POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: tommy246 on March 03, 2010, 09:57:33 am
-
I have just been reading the article on the home page by tim horn regarding the news coming out of the croi 2010 conference , basically saying that if we can keep our cd4 over 500 we can expect to live a full life expectancy. Just wondering what you folks generally think about that information
-
I have just been reading the article on the home page by tim horn regarding the news coming out of the croi 2010 conference , basically saying that if we can keep our cd4 over 500 we can expect to live a full life expectancy. Just wondering what you folks generally think about that information
i think it's one more nail (of many, many more to come) in the coffin of the "wait to treat, let them suffer a bit first so they don't screw up their meds n give us all resistant virus!" ideology...
-
i think it's one more nail (of many, many more to come) in the coffin of the "wait to treat, let them suffer a bit first so they don't screw up their meds n give us all resistant virus!" ideology...
Wait to treat has more to do with the side effects of the drugs on your system than any group's consensus on the inability of HIV positive patients to remain adherent to their medications.
The points is how much damage will the virus do to your system over any given period of time versus how much damage will the drugs do to your system over any given period of time.
-
i think it's one more nail (of many, many more to come) in the coffin of the "wait to treat, let them suffer a bit first so they don't screw up their meds n give us all resistant virus!" ideology...
I suppose, if there was a coherent thought in your post, it would add to the thread, but I do not see one. What does the suggestion of keeping CD4s above 500, with the goal of a normal life expectancy, have to do with giving us all a resistant virus?
-
Wait to treat has more to do with the side effects of the drugs on your system than any group's consensus on the inability of HIV positive patients to remain adherent to their medications.
The points is how much damage will the virus do to your system over any given period of time versus how much damage will the drugs do to your system over any given period of time.
actually it doesn't...it just used to. in the last 5 years u see less mention of toxicity concerns n more mention of "will they take the meds seriously, or will they poorly adhere n produce resistant virus".
-
I suppose, if there was a coherent thought in your post, it would add to the thread, but I do not see one. What does the suggestion of keeping CD4s above 500, with the goal of a normal life expectancy, have to do with giving us all a resistant virus?
what is it with some of u people with ur incredibly half-assed insults n poor reasoning skills? i certainly don't care what u see, but for those less catty than urself n in need of guidance, i'll say the following:
ur lowest cd4 count haunts u...the lower it goes, the harder it is to bring back up and damage to the inmmune system is more longterm and/or permanent. the best way to have cd4 counts over 500 is to KEEP them there, and not lot them sink below that number.
ur post count is not ur IQ, try to remember that. ::)
-
what is it with some of u people with ur incredibly half-assed insults n poor reasoning skills?
srsly
-
what is it with some of u people with ur incredibly half-assed insults n poor reasoning skills? i certainly don't care what u see, but for those less catty than urself n in need of guidance, i'll say the following:
ur lowest cd4 count haunts u...the lower it goes, the harder it is to bring back up and damage to the inmmune system is more longterm and/or permanent. the best way to have cd4 counts over 500 is to KEEP them there, and not lot them sink below that number.
ur post count is not ur IQ, try to remember that. ::)
Coming from someone that posts incorrect information over and over? Give me a break.
-
what is it with some of u people with ur incredibly half-assed insults n poor reasoning skills? i certainly don't care what u see, but for those less catty than urself n in need of guidance, i'll say the following:
ur lowest cd4 count haunts u...the lower it goes, the harder it is to bring back up and damage to the inmmune system is more longterm and/or permanent. the best way to have cd4 counts over 500 is to KEEP them there, and not lot them sink below that number.
ur post count is not ur IQ, try to remember that. ::)
Wow, just wow. I ask a question and this is your response? Maybe you need to find another forum.
-
actually it doesn't...it just used to. in the last 5 years u see less mention of toxicity concerns n more mention of "will they take the meds seriously, or will they poorly adhere n produce resistant virus".
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
You are creating a strawman argument by falsely quoting some imaginary doctor. The fact of the matter is that while toxicity is definitely DOWN amongst most medications there is still a reasonable risk of heart issues (Abacavir), kidney issues (Tenofivir) and liver issues (hell all of them?). The point being that for 5-10 years most of these products are not immediately toxic but in the longterm the wear and tear might just be what kills us rather than the disease itself. I'm 28 and currently taking Atripla if I remain on the same regimen for the rest of my life there are no current 30 year studies to tell me whether or not Tenofivir is going to knock out my kidneys by the time I'm 60.
You sir are just dead wrong.
-
what is it with some of u people with ur incredibly half-assed insults n poor reasoning skills? i certainly don't care what u see, but for those less catty than urself n in need of guidance, i'll say the following:
Hell, Jeton, what is it with you? Did you need read my request for you to chill in another thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=31562.msg385957#msg385957) earlier today?
Consider yourself warned. The next time you level a personal insult at someone -- and, no, the message YOU reported was not a personal insult, so please don't go pointing fingers -- you'll be on a time out. You're certainly not the first person who has entered these forums with a huge chip on his shoulder who may end up getting bounced real quick.
-
Well for my part being only diagnosed 14 months ago i find this information very encouraging and just goes to show how far the meds have improved over the years . As one poster says who knows what atripla might do over 30 years but its been going a good few years now and in general doing a fine job. New meds are coming along all the time and hopefully that trend will continue and bit by bit becoming less toxic . Anyway thanks for the update Tim .
-
One more thing...
While there are a number of studies concluding that "early" treatment -- before CD4s fall below 350 -- is a good idea, the study cited here isn't necessarily one of them. This has to do with getting and keeping CD4s above 500 while on treatment; it doesn't take into account when people actually started therapy (i.e., with either a low or high CD4 cell count nadir).
This study -- it does have a weakness in that it only followed patients for an average of 3.5 years and its conclusions are based on estimates, not hard morbidity and mortality data compared with the general population -- found encouraging results for those who both had low and moderate CD4 counts and eventually increased them to above 500 (and kept them there), as well as those who had higher CD4 counts upon starting treatment.
This is certainly one of many studies suggesting that ARV treatment works -- and works well. It isn't, however, study to prove when treatment should be started. Of course, people who delay treatment have a harder time getting their CD4s above 500, but for those who do, the calculations cited in this study suggest comparable life expectancy. At least among men -- women in this study still faced a disadvantage, no matter where their CD4s were at after three years of treatment.
-
Hell, Jeton, what is it with you? Did you need read my request for you to chill in another thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=31562.msg385957#msg385957) earlier today?
Consider yourself warned. The next time you level a personal insult at someone -- and, no, the message YOU reported was not a personal insult, so please don't go pointing fingers -- you'll be on a time out. You're certainly not the first person who has entered these forums with a huge chip on his shoulder who may end up getting bounced real quick.
warn away, nuke my account...u r willfully blind to the more or less continual attack i've been under in these forums, and clearly u find managing agreeable personalities preferable to open debate about valid science and research. *while i'm still here*, i will not simply absorb attacks, including one particularly venomous queen describing my social life in the NYC poz community as limited to "a stuyvesant park bench".
-
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
You are creating a strawman argument by falsely quoting some imaginary doctor. The fact of the matter is that while toxicity is definitely DOWN amongst most medications there is still a reasonable risk of heart issues (Abacavir), kidney issues (Tenofivir) and liver issues (hell all of them?). The point being that for 5-10 years most of these products are not immediately toxic but in the longterm the wear and tear might just be what kills us rather than the disease itself. I'm 28 and currently taking Atripla if I remain on the same regimen for the rest of my life there are no current 30 year studies to tell me whether or not Tenofivir is going to knock out my kidneys by the time I'm 60.
You sir are just dead wrong.
the longterm toxicities of current first line therapies will remain under investigation, and the overall impact of those toxicities will remain unclear without years of more data. there is data on the longterm toxicity of unchecked viremia, however...for most, it isn't pretty.
-
warn away, nuke my account...u r willfully blind to the more or less continual attack i've been under in these forums, and clearly u find managing agreeable personalities preferable to open debate about valid science and research. *while i'm still here*, i will not simply absorb attacks, including one particularly venomous queen describing my social life in the NYC poz community as limited to "a stuyvesant park bench".
Well, OK, you asked for it, you got it. Seven day Time Out.
Ann
-
to go back to the post.... Life exp. and quality of life are 2 different things.I am one of the few who's CD4 counts never get above 300.. If you guys remember me ,Ive been poz since 86.. started meds only after PCP , since the meds.. be it HIV related or Med related I have dealt with Graves , breast lumps, HTN, and the list goes..
My point... we can not let our selves be marginalized... just the fact we have a pulse is not good enough
:-* miss you guys....
-
:-* miss you guys....
Miss you too Lis, long time no see...
-
Hey Sweetie,
Hope you are doing well and great to hear from you.
-
Kill and Skee... you zexy dudes... :o do you get what I said or did I pull another Lis..(thats where Moffie has to interpret)
-
Kill and Skee... you zexy dudes... :o do you get what I said or did I pull another Lis..(thats where Moffie has to interpret)
Hey Lillibet! :-*
MtD
-
Matty.. Ann.. Newt..Kill.. Moffie..Alan Lisa .scooter(founder of gathering idea) and all those that I missed.. you saved my life, and my belief in man kind..
HIJACK... I know.. but i couldn't stop myself :P
-
Hell, Jeton, what is it with you? Did you need read my request for you to chill in another thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=31562.msg385957#msg385957) earlier today?
Consider yourself warned. The next time you level a personal insult at someone -- and, no, the message YOU reported was not a personal insult, so please don't go pointing fingers -- you'll be on a time out. You're certainly not the first person who has entered these forums with a huge chip on his shoulder who may end up getting bounced real quick.
Maybe he is having a bad time, we should try to be more passionate about people" I am not suggesting tolerating insults or abusive language" but at least correcting them in right way: a PM asking the person if he is ok , or if he is having some bad time, HIV is a very stressful issue that could drive some people crazy some days, and few words of comfort could do a lot more than warnings
Cheers
-
Maybe he is having a bad time, we should try to be more passionate about people" I am not suggesting tolerating insults or abusive language" but at least correcting them in right way: a PM asking the person if he is ok , or if he is having some bad time, HIV is a very stressful issue that could drive some people crazy some days, and few words of comfort could do a lot more than warnings
Cheers
Read the prior posting history, I think it kinda speaks for itself ;D
-
This is the big debate I have daily. I wonder how much better I would feel on meds. I read studies saying meds could cause issues---organ damage. Then I read studies saying untreated HIV could cause damage to the same organs as well as immune damage. Some docs tell me to wait and others say to start. When I've asked Dr. Gallant or Dr. Young from thebody questions, they have said, "Why don't you just start meds?" It seems they are big believers in starting meds very early.
I guess it just comes down to starting when it is right for you? It is a very hard decision. If I knew that my numbers would be at a point in a 6 months or a year where I needed to start, then I may just start now. It would seem this short amount of time would get the virus under control, and 1 extra year of meds wouldn't be that big a deal.
I think I'm waiting on some definitive study that will tell me what to do. I realize that study probably isn't coming anytime soon.
-
The virus will far more damage to your squishy bits than the medications will. As evidence I cite the 1980s.
MtD
-
I agree knowing what i know now i would of insisted in starting meds earlier with such a low % .My doc seemed happy to let me hover around 16 % as i had high cd 4 count but i ended up in hospital . I certainly worried more when i was off meds about all the ifs and buts and now feel alot better and have piece of mind that my cd4 is on the up and viral load is on the down. ( I will confirm this later as im going for my results this morning).I was also very concerned about inflamation and the damage that does with my immune system in overdrive 24/7. Thats my thoughts but were all different and when to start meds is a very individual situation. i guess it depends how you feel body and mind . The bottom line is start before yur numbers get to low or your viral load gets to high.