Write a Comment
9 Comments
based on the research I believe it is nesesory to start the therapy be for waiting fot it cd4 count to drop for sure a cure one day will be found.and will be vacsinated againest AIDS
Why is it that the drug company is always trying to make decisions for the patient. If they recommend this then most doctors take it to be law and won't allow the patient to say that they are not ready for treatment. Trust me I know. With guidelines already in place I have to argue with doctors about not taking treatment. Positive 8 years and no health issues. Viral load is awesome and CD4's in the 600-560 range. My Viral load and cd4 contradict each other But they want 2 force meds on me?
In my own personal opinion I think it should be up to the patient when they should start treatment.Recommondation from doctors is fine.The problem i have seen over the years that is if you dont do what the doctor says.They refuse to see you as a patient causing more undo stress.I know people on meds who would kill for a cd4 count of 500 or higher.Medication started early doesnt mean you will have desired results.I can see the purpose,but dont agree with it.350 or less is a better number.To me.
I want to know where they get the info on life expectancy based on where the t-cell level was at the start of treatment? My t-cell count was 0 when I started treatment in '96. I certainly haven't lived anywhere close to how long I will (barring accident) before dying. These medications are still in their infancy and NOBODY knows what the eventual results will be. It will be decades before that will become apparent
The drug co must be involved in this. Where is the money to pay for all this to come from? ADAP is tapped out now dated, dangerous, not very effective AZT I'm showing has a wholesale price of generic 350 a month USA. Private insurance here and I know what 3tc,d4t, crix cost me when I took them for yrs. I won't start any drugs until I have to and my policy has limits, this is a cash cow for the drug manufactures treatment guidelines should be designed on a personal basis
Working with disadvantaged people in DC, I found that lifestyle cannot be changed readily for some to delay negative cardiovascular effects or decrease inflammatory effects of HIV, as Bellman suggests is possible. For these people, starting treatment earlier would be beneficial. I think that one must look at the individual.
I wonder how many within this panel of experts actually has HIV themselves, because the recommendations have always been to suggest treatment when the patient are damn near dead. AZT (prescribed at toxic levels) was withheld until the patient had an AIDS diagnosis, even though the virus infects all cells, the recommendation was not to provided drug therapy reinforcements until their immune system couldn't handle it. If you are doing well, my doc wants to recommend I go off meds. whats up?
Steven Dornbusch
Whether the CD4 threshold for treatment is 350 or 500, the thrust of the SMART guidelines is to treat everyone ASAP. There is a public health standpoint to this, but the social is counterposed to the individual patient, because of the haphazard and unequal way healthcare is accessed by various populations. when panel members can confidently state that the heart and other organs do not suffer long-term damage from ARVs, then I say "go for it". For now, I cannot agree with the new guidelines.
January 18, 2010 • Los Angeles