Fin Fang Foom has a question about AIDS drugs

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

It was mentioned here in another post how someone tested postive this past fall and was immediately put on AIDS drugs.

 

I'm negative so I haven't had to deal with this directly (thank God) but maybe someone here can explain something to me that makes no sense.

 

Why do they put guys on the drugs when they first test positive when it is YEARS before they even get the first symptom? It makes no sense to me. They make the guys feel like shit when they're "healthy" and you hear reports that the benefits of the "cocktail drugs" wear off over time. So why don't they put guys on the cocktail when they actually begin to show symptoms?

 

Inquisitively yours,

 

FFF

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

not all are put on drugs,

 

 

I was a rare case in which I became very ill in a matter of days of becomming infected. I lost 24 pounds in 14 days lying in bed with a flu of sort. At time of testing they where ignorant and did not test correctly, my illness lasted for another 3 months where I fought for recovery on my own and was tested at that time and put on medication. My recovery since the meds has been amazing yet difficult. I am now with a non detecable viral load and a t-cell count of 546 just after 4 months of being on this regiment. They are now discussing pulling me off them alltogether as they feel I am capable of fighting the infection on my own. GOD I HOPE SO

[Guest Bitchboy]

It has definitely become a personal choice thing. When my boyfriend tested postive, in 1996, it was thought that "hit it fast and hard" would be the best method of treatment. He did what he thought was best. While he's remained healthy, and never had any opportunistic infection, he has suffered from the drug combos he's been on. He often says if he had it to do over again, he would most likely wait until the virus had further progressed. As it is, he had over 700 T cells and a very low viral load when he first tested positive. His T cells remain about the same and he is non-detectable in the viral load department. I love him no matter what!

[vers7]

Bitchboy, do you know whether the aid specialists have changed their opinion with respect to immediately starting the cocktails? Is it now common practice to wait and see how one's immune system reacts to the disease before starting treatment?

[Guest LiLBlondBoy]

LIlBlondBoy ANSWERS

 

The problem with putting people on the drugs when they show symtoms is that some people never show symtoms...basically, a specialist (as my doctor is)

will only put a patient that is HIV positive on medicine if thier T-cell count is below 350 and thier viral load is above 30,000

(I would think that most all AIDS patients would fit in this critera as well )and the amount of time that takes depends on the induvidual...I have statistics here in front of me (obtained through houston's local montros clinic)

That say, that without medicine the average person could live 10 years, but , with todays medicine, that # as been extended indefinately.

 

also, they have found that the medicines are effective if taken in cycles (one week on one week off) (Doctor informed me of this)

 

BUt the best advice I can give is to ask an HIV specialist, they would be much more up to date , as new findings literallly are being found everyday.

I hope this helps!

 

Christopher

For more Info, Check Reviews or my homepage

http://www.rentaboy18.freehomepage.com

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

My doctor, an infectious diseases specialist at MGH and the 'gays doctor on campus' has recommended to me that at the slightest possibility of exposure he would put me on the AIDS drugs regimen for one month. Specifically, in the instance of a compromised condom or an accidental mouthful of ejaculate. He feels there is some possibility that attacking the virus at the very earliest stage may keep it from gaining a permanent foot hold.

 

FWIW

[Guest Traveler]

Most authorities would agree that if there may be an accidental exposure, one should take an HIV "cocktail" immediately (within hours) because this has been shown to reduce the chance of actual infection. The situation here would be a broken condom, a needlestick injury at work, and so on. Of course, this assumes the drugs are available and on-hand (i.e. a hospital worker who goes directly to the pharmacy)--calling your doctor on Monday won't do it.

 

Some authorities believe that it may also be useful to treat during early infection (before or during the primary infection phase, i.e. HIV viral load positive, HIV antibody negative). The rationale behind this is that there may be reduced seeding of the bone marrow, brain, and other organs.

Most, but not all, authorities now do not treat during latent infection: that is, HIV-antibody positive, low viral load and CD4 count above 500. The rationale here is that there is little activity going on, so using antivirals will only cause side-effects (including lipodystrophy, bad changes in cholesterol levels, and so forth) and viral resistance, without much benefit.

Of course, almost everyone agrees in treating when viral loads jump and/or CD4 levels drop below 400-500.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>Bitchboy, do you know whether the aid specialists have

>changed their opinion with respect to immediately starting

>the cocktails? Is it now common practice to wait and see

>how one's immune system reacts to the disease before

>starting treatment?

 

First, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was out of town until last evening. Secondly, I wish I were an expert in what is common practice in HIV treatments. Alas, I am smarter than I would have been if it were not for my boyfriend. All I know for sure is that he wouldn't have started on the cocktail back in 1996 if he knew then what he knows now. It seems many people do quite well on no medications for a long period of time. The side effects for him have been at times quite debilitating, and while his "disease" has not progressed (at least as far as we know) since he was first diagnosed, no one can say for sure that it would have without the drugs either.

 

He did go on a 9-month drug hiatus back in 1999-2000 and his viral load remained very low. His T cells did get down to around 400 which is the reason he eventually went back on the drugs.

 

I trust what LilBlondBoy and others like Michael. God bless them for their attitudes and openness.

[chrismac]

My friend with HIV told me that a few years ago, conventional wisdom had it that you attack the virus quickly, to prevent the "spirit" of your immune system from being compromised.

 

Now, many patients are being advised to go off the drugs for extended periods of time by their doctors, and monitored carefully. Many have shown no viral load increase over a period of several months (and ongoing). This will hopefully reduce toxicity levels in the patient, and mitigate long-term affects of the drugs.

 

We're learning more every day - let's hope a long-term non-toxic treatment will be available soon. Not only longevity, but quality of life depends on it.

[+ deej]

>We're learning more every day - let's hope a long-term

>non-toxic treatment will be available soon.

 

Better yet, let's hope a *cure* is available soon.

[chrismac]

>Better yet, let's hope a *cure* is available soon.

 

Amen to that! But seems they'll have vaccinations for negative testers first, which *may* also arrest and destroy the virus in positive testers. I think we're almost there - I'm sure there's more promising developments for HIV+ patients now than there ever have been in the past. It just can't happen fast enough...

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Better yet, let's hope a *cure* is available soon.

 

That would be truly wonderful.

 

Don't mean to be a pessimist - I guess I am, although I prefer to label myself as a realist - but I would like to see a survey of our members, with the question being...

 

"Do you believe there will be a cure for AIDS in the next 25 years"

 

I think my honest opinion would be "no"

 

Oh God! I hope I'm wrong.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>Oh God! I hope I'm wrong.

 

Never thought I'd say this around here }> but I hope you're wrong too.

 

I've heard (forgot where) that there are actual vaccines TODAY that are ready to go into human trial but there's no funding for the trials.

 

Wish I could dredge up that website!

 

These days, it's more important than *ever* to support your favorite AIDS research organization. Funding sure as hell ain't coming from Washington! (They appreciate Canadian money too!)

[chrismac]

>I've heard (forgot where) that there are actual vaccines

>TODAY that are ready to go into human trial but there's no

>funding for the trials.

 

I've actually heard that human trials are already scheduled to begin, or have begun - but I can't remember the source (I heard it on PBS radio I think during one of the talk shows). But it may not be in the U.S. - but some other country. Damn - wish I could remember the exact facts, but it stuck in my mind very clearly because I was still waiting for my PCR and Eliza tests to come back and going insane about it. To my recollection, they were using the vaccine in people with no HIV infection (HIV-). Don't know how they planned to test effectiveness, but of course placebos were also given to some subjects and I think the pool of test subjects was a risk group. Counseling was also available, as they obviously don't want to encourage anyone to increase their risks.

 

I just remember during those weeks that every single radio show or TV documentary seemed to discuss HIV and AIDS, as if to taunt me.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

No ticky, no tocky!

 

As with cancer and the common cold, there is more profit in treatment of AIDS than in providing a cure. The most conspiratorial AIDS activists I know (unfortunately, I mean the ones still alive) believe the government has a cure. I haven't kept abreast for the past several years, but, up to that time, the NIH was providing NO $$ for research leading to a cure for AIDS. Researchers were well aware of this and I don't even know if there were grants being written that were rejected. Pharmaceuticals, too, were not conducting research towards a cure.

 

Deej, there may be a valid reason that certain AIDS vaccines are not progressing towards Phase II or Phase III trials. Some of there efficacy is bogus though scientists working for the pharmaceuticals claim differently. There was an instance of an early AIDS vaccine which was not efficacious being promoted by Microgenesis which was being highly touted by scientists and politicians in D.C. After an uproar by ACT UP about more promising vaccines that were being denied funding for Phase II and Phase III trials, the testing of this vaccine was cancelled and the company went bankrupt.

 

Besides being the most politicized disease extant in the United States, the profit motive seriously, and all too often negatively, impacts research surrounding AIDS.

 

TAG (the Treatment Action Group) is a New York City-based non-profit that has lobbied the government and pharmaceuticals on research issues. I'm attaching their mission statement and a link to their website. They are usually very up-to-date and comprehensive in their publications. They have extensive archives.

 

Founded in January 1992, the Treatment Action Group (TAG) is the first and only AIDS organization dedicated solely to advocating for larger and more efficient research efforts, both public and private, towards finding a cure for AIDS.

 

http://www.thebody.com/tag/tagix.html

 

Best,

Jizz

[+ deej]

RE: No ticky, no tocky!

 

<< As with cancer and the common cold, there is more profit in treatment of AIDS than in providing a cure.>>

 

Gosh Jizz, you almost sound like Jeff Palmer now. }>

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: No ticky, no tocky!

 

nah; previous statements notwithstanding, i now think jeff palmer is a moron!

 

p.s.: thanks for link re. his barebacking. very moving and strong statements in the porn industry. is david forrest really going to dump palmer?

[+ deej]

RE: No ticky, no tocky!

 

>p.s.: thanks for link re. his barebacking. very moving and

>strong statements in the porn industry. is david forrest

>really going to dump palmer?

 

More is coming on tomorrow's upload.

 

Forest's only public statement (which he MAY have deleted but I have a copy) about the whole thing totally distanced himself from the decision and was very clear that the deal was made between Palmer and Jackson Price. Forest had no involvement. He DID say that Palmer's future at Forest Entertainment was extremely cloudy.

 

That's sorta strong language for an agent.

[buckguy]

Re: issues further up------

 

TCells of 200 or below = AIDS diagnosis

 

The conventional wisdom was hit hard-hit early until fairly recently. partly because of concerns about developing resistance, the normal practice has become more flexible and its common to wait fro symptoms. Drug holidays seemed to make things worse rather than better in early trials, which were very small. Now, it appears that breaks in treatment aren't harmful. The dark cloud in all this silver lining is that as many 40% of people at some clinics have developed resistance to the drugs. Adding to the cocktail helps in the short-run, but sadly, the news isn't hopeful for everyone. A real cure and an effective vaccine are what we need.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: No ticky, no tocky!

 

><< As with cancer and the common cold, there is more profit

>in treatment of AIDS than in providing a cure.>>

 

I have a large circle of friends in the medical community. Eight of my closest friends are doctors and when they are together socially, all they talk about is "their trade"

 

The view that a cure for cancer is possible but unlikely due to the profit motive associated with treatment, is a theory espoused by all of them. I have not heard it voiced quite as much about aids, but it would seem to be a logical conclusion to me.

 

Thunderbuns