POZ Community Forums
Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits => Research News & Studies => Topic started by: leit on September 09, 2008, 03:23:28 pm
-
http://www.poz.com/articles/hiv_cure_fauci_401_15255.shtml
AND...
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/518250
In particular, please see Table 1 - Patient's 4 "Duration receiving antiviral therapy" and "Time to eradicate" and do a calculation, considering also that the report dates back to October 2006 and so another couple of years has passed...
-
7.7 years of continuous therapy to completely eliminate latently infected resting CD4+ T cells in infected individuals who initiate antiviral therapy early in HIV infection it seems like not a very long time yet CD4 T cells are not the only cells that carry the latent virus. But there are few other cells: macrophages, dendritic, Langerhans's, reproductive organs, brain, lymph nodes a long list to concentrate on would all these compartments be clean of the virus hard to tell, it would be wonderful if it worked. I would hope it works but according to researchers in the 90's haart alone cannot eradicate, cure h.i.v. But again we all make mistakes it could work for some people. For now I just hope for better treatments, and in the mean time we should put more research into people that have been on treatment for at least 7,8 years and have remained undetectable. With time they will find out what works, hopefully sooner rather than later...
-
CD4 T cells are not the only cells that carry the latent virus.
Ok, but, in the paper above, Dr. Fauci talks of "Time to eradicate"!!!
With time they will find out what works, hopefully sooner rather than later...
Time is already up for "Patient 4"!
(http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/na101/home/literatum/publisher/uchicago/journals/production/jid/2007/195/12/518250/images/medium/tb1.gif)
The paper was received on 10 October 2006, i.e. 23 months ago.
So, if I'm not wrong, the updated column "Duration receiving antiviral therapy, months" is:
59.6 (Patient 1)
54.1 (Patient 2)
61.1 (Patient 4)
64.9 (Patient 5)
66.7 (Patient 7)
60.8 (Patient 8)
77.0 (Patient 10)
Converted in years:
4.97 (Patient 1)
4.51 (Patient 2)
5.09 (Patient 4)
5.41 (Patient 5)
5.56 (Patient 7)
5.07 (Patient 8)
6.42 (Patient 10)
Therefore, now Patient 4 is 2 years beyond (about 65% more!) his extimated "Time to eradicate" (3.09 years).
If he is sure of what he keeps telling, why doesn't Dr. Fauci stop patient's 4 HAART? This would be the proof of the pudding. Many years ago, Dr. Ho did that and, unfortunately, his theory (eradication by HAART in 2-3 years) turned out to be wrong. Nevertheless, he remains a highly considered HIV scientist (and he actually is one of the best, IMHO). So, what is Fauci afraid of?
P.S. BTW, Patient 4 was already slightly beyond his "Time to eradicate" when the paper was received by The Journal of Infectious Diseases.
-
I guess we would have to ask Dr. Fauci. Yes he sure is a respected researcher yet he should also be able to back up his claims on a larger scale.
Dr.Anthony Fauci is a NIAID Director. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/links_policies/contact.htm to contact NIAID response within 7-10 days
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/biography/
-
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/links_policies/contact.htm to contact NIAID response within 7-10 days
Thanks, "tash08", but I tried similar ways sooooooo many times you can't imagine. Result: always kind, evasive answers. Now I'm a bit tired.
But if you attempt and are luckier, I will be glad of it.
-
Leit,
I'm very confused about your reactions to my original postings of Fauci's statements of a Functional Cure weeks ago only to see you try to start up this conversation now.
Perhaps the moderators can merger this into earlier thread http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=22423.0 which certainly deserves a bump as a reminder to some about some of the posts that are being made.
I'm also publicly asking the moderators to consider giving Leit his own research thread as they did with Bizmarek where they can merge all his multiple threads into one concise and easy to find and reference location for him.
Thanks.
-
Perhaps the moderators can merger this into earlier thread http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=22423.0
This thread has little to do with the one you quote, 'cause it refers mainly to a study dating back to 2006, not to the last IAC.
I'm also publicly asking the moderators to consider giving Leit his own research thread as they did with Bizmarek
A "pariah thread"? No, thanks. First: WHO ARE YOU TO KEEP TELLING THE MODERATORS WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO? Second: if the moderators think my post are stupid, not well-grounded, confused or so, I prefer to be directly banned (even if I couldn't understand why).
As for you, I would be GLAD if you put me in your ignore list and stop posting in this section your COMPLETELY OT messages that are ONLY gratuitously hostile to me.
-
Leit:
The fact remains, you shouldn't have started a new thread on this matter. You appear to be reading the threads in the Research News and Studies forum and should have known that your discussion of the study above -- which Fauci detailed in his discussion of a "functional" cure -- should have been used to to further a forums discussion already taking place. I am therefore going to combine this thread with the original one started by Iggy -- once I know you've read it.
You have a habit of doing this. Another example: The content of "(XVII IAC) Great Siliciano (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=22441.0)" and "Possible reservoirs' purging agent in "a year from now or even less? (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=22659.0)" should have been written into this thread: "Siliciano and his intriguing title (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=22388.0)."
The fact is, Leit, you're basically spamming the Research News and Studies forum with various links to reports without providing any context for your very vague questions... or clear a discussion or what you find so interesting about it (or not).
Therefore, the first thing I'm going to request that you do is keep all of the comments you have about a particular research finding/hypothesis in one thread -- and be sure to write subject lines that CLEARLY spell out what, in fact, you're writing about (your subject lines are often vague and flip). The second thing I'm going to ask you to do is to take some time to spell out your comments and not simply post every little report elsewhere on the web that grabs your attention. If you're looking to foster communication in this Forum with others, consider by starting with a thoughtful and reasoned message.
Tim Horn