My numbers are much better than his. He can't get past 400 tcells for almost 4 years on HAART. I have over twice as many.
-
Exactly madbrain i agree thats why i stated GENERALLY as there will always be people who progress quickly regardless of lifestyle. Its logic and common sense what i am saying im surprised by the replies to be honest none of you who dont agree with my comments have produced a shred of evidence to back up your arguments.
-
define: partying like crazy
define: lots of drink and drugs
define: healthy lifestyle
LOL oh come on jkintl2 go to your local library and borrow an oxford english dictionary honestly how childish, please stick to the point in hand.
-
Exactly madbrain i agree thats why i stated GENERALLY as there will always be people who progress quickly regardless of lifestyle. Its logic and common sense what i am saying im surprised by the replies to be honest none of you who dont agree with my comments have produced a shred of evidence to back up your arguments.
Where is the evidence to back up your argument?
-
Where is the evidence to back up your argument?
borrow the dictionary of jkuntl2 and look up common sense
-
The common sense view that lifestyle affects HIV progression in general is not supported by the science. - matt
-
borrow the dictionary of jkuntl2 and look up common sense
Common sense would dictate that if you ask others to provide evidence, you would do the same. Maybe you should look up the word agenda.
-
The common sense view that lifestyle affects HIV progression in general is not supported by the science. - matt
Thanks for that matt i will take that on board , i just wonder why im always reading people on here telling others if they take it easy live a healthy lifestlye they will be fine , does that mean i can get on the charlie and booze tonight lol.
-
LOL oh come on jkintl2 go to your local library and borrow an oxford english dictionary honestly how childish, please stick to the point in hand.
How is it childish to ask for clarification? I do not understand your animosity towards me regarding this subject, nor do I understand why you seem so invested in a thesis you also seem so unwilling to back up with evidence.
In general, of course I agree that a more moderate lifestyle including avoiding stress, getting plenty of quality rest, minimizing damage to the liver and kidneys (which so often happens not only with excess alcohol and many drugs, but also nutritional supplements and many botanicals) can help a person remain healthy. Well, healthier.
But so take that leap to say that lifestyle choices can actually extend the time between, say, diagnosis and developing AIDS-defining conditions is a claim that requires parameters to even discuss, let alone prove using scientific study.
So I ask again: Define : Partying.
Is it shooting heroin, doing crystal meth until one's teeth rot? Is it smoking pot occasionally? is it drinking every night, and if so, how much? Is it going out dancing?
Define "lots of drugs"
What drugs? In what situation? While pot is considered to be generally benign to the system, even beneficial to those who suffer from many HIV-related ailments, the act of smoking *at all* can negatively impact, say, someone with a history of PCP or other respiratory conditions. Then again, there are many recipes for pot brownies, cakes, et al, along with the proliferation of vaporizers that remove that obstacle.
define: healthy lifestyle
Some people thrive on stress, good and/or bad. Others crumple. Some would call their lifestyle "healthy" if it includes vigorous working out, vegetarianism, spirituality/religiosity, moderation in all things (including moderation) and the deprivation of the self.
For others, that lifestyle would be negatively stressful, as it would be in total contradiction to the things that make them happy. Some people are truly happy when training for Ironman competitions, or getting stoned and playing Nintendo Wii, or going to the pub and shooting pool and drinking beer/whiskey/absinthe. Some consider a solid monogamous relationship to be a source of happiness, ergo not stressful. Others wold consider that limiting, and prefer a series of partners.
How can we even begin to have the discussion when what defines each of the things you assert affect HIV progression remain so individual and vague? Moreover, there is an implied judgment in your assertions that of course makes people uneasy.
HIV has proved itself, quite simply, to be a virus. A virus, that, when treated with appropriate medications, is rendered unable to reproduce in many people. This is regardless of external forces. In the absence of medication, it would appear that the major contributing factors towards progression are A) genetics combined with B) strain of the virus.
As Madbrain pointed out, two people can become infected with an identical strain of HIV and have vastly different experiences, thanks purely to their genetic makeup. We even attempt to USE that genetic makeup (CCR5 mutation, for example) to develop specific drug therapy based on that makeup.
You asked a question, and we have done our level best to reply. Yet there is hostility when we do not agree with your assertions, more so when we ask for evidence.
I suggest not the Oxford English Dictionary, but perhaps an aegis search or, if one is determined to go to a library, finding a college library and citing first tiered peer-reviewed scientific journals not available (in full) online.
I would be happy to discuss, even debate scientific findings. Debating opinion, especially when not referenced by evidence nor borne out by study, seems to be working to the detriment of rational discourse.
I do not understand why asking for parameters of your assertions, along with evidence, is childish. Quite the contrary, I was giving your assertions serious scientific consideration.
-
Exactly madbrain i agree thats why i stated GENERALLY as there will always be people who progress quickly regardless of lifestyle. Its logic and common sense what i am saying im surprised by the replies to be honest none of you who dont agree with my comments have produced a shred of evidence to back up your arguments.
orly (http://www.thebody.com/content/art14381.html)
Progression of HIV
Most long-term studies of HIV-positive people in the pre-HAART (Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy) era find no difference in the progression of HIV to AIDS and death between those who use illicit drugs, including the injection of heroin and cocaine, and non-drug users, although there are a few in vitro (laboratory based) studies suggesting that drugs, including heroin and cocaine, increase HIV replication.
A study published by Rompalo and colleagues in the International Journal of STD and AIDS in 2004 is particularly convincing as the analysis distinguishes between former and current drug injectors. About 640 HIV-positive women were followed for up to seven years -- 52% had injection drug use as a risk factor, and 35% injected drugs during the study period. The analysis factored in the effect of initial CD4 count, viral load, and age. Over the seven years, there wasn't a difference in progression between the women who had past, current, or no history of injection drug use.
It is common for drug users to be told that they've made their HIV worse by taking drugs, further stigmatizing drug users; however, there is no good evidence that these illicit drugs actually do this. Past and current injection drug use has not been found to be associated with progression of HIV disease, thus initiation of treatment can be based on standard guidelines including clinical indications and readiness for treatment among drug users.
The recent case of rapidly progressive, multi-drug resistant HIV in New York City has raised speculation that methamphetamine use may lead to more rapid progression of HIV. However, a 2003 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases comparing HIV viral loads among users and nonusers of methamphetamine found that HIV viral loads weren't different between the two groups unless the subjects were taking HAART. When comparing those taking HAART, the methamphetamine users had significantly higher viral loads. This is consistent with a behavioral or biological impact of methamphetamine on HAART, but not on viral replication. Similarly, studies of the impact of alcohol on HIV sometimes find that alcohol may promote viral replication in the lab but, in the real world, it appears to have more impact on the ability to take or have a good response to HAART than on the virus itself. Marijuana has not been found to have an unfavorable impact on HIV progression.
To conclude, there is no strong evidence that alcohol and other drugs by themselves have a significant biological impact on the progression of HIV disease. But several of these studies suggest that some substances have a negative effect when HAART enters the picture, implying that drug users may have difficulty obtaining, adhering to, and/or benefiting from treatment.
-
Tommy246, I think most people would agree that eating right, getting proper sleep and exercise all help with maintaining good health. I do my best to take care of these areas of my life. The point I was making is that my own personal experience (which is NOT a scientific argument) makes me doubt that being able to run 10 miles or eating a good protein/carb/fat ratio is going to make a big difference in fighting off HIV. Like MadBrain, my partner and I have the same virus. He has had it longer than I have, he doesn't exercise, he has a completely whacked out sleep schedule, he eats entire bags of meringues at a sitting and his CD4 and viral load have always been MUCH better than mine. He makes me wonder sometimes pork rinds have anti retroviral qualities. :D
-
orly (http://www.thebody.com/content/art14381.html)
Progression of HIV
Most long-term studies of HIV-positive people in the pre-HAART (Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy) era find no difference in the progression of HIV to AIDS and death between those who use illicit drugs, including the injection of heroin and cocaine, and non-drug users, although there are a few in vitro (laboratory based) studies suggesting that drugs, including heroin and cocaine, increase HIV replication.
A study published by Rompalo and colleagues in the International Journal of STD and AIDS in 2004 is particularly convincing as the analysis distinguishes between former and current drug injectors. About 640 HIV-positive women were followed for up to seven years -- 52% had injection drug use as a risk factor, and 35% injected drugs during the study period. The analysis factored in the effect of initial CD4 count, viral load, and age. Over the seven years, there wasn't a difference in progression between the women who had past, current, or no history of injection drug use.
It is common for drug users to be told that they've made their HIV worse by taking drugs, further stigmatizing drug users; however, there is no good evidence that these illicit drugs actually do this. Past and current injection drug use has not been found to be associated with progression of HIV disease, thus initiation of treatment can be based on standard guidelines including clinical indications and readiness for treatment among drug users.
The recent case of rapidly progressive, multi-drug resistant HIV in New York City has raised speculation that methamphetamine use may lead to more rapid progression of HIV. However, a 2003 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases comparing HIV viral loads among users and nonusers of methamphetamine found that HIV viral loads weren't different between the two groups unless the subjects were taking HAART. When comparing those taking HAART, the methamphetamine users had significantly higher viral loads. This is consistent with a behavioral or biological impact of methamphetamine on HAART, but not on viral replication. Similarly, studies of the impact of alcohol on HIV sometimes find that alcohol may promote viral replication in the lab but, in the real world, it appears to have more impact on the ability to take or have a good response to HAART than on the virus itself. Marijuana has not been found to have an unfavorable impact on HIV progression.
To conclude, there is no strong evidence that alcohol and other drugs by themselves have a significant biological impact on the progression of HIV disease. But several of these studies suggest that some substances have a negative effect when HAART enters the picture, implying that drug users may have difficulty obtaining, adhering to, and/or benefiting from treatment.
Thanks for that info very interesting
-
All this "lifestyle" talk is unnerving. It reminds me of the early days when people would say "those people deserve what they get."
-
Exactly madbrain i agree thats why i stated GENERALLY as there will always be people who progress quickly regardless of lifestyle. Its logic and common sense what i am saying im surprised by the replies to be honest none of you who dont agree with my comments have produced a shred of evidence to back up your arguments.
You do realize that I was not actually agreeing with your statements ? Common sense unfortunately does not mean that much when it comes to science. Evidence does, and you haven't produced a shred of evidence of anything.
-
Thanks for that matt i will take that on board , i just wonder why im always reading people on here telling others if they take it easy live a healthy lifestlye they will be fine , does that mean i can get on the charlie and booze tonight lol.
You must have missed the majority of the advice on this board that centers around access to HAART. I would think that would be fairly important given that the site is called 'AIDS "meds" forums'.
Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors that predicts HIV progression is genetic, and genes are not something individuals can do anything about, currently.
-
You do realize that I was not actually agreeing with your statements ? Common sense unfortunately does not mean that much when it comes to science. Evidence does, and you haven't produced a shred of evidence of anything.
yes of course but i was agreeing with your statements and also with the fact that were all different thats why i said generally speaking