From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Medicine related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This is an archive page, last updated 22 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Treatment controversy[edit]

HIV causes the gradual loss of a type of white blood cells known as "CD4 cells." Experts are evenly divided on when to initiate antiretroviral therapy. <ref> </ref> Some experts believe that treatment for HIV infection should be initiated as soon as the infection is diagnosed. Others, believe that treatment should not be initiated until CD4 cell levels fall. There is no empirical evidence for withholding treatment at any stage of HIV infection <ref> </ref> and death rates are almost twice as high when therapy is deferred (until the CD4 count falls below 500) compared to starting therapy when the CD4 count is above 500.<ref> </ref> There is an inherent conflict-of-interest between people with HIV-infection and some AIDS "researchers". Many AIDS researchers want to "prove" that a particular treatment is effective. Study subjects just want to stay alive. To prove a particular treatment is effective, researchers give the treatment to one group of study subjects and withhold that treatment from a control group of study subjects. Reaserchers then wait until a significant number of study subjects get sicker, or die. Then they count heads. If significantly more control subjects die than study subjects, the treatment is proven effective. As a rule it is generally known whether or not a particular treatment safely inhibits HIV replication ''in vivo'' before a phase III trial begins. So, scientifically literate people with HIV infection have no incentive to participate in clinical trials if we can get the drugs by some other means. Incentive to "volunteer" to participate in clinical trials is generated by keeping effective treatments off the market until phase III trials are complete. Since people with low CD4 cells die more rapidly than people with high CD4 cells, studies involving people with advanced disease take less time, and are completed. Studies involving people with higher CD4 counts are still under way. We already know, however, what the results of those studies will be. Virologists have, in fact, known all along. Drug treatment is less likely to fail when it is initiated early. <ref> </ref> <ref> </ref> People who start drug therapy when their CD4 count is normal, maintain normal CD4 counts indefinitely <ref> </ref> and gay men who start drug therapy shortly after becoming infected have normal life expectancies. <ref> </ref> In addition, people who are treated properly, and not subjected to medical abuse, are less likely to infect other people with HIV. So, in the long run, it is cheaper to treat everyone with HIV-infection then it is to ration out drug therapy. It is a crime against humanity for a medical researcher to knowingly withhold proper therapy. So, the contraversy over when to initiate therapy is hardly surprising. No AIDS reasearcher wants to go to jail, even when they belong there. San Fransico has been the first city in North America to start offering proper treatment to everyone with HIV-infection. <ref> </ref> However, unlawfull research and systemic abuse of people with HIV is still the norm throughout most of the world. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is rather lame[edit]

This should be one of our things, right? Sciency mediciney stuff? The article as it is, is rather puny and weak. This ain't my forte but we gots somebody who could punch this up? Yes? 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

More people have died of AIDS than in the Nazi holocaust. There is no doubt in my mind that most of those deaths could have been avoided. There is nothing that I want to punch up. However, there are two "scientists" who, IMHO, belong in jail. One is Anthony Fauci. The other is Canada's Anita Rachlis. I can think of at least a half a dosen local physicians who, in my opinion, are psychopathic and should be placed on long term disability. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What does the Holocaust have to do with this? Moreover, what have Fauci and Rachlis (two eminent and respected HIV scientists) done to offend you? MtDPinko Scum 05:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Fauci is responsible for the treatment practices that lead to 25 million deaths, more deaths than in the Nazi holochaust. Anita knows that she is killing her patients but she does it anyway. Doctors are not screened for psychopathy. As long as they are smart enough to fool their patients, they are free to kill with impunity. I knew Anita for well over a decade before I realized that she suffers from psychopathy. As long as Fauci and Anita are free to practice medicine, they will continue to kill. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaaaand you've just crossed the line from earnest holder of an opinion to swivel-eyed crank. MtDPinko Scum 08:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I'll go away and leave you to die in peace. I had assumed, incorrectly, that this Wiki is for people who think rationally. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any references besides your opinion to back up your accusations of criminal/negligent activity on the part of those you accuse? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Treatment Controversy"[edit]

I don't care for the moniker "AIDS carrier". It's obnoxious and inaccurate. Moreover this proposed addition is a mix of good if rather basic fact based stuff and opinion which is not necessarily supported by the references. Presumably there is a high-falutin' term for such a thing. MtDPinko Scum 04:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There exist individuals who are HIV-positive but are not AIDS carriers. I have no opinion regrading treatment of such individuals--they are very rare. Feel free to add [citation needed] tags. Otherwise, I would have no way of knowing what particular statments get your dander up. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "AIDS carrier". AIDS is a condition caused by HIV infection. I think you mean "it is possible to be HIV positive but not have AIDS", but you need to stop using the term "AIDS carrier". MtDPinko Scum 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For all practical puropses, everyone with HIV infection is an AIDS carrier. Convincing people with HIV infection that they are not AIDS carriers is part of the disinformation that Fauci used to convince peopole they do not need treatment. You would not now have clinically defined AIDS if you had obtained proper medication sooner. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So you see the term "AIDS carrier" as referring to an HIV positive person's potential to develop AIDS at some point. Is that it? Also, how do you know I wasn't diagnosed with AIDS at the same time as I was diangosed with HIV infection? MtDPinko Scum 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you were diagnosed with HIV and AIDS at the same time, you were probably infected about nine years before you were diagnosed. I've had persistant generalized lymphandinopathy (a symptom of chronic HIV infection) since January 1983. I don't have clinically defined AIDS. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
But the term "AIDS carrier" implies that they can spread AIDS - they can't, they can only spread HIV, which leads to AIDS, but, as you yourself have pointed out, isn't equivalent. ThunderkatzHo! 06:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you would like me show you how AIDS is spread, you'll have to buy me dinner and a few drinks first. --I haven't chosen a username yet. (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)