POZ Community Forums
Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits => Research News & Studies => Topic started by: veritas on January 20, 2010, 08:11:45 am
-
http://www.natap.org/2010/HIV/Life.pdf
-
thanks!
-
I guess 17 years left ain't so bad. Wonder if I can get a tombstone at discount since I already know the exact date of my death : September 14, 2027.
-
thanks V!
Although data from Ohio was used, this research might not include anything about me :(, or I might have skewed it some. ::) I was diagnosed in 92 (4 yrs prior to this reseach period) and when OH was still using an anonymous number system. It wasn't until mid-98 that my name (as an AIDS case) was reported to the state (after being hospitalized the second time), and that was over 6 yrs after actually receiving my AIDS diagnosis. ::)
Hmmm. 22.5 years? Well that means I'm got another good 4 years; before I have to worry. ;) WooHoo! :D ;D
-
I guess I should go dig a hole in the back yard because my expiration date has come and long gone LOL
-
Guys,
I wouldn't start putting any downpayments on tombstones just yet, the research is pushing forward and you might be surprised to find that you might need an old folks home before a tombstone. Let's get old together !
v (the optimist)
ps: Are there any gay old folks homes around?
-
It's now been 21 years, 8 months since my infection. Since I'm a male I guess I only have 4 months left until I take the Big Ole Dirt Nap. Maybe I should spend that time getting high daily on heroin and hiring a lot of hustlers.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I wouldn't start putting any downpayments on tombstones just yet, the research is pushing forward and you might be surprised to find that you might need an old folks home before a tombstone. Let's get old together !
That scares me more than dying to be honest. I use to service the snack machines at an old folks home when I was a kid. Damn coin slots was always jammed up with those indian head pennies.
-
Miss P: Who is that a picture of?
-
Miss P: Who is that a picture of?
I think it's one of them hussies in Philly's harem. Nice eye candy.
-
Miss Phillica, guys it's for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc
-
wow i've got 12.5 years to go and am rich and single,who wants to marry then inherit me ? ;-)
-
Miss P and I have the same type :)
xo
big bear bottom
-
I will use this as a tool to plan my monthly budget but me thinks I'm gonna hold off on the whores and heroin for a bit longer or at least the heroin .
-
I wish I had the money to hire hustlers and buy drugs.... I'd even be good about it, one week, hustlers and drug binge, the next week an equal sum to charity! My drugs of choice will be excellent champagne and good weed.
-
shall i quit the 12 steps of recovery,drink lots of wine,get on all fours all day in that case ? ... well i dying soon !!!
-
I think it's one of them hussies in Philly's harem. Nice eye candy.
Hands off girls -- That's my man Antonio!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hands off girls -- That's my man Antonio!
He looks so... ahem... intellectual on this one. Since I still have almost 22 years left to go I wouldn't mind spending them with him.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Guys, the Research forum isn't the appropriate place for photos of hotties. We have enough fantasy material posted in this forum as it is. OK? Thanks.
Ann
-
stats are for the birds. I guess I have out live the research data.
-
are there any statistics about life expentancy after aids diagnosis ?
-
what the fuck happened to average life expectancy? according to this bullshit ill be dead before i can retire.
is this the truth? is it my truth? is it yours?
-
are there any statistics about life expentancy after aids diagnosis ?
Yeah if you scroll back up past the LL Cool J looking guy you'll see a link. In very small print, I had to get my glasses, it tells of the information you seek.
-
If you actually read the study in depth, it's suggesting continuing forward, and with new advances in drugs (Atripla was approved for use in 2006, a year later, for example), life expectancies will *increase*.
So I wouldn't freak out too much just yet. :p
-
I died in 2002.
-
is this the truth? is it my truth? is it yours?
in a word, yes. well maybe. possibly.
although I am fairly optimistic and trying to do the things to prolong my life, AIDS was almost the death of me at 34, and again at 36. I never expected to reach 40. I was so sick for so many yrs I never expected to reach 45. Now that I have slightly better health at 47, I do think I'll make it to 50; but I have enough AIDS-related issues and enough past damage to my system that I truly cannot imagine that I'll still be alive to turn 60. (to be honest I can't imagine reaching 55 but I'm trying to prove my optimism ;D ) With one partner dead of AIDS at 29 and another dead of AIDS at 52, I feel pretty lucky to have even reached 47.
This sort of report is based on actual data of actual people who have lived and died with HIV/AIDS. Of course, your mileage may vary. ;D ;D As Toyko points out (and the study shows) constant medical advances are constantly changing these numbers up. Of course, if the "cure" comes out next year, the whole report's validity will evaporate; but for this current moment in time, this report is what the numbers represent.
However, if you don't believe such reports have validity, you need to read up about things like the insurance industry and actuarial tables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science. Did you know that social security and disability were basically designed to only cover a person for about 3.2 yrs - after that most people will have died and not receive benefits? There are all sorts of studies that accurately predict when most people will die, because we all do. HIV/AIDS is just one of many illnesses that has been proven to actually shorten people's lives from the average life expectancy.
No one is saying any of us have to live and die by the numbers in studies like these but we can't deny that these kinds of studies present an actual representation of what is currently factual.
-
I'm communicating to everyone from the grave! its nice living six feet under... constant temperature and all... What should I do?
-
SCORE! I've got 18 more years to go!
-
:-\ I guess I'm beginning my mid-life crisis now, spending way too much on gogo boys every night, i just need to get me a convertible.
-
F@$K, I'm screwed according to the stats.
-
Wow what a confusing read any newbies on here could find that info quite scary i hope they realise those figures are quite irrelevant to anybody who is newly diagnosed , living a healthy lifestyle , with access and adherent to meds as they will live a near to normal lifespan.
-
Does the life expectancy matter if we can't enjoy the time till our death ?
HIV seems to make our body older.
So our new life expectancy is comparable now to the one of people having our new body age.
Studies seems to agree that nowadays, someone infected with HIV starting meds at 40 can expect to reach its 65 years old.
So if in one country the normal life expectancy of healthy people is of 70 years, we can suppose that this someone will have loose 5 years. In countries where this life expectancy is of 80 years, he will have loose 15 years.
So better to think (even if its philosophical) that someone infected with HIV having starting meds at 40 is somehow as healthy as someone of 55 years old,
Most of the studies investigating the life expectancy:
- are seeing an increase of the life expectancy almost every years: the life expectancy in 2004 is lower than the one in 2008.
- are not taking into account the futur progress that will be made after the study. In others words, they did see the progress made due to past studies, but not the progress we will made from the futur studies. So the best estimation we can make is maybe to consider that the increase of life expectancy made in the past over 5 years, would lead to the increase we could potentially observe in 5 years from now, making the past estimated life expectancy a bit underestimate.
- are basing their results assuming HAART as the only treatment for HIV. But now, others directions are investigated as well, and if any of them could become effective (let say IL-7 for eg.), they may significantly change the prognostic.
I strongly believe that if it fundamental to keep informed about HIV in order to ensure we are taking care of us in the best possible way, it is extremely important to live with HIV in the best possible way.
Among them, by stopping worrying about our death (that healthy people will have to face too), taking care of ourselves (sport, nutrition, enjoying life and so), being fully adherent, avoiding new infections, and so
Either we worry or not, what will happen will happen. So why worry ?
For those who are constantly worrying, just know that I know a lot of people having HIV who are having a normal life because they don't worry about HIV.
Their lifestyle is: be adherent, doing the labs, see the doc, keep healthy and enjoy life all the time.
I am really talking about people I know and about happy people despite HIV.
While there are others that constantly worry about any single labs out of range, constantly stressing, and so.
I am convinced that depression comes from this perpetual attitude, more than HIV itself.
I have see people changing the way they are dealing with HIV getting out of the depression.
And the change they made was : I have forget to live. Lets live. Lets not give any place in my mind to HIV.
The remaining time to live is long enough to continue to have plan, love, get kids and so.
So it a worth change.
-
Nice post John !
-
Cheers for the post John, it's so true!
It can be very easy to become obsessed with this disease and to forget to actually live! Life expectancy for us pozzies is continually increasing. I for one intend to be spending my last years in a nursing home annoying the other residents - that gives me at least 50 more years!
-
:-\ I guess I'm beginning my mid-life crisis now, spending way too much on gogo boys every night, i just need to get me a convertible.
Well then I need to go buy a big Buick Park Avenue and drive with my left blinker constantly on
-
I seriously have no desire to live such a long time as to have to be in a rest home.
-
I seriously have no desire to live such a long time as to have to be in a rest home.
Child, please. You'll be more of a 'Driving Miss Philicia' kinda oldie.
If people are so afraid of having a lifespan shorter than those without le HIV, why not focus on living what's left (whether 2 years or 22.5) more fully. That's what bucket lists are for.
-
Child, please. You'll be more of a 'Driving Miss Philicia' kinda oldie.
I was hoping more for a Palm Beach/Lilly Pulitzer effect, and a wealthy Greek husband.
-
john 2038 , if you go to the most popular stories section on this website it says a twenty year old starting arv today can expect to live to 69 , that was published by the lancet 26 july 2008. I live for today as i did before my hiv diagnosis, i just value things differently eat just a bit healthier food and drink alot less. i might even live longer now than with my old pre hiv life style to be honest.
-
tommy246
I guess you are referring to this (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608611137/abstract) study, and in particular, this sentence:
Life expectancy at age 20 years increased from 36·1 (SE 0·6) years to 49·4 (0·5) years.
Be aware that 49.4 is the estimated age of death, not the extension time.
Now as shows the population pyramid below, and despite a life expectancy at birth of 78 years in the USA in 2010), estimated at 80 by 2025), you will still have people living till 100 years old and more.
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6753/poppyrusa2010.th.png) (http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6753/poppyrusa2010.png)
Source (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php)
I would believe that a comparable distribution should exists within HIV+ people, as I like to consider HIV as an "aging disease", increase our age by an absolute value (negative if its the AYLL) or by a coefficient (and as such, increase some health risks). So the comparison with the pyramid. No matter if this philosophical approach is correct or not, or if the HIV population pyramid will look the same or not, what is sure, is still that, as in the normal population, some will live longer than the median, some not.
Anyway, still, we have to enjoy safely our life as much as possible.
-
This study has some real problems -- for people in the Forums the European studies are probably more helpful.
First, this is a population study and includes people who don't go on meds. The European study is of cohorts that are observed by doctors -- few of whom do not get treated. Those people who don't go on drugs lower the average life expectancy a lot (are you listening Etay?) and aren't generally representative of forums members.
But more importantly there is also a huge methodological problem in trying to do life expectancy studies using surveillance data as collected in the US. That's due to the technical way that these types of analyses are done. In brief, to do one of these studies the researchers need to:
calculate the likelihood of death at each age to come up with mortality rates,
project them forward for the full possible lifespan,
take a hypothetical group of people and see how many survive to each age using the derived mortality rates
then average the ages at death of the whole hypothetical group
The flaw comes in the first step. Calculating the likelihood of death at a particular age involves dividing the number of people who die by the number of people infected with HIV at that age. The surveillance data is pretty good on the number who die -- but data on how many are infected stinks. If the number infected is really higher, the mortality rates will be lower and the life expectancies significantly greater (and vice versa). Because each of these age specific mortality rate estimates affects the number expected to be alive in subsequent years (see step three), small errors in estimating the number exposed make for very wide errors in life expectancy.
So the value of this study is fairly questionable -- studies that follow a group over time will provide a more sound basis for conclusions.
And, of course, life expectancy is all about averages for groups. It would only make sense to use the group average for your own personal planning if the projected life spans were pretty tightly clustered around the average. Thanks to the new drugs ... that is no longer the case.
-
The surveillance data is pretty good on the number who die -- but data on how many are infected stinks.
however this report's data is not based on a hypothetocial number of who "might" be infected but actual reported infections. so aren't the numbers in this report actually more accurate based on acutal infections and people actually on HAART? Especially since the conclusions of this study are basically how much HAART has extended our lives. Averaging in all the hypothetocial people infected but not on meds would not be helpful.
Average life expectancy after HIV diagnosis in 25 states increased from 10.5 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.4 to 10.6] to 22.5 years
do you really take issue with these findings? We known before HAART the avg. span after diagnosis of HIV to AIDS was +/- approx 10 yrs. and the avg life span after AIDS diagnosis was only 18 month. (those are the numbers for life expectancy of those hypothetical infected by not on meds people I mentioned earlier) With the first meds life expectancy increased to 10.5 and now with the better treatments that avg has grown to over 20 yrs. - and that of course is continuing to grow as we receive more data each year about the people who have survived.
As I have pointed out before no one has yet to live on Atripla for 30 yrs so we can only guess that it the outcome. So it does look like the life expectancy number will change further as time goes by. Isn't this report is simply a snapshot of today's figures projected into the future? As today changes and those figures change so will the guessitmate of life expectancy. Keep in mind too, that this is a disease that's only been known about for less than 30 yrs. The facts are constantly evolving as the science and meds have improved.
and once again I point out that studies just like this have been done for years, and this math/science has been very profitable for the life insurance industry for a long time.
-
however this report's data is not based on a hypothetocial number of who "might" be infected but actual reported infections. so aren't the numbers in this report actually more accurate based on acutal infections and people actually on HAART?
No -- failure to adjust the data for migration of people into infected status potentially overstates mortality rates and understates longevity.
For more history on problems caused by failure to appropriately hand migration google the Breslau and Northhampton tables.
Especially since the conclusions of this study are basically how much HAART has extended our lives. Averaging in all the hypothetocial people infected but not on meds would not be helpful.
do you really take issue with these findings? We known before HAART the avg. span after diagnosis of HIV to AIDS was +/- approx 10 yrs. and the avg life span after AIDS diagnosis was only 18 month. (those are the numbers for life expectancy of those hypothetical infected by not on meds people I mentioned earlier) With the first meds life expectancy increased to 10.5 and now with the better treatments that avg has grown to over 20 yrs. - and that of course is continuing to grow as we receive more data each year about the people who have survived.
As I have pointed out before no one has yet to live on Atripla for 30 yrs so we can only guess that it the outcome. So it does look like the life expectancy number will change further as time goes by. Isn't this report is simply a snapshot of today's figures projected into the future? As today changes and those figures change so will the guessitmate of life expectancy. Keep in mind too, that this is a disease that's only been known about for less than 30 yrs. The facts are constantly evolving as the science and meds have improved.
The point was not to take issue with the finding that life expectancy has increased. But instead to suggest that the data set used here appears to be less trustworthy and the group less similar to members of the Forums than those used in the Aids cohort study.
and once again I point out that studies just like this have been done for years, and this math/science has been very profitable for the life insurance industry for a long time.
Yes... I agree that studies similar to this are done. But if you delve further into the literature there are ample references that studies of this nature are very sensitive to the data and population used. This particular study does not appear to use data of the quality typical of the other applications you cite to, and the population under study does not generalize well to the members of this Forum.
-
No -- failure to adjust the data for migration of people into infected status potentially overstates mortality rates and understates longevity.
I see your point. It's also the problem for any number related to HIV/AIDS - until everyone on the planet is tested, we can only guess as to the upper limits of how many are truly infected. And not knowing that surely skews everything that gets said about HIV.
But instead to suggest that the data set used here appears to be less trustworthy and the group less similar to members of the Forums than those used in the Aids cohort study.
....
This particular study does not appear to use data of the quality typical of the other applications you cite to, and the population under study does not generalize well to the members of this Forum.
We used US national HIV surveillance data from 25
states with name-based HIV surveillance since 1996. States
included in the analysis were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. HIV diagnoses among adults and adolescents
($13 years) from 1996 through 2005 with followup through
2007 and reported to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) without identifying information through
June 2008 were included.
I agree that the data set doesn't include everyone in the US in these forums, as the states are a little skewed to the South. However except for a few LTSes, everyone in those 25 states in these forums (from 1996 to Jun 2008) is a part of these numbers. So I don't know that I would say that this info isn't similar to or doesn't generalize well to the the forum members. ;)
The point was not to take issue with the finding that life expectancy has increased.
and that's the point I think many people didn't quite see in this report. It's not so much that this report means you'll die in 22.5 yrs. It shows that people used to die in 10 yrs and now it's extended to 22 yrs - and that count is still going up. While some people joked with black humor about it, others seemed to be compelled to raise the "optimistic banner" to somehow try to refute the results - and all the while the results of this report are actually incredibly optimistic. At least they are when viewed from the perspective of history or by a LTS. Of course this report can't predict how long a newbie is going to live; as that data is still coming in; but as a person that started meds in 1993, it is accurate that I have lived nearly an extra two decades than all my friends who didn't have meds and died. (oops. I just realized that I'm probably not part of this data. :( LOL)
-
tommy246
I guess you are referring to this (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608611137/abstract) study, and in particular, this sentence:
Life expectancy at age 20 years increased from 36·1 (SE 0·6) years to 49·4 (0·5) years.
Be aware that 49.4 is the estimated age of death, not the extension time.
Now as shows the population pyramid below, and despite a life expectancy at birth of 78 years in the USA in 2010), estimated at 80 by 2025), you will still have people living till 100 years old and more.
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6753/poppyrusa2010.th.png) (http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6753/poppyrusa2010.png)
Source (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php)
I would believe that a comparable distribution should exists within HIV+ people, as I like to consider HIV as an "aging disease", increase our age by an absolute value (negative if its the AYLL) or by a coefficient (and as such, increase some health risks). So the comparison with the pyramid. No matter if this philosophical approach is correct or not, or if the HIV population pyramid will look the same or not, what is sure, is still that, as in the normal population, some will live longer than the median, some not.
Anyway, still, we have to enjoy safely our life as much as possible.
Hi john i think you are wrong it means to live an extra 49 years from aged 20 to a total age of 69 , that is what it also states if you read the article entitled" life expentancy increases" in the most popular stories section on this website
-
The average number of years remaining to be lived at age 20 years was about two-thirds of that in the general population in these countries.
US Life expectancy at birth in 2005: 79
79*2/3 = 52.7
So the remaining years to be lived at age 20 years: 52.7-20 = 32.7 years [1]
Life expectancy at age 20 years increased from 36·1 (SE 0·6) years to 49·4 (0·5) years.
49.4-20 = 29.4 years [2]
[1] consistent with [2] (taking into account "..was about two-thirds..")
Note
In blue, extract from the study
Note
On-going research gonna lead to a functional cure, my personal conviction.
Such studies for me will be nice to read by then, when I will be at +10 years after the LEAB.
-
No john your wrong go to the this forum homepage find the most popular stories section and click on the one entitled LIFE EXPECTANCY WITH HIV INCREASES DRAMATICALLY. Then read it you will find a sentence that says ANYONE STARTING ART TREATMENT TODAY AT 20YEARS OF AGE IS EXPECTED TO LIVE TO THE AGE OF 69 YEARS OLD.
-
I don't even want to know what they think my life expectancy is to be frank. If I make it to 70 in one piece I'll do my celebrating then.
-
who wants to be old and hiv anyways ???!!!
-
who wants to be old and hiv anyways ???!!!
I could go without the hiv, but I wanna be old. I'll be clinging onto life and shaking my walker at death, cruising the old folks home for "hotties" (time adjusted of course).
-
who wants to be old and hiv anyways ???!!!
I wanna grow old so I can hit on all the young-ins.....of course by that time I sure hope I am HIV free. ;D
-
I live in Europe so I will hopefully live longer.
I am happy now because my triglycerides are normal even on Kaletra,
omega-3 is doing the trick.
I'm all into sports now, jogging/running, soccer, gym,
and would love to engage into some really cool stuff like windsurfing. ;D
HIV made me a sporty person. ??? :o
-
I live in Europe so I will hopefully live longer.
What's that mean? Live longer than us poor, misfortunate souls in America? IIRC you live in Croatia, and the avg. life expectancy there is 2.3 years lower than here. Take care now.
-
No, what I meant:
1. because there are only 500 cases of HIV/AIDS (to 4 million of inhabitants), the medication is free of charge, it is not even covered by a medical insurance system but given directly by the government (thru Medical School Infectious Diseases clinics)
2. this means interruption of treatment is less likely
3. it is interruptions of treatment that mess up w/the US data on HIV
Life expectency here would be higher if it hadn't been for 5 years of war (1990-95)
But as they say: there is no such thing as a free lunch
(so my advice to Bask as Catalans: accept your Spanish blood to live longer ;D )
BTW, I've recently moved to an island and the life expectancy is higher here ;):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080454/
-
3. it is interruptions of treatment that mess up w/the US data on HIV
Can you elaborate and provide me with some sources to support this assertion? Thanks.
-
Dr. Gallant responded to someone asking about this study:
On Feb 4, 2010 Joel E. Gallant, M.D., M.P.H. replied:
Beware of people who make liberal use of the word "Truth." They're either trying to pull something over on you, or they're just not thinking clearly. Be even MORE wary of those who "demand the truth!"
What this study says is that the AVERAGE life expectancy increased from 10.5 years to 22.5 years from 1996 to 2005. This average comes from a cohort that includes patients with extensive resistance from pre-HAART therapy, patients with comorbid conditions such as hepatitis C and kidney disease, injection drug users, patients who started therapy with advance disease, and patients who didn't take their medications. The point of the study, as mentioned by the authors in their conclusions, was to point out disparities in life expectancy between men and women and between whites and minorities, not to determine the "true" life expectance of someone with HIV infection.
In short, this study was never intended to tell you what your life expectancy is. A more relevant study was the French Aquitaine cohort, which found that IF you achieve an undetectable viral load and a CD4 count above 500 on ART and maintain those results for several years, then your life expectancy is the same as that of the general population. For an individual patient, these are more useful results, because they provide a somewhat more individualized estimate.
I'm not sure why you feel that this study represents TRUTH and others don't.
LINK:
http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/q_a/patient/recent_questions/life_expectancy_truth_revealed.html?contentInstanceId=514569&siteId=7151
-
I wonder if this applies to me if I am half Greek and half Chinese.
-
I wonder if this applies to me if I am half Greek and half Chinese.
That's a hot combination.
-
That's a hot combination.
Perhaps it is however, I should have put "if" in bold print. I am actually German Irish.
-
Perhaps it is however, I should have put "if" in bold print. I am actually German Irish.
I'm half German, a quarter Irish and a quarter Scottish. (mother was first generation half German, half Scottish and father was first generation half German, half Irish)
Whenever I mention being half German to a Scouser (someone from Liverpool), they tell me "you bombed our chippies!" (said in a Beetles accent). My father was a tail-gunner in WWII for the USAF. That usually shuts them up.
I come from some pretty sturdy stock. People on my mother's side all live long lives and the same on my father's side, aside from those who died from cirrhosis of the liver on both sides. Wonder if anyone's done a study on life expectancy of poz people who come from European alcoholic ancestry?
-
I'm half German, a quarter Irish and a quarter Scottish. (mother was first generation half German, half Scottish and father was first generation half German, half Irish)
Whenever I mention being half German to a Scouser (someone from Liverpool), they tell me "you bombed our chippies!" (said in a Beetles accent). My father was a tail-gunner in WWII for the USAF. That usually shuts them up.
I come from some pretty sturdy stock. People on my mother's side all live long lives and the same on my father's side, aside from those who died from cirrhosis of the liver on both sides. Wonder if anyone's done a study on life expectancy of poz people who come from European alcoholic ancestry?
Im british ann with english irish scottish and welsh ties , but grew up in england and one thing is for sure if the british drinking culture carries on unchecked a large chunk of our population will be dying young with liver problems. I used to drink far to much i suppose the one plus to come out of my hiv diagnosis is that my drinking is well under control.
-
So scared, doctors in Viet Nam always advise that infeted people use Haart may keep their life for another five years. >:(
-
5 years is a manufacturer's guarantee :)
when HIV meds are tested, they are tested for 5 years,
not for 50 years ;D
-
This topic keeps coming up over at Dr. Gallant's site. I noticed Inch already posted Dr. Gallant's response. However, someone asked him again about this and he referred them back to his original remarks.
I'm wondering what you guys thought of Dr. Gallant's response to this life expectancy study. Is he pretty much right on? When Inch posted it, it didn't generate much debate and this thread died out. Sorry to bring back a zombie thread--well, not totally zombie but recently buried.
http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org//q_a/patient/recent_questions/re__chronic_manageable_condition.html?contentInstanceId=534160&siteId=7151
-
This topic keeps coming up over at Dr. Gallant's site. I noticed Inch already posted Dr. Gallant's response. However, someone asked him again about this and he referred them back to his original remarks.
I'm wondering what you guys thought of Dr. Gallant's response to this life expectancy study. Is he pretty much right on? When Inch posted it, it didn't generate much debate and this thread died out. Sorry to bring back a zombie thread--well, not totally zombie but recently buried.
http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org//q_a/patient/recent_questions/re__chronic_manageable_condition.html?contentInstanceId=534160&siteId=7151
If by "right on" you are interpreting his remarks to say that if you take your pills you are likely to live to a ripe old age without noticing a huge effect on your life chances due to HIV... then yes.
If you interpret them to say that HIV is a nonevent if you take your pills... then no. (Sometimes, people interpret his remarks or these studies to say that if you take your pills regularly your life chances are the same as if you didn't have HIV. And none of the studies actually show that. Even the French Aquitaine cohort study doesn't -- since groups of people who can actually manage to take their pills and stay adherent over the long term probably would have had better than average life expectancies absent HIV and this study merely shows them at the general population average. )
So take your pills and see your doctor(s) and stop worrying about dying young. You may lose a year or so of decrepitude, but that's decades of life and medical discoveries away from now for you.
A (who is a decade or two closer to decrepitude than most here ;D )
-
If by "right on" you are interpreting his remarks to say that if you take your pills you are likely to live to a ripe old age without noticing a huge effect on your life chances due to HIV... then yes.
If you interpret them to say that HIV is a nonevent if you take your pills... then no. (Sometimes, people interpret his remarks or these studies to say that if you take your pills regularly your life chances are the same as if you didn't have HIV. And none of the studies actually show that. Even the French Aquitaine cohort study doesn't -- since groups of people who can actually manage to take their pills and stay adherent over the long term probably would have had better than average life expectancies absent HIV and this study merely shows them at the general population average. )
So take your pills and see your doctor(s) and stop worrying about dying young. You may lose a year or so of decrepitude, but that's decades of life and medical discoveries away from now for you.
A (who is a decade or two closer to decrepitude than most here ;D )
^ Exactly my thoughts on the matter
-
to funny trey I am already shaking my walker for them hotties
-
I'm half German, a quarter Irish and a quarter Scottish. (mother was first generation half German, half Scottish and father was first generation half German, half Irish)
Holy crap Ann, you and I might be brother and sister. I am also half German, a quarter Irish, and a quarter Scottish!