View Full Version : Value of CD4+Tcell count

February 24th, 2009, 02:09 AM
i think one of the most over-looked facets regarding the 'meds or no meds' debate is the question, 'does CD4 and Tcell count really matter?'

I've seen many studies on the web (here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989232) which basically say that people with good numbers and bad numbers on HART have the same chance of reaching immune failure.

Lets not kid ourselves. The ENTIRE reason that Western medicine tells hiv pozzers to get on meds is to reach an undetectable hiv level, thus decreasing our chances of reaching immune failure. This contention, however, doesn't hold water, when it turns out those with bad numbers have just as much success.

Doctors point to 1996, when triple cocktails came into vogue, to show that mortality went down, thus proving the meds work. Though correlation does not equal causation. My own theory is that the mortality went down in 1996, simply because the triple cocktails REPLACED the much more potent AZT. Basically, we substituted one major posion for a more tolerable triple cocktail of weaker poision... thus we didn't die as fast.

I've posted on The Body, asking the Doc has a study ever shown the mortality rates of HART patients after 1996, verses non-HART patients. Of course the answer was 'No'. The 2 groups have never been studied next to each other, the doctor citing that it would be 'unethical' to deny one control group the meds. What a crock.

John Bleau
February 24th, 2009, 03:05 AM
Actually, they have a very large basin of people that "should be taking the medicines" but aren't. See this page (http://www.myhivstory.blogspot.com/2005_02_26_archive.html).

Quote: "Other national data and published reports studied by the CDC showed that 480,000 HIV-infected people ages 15 to 49 should have been getting antiviral drugs in 2003, yet only 268,000, or 56 percent, were given such medication."

It always amazes me how these 212,000 not taking the meds who aren't dropping like flies as were the patients "benefiting" from AZT in the late '80s and early '90 isn't seen for what it is: proof that the "cure" (AZT) was worse than the disease. Also the fact that more than half of AIDS deaths nowadays are due to the side effects of the medications though only about half the patients are on the meds shows the meds to be no better than nothing and probably far worse.

And you're right: they keep comparing their stats with the AZT era, even though we have a nice large control sample available right now.

February 24th, 2009, 08:24 AM
Doctors point to 1996, when triple cocktails came into vogue, to show that mortality went down, thus proving the meds work. Though correlation does not equal causation. ...The other much simpler reason that mortality went down around the same time the meds were introduced was that they changed the definition of AIDS patients to include healthy HIV positive people. Previously it had only included people who had AIDS-defining symptoms and thus were actually very sick. No wonder that the stats magically improved as from that point on, they suddenly included a lot of very healthy people!!

What is interesting though, is that the decline in deaths occurred well before the meds were changed - something like 12 months before! This in itself should cast doubt on any suggestion that it was the introduction of new meds that caused the improvement - they weren't introduced yet!

John Bleau
February 24th, 2009, 03:39 PM
Brian, what you say is true, but a definition that increases the number of patients does not explain a decrease in overall deaths. In death rate, yes, but not in overall deaths.

Say the definition doubled the number of patients with the addition of healthy people, the death rate would halve. The figures I provide give 1.5K deaths per 36K AIDS patients in 2003 vs 27K per 36K in 1987. So, say it was 3K per 36K today - there are still 24,000 deaths in 1987 due to the meds.