The Impending Crisis in Texas

Question:

Dear Gary, I’m glad you’re still with us, and hope you will be for a long, long time. HAART does seem able to dramatically lower viral load, and increase CD4+ cell count in some people, at least temporarily, and many people feel they’ve been helped by HAART to live longer. People like Christine Maggiore of Alive and Well, and Ed Sherbeyn, who has his own website, claim to be living long lives without any drug treatment. Yet many people are still dying of AIDS: some who take HAART, some who refuse treatment, some who try structured interruption of treatment. They are not here to give their opinions. Way back in the 80’s (I think it was 1986) a team of researchers (Gonda, et.al.) reported in "Nature" that Africans with "slim disease" (HIV-1) lived about a decade after primary HIV infection before developing AIDS and dying. This was prior to any AIDS drugs, without any "modern" medical treatment. Maybe, inspired by the seemingly miraculous success of antibiotics like penicillin and the sulfa drugs against bacteria, we expect too much of medical science. Viruses are extremely different from bacteria, and cannot be "poisoned" like bacteria, especially once they’ve infected a cell. Viruses must be targeted with antibodies, and infected cells must be indentified and killed, so they can’t produce more virus. This is done by our immune system, with varying degrees of success in different people. Stimulating, boosting, or replacing the immune system still seems the best bet for a truly effective treatment for any virus, including HIV, which is a lot trickier than most. Given the estimated 40% failure rate of HAART within the first couple of years (of course you could also say it’s a 60% success rate!) according to what Dr. Fox of NIH told several of us in a three-hour meeting after our tour of the new NIH AIDS vaccine lab, I hope there can be better treatments developed for HIV infection that will allow people to live even longer! And I’d still love to see a large-scale (at least several thousand people) "meta-analysis" of all approaches to HIV, comparing all kinds of treatments, including those who received no treatment. People deserve clear, objective information and answers to their questions so they can make their own choices. Thanks for your reply, Gary. "Keep on truckin’!" the "other Gary" http://gjminter.addr.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary: In the 1980’s and early 1990’s after an AIDS diagnosis (not HIV infection but rather progression to full AIDS) the expected lifespan was between 6 to 12 months with the largest number of patients falling in the 6 month to 8 month range. Since HAART there are literally tens of thousands of patients who had an AIDS diagnosis upon starting HAART therapy and who are still alive today. There was a Canadian Study that found in a cohort of about 200 AIDS patients that lifespan on HAART was expected to be around 15 to 20 years. This would be a 15 times increase over that expected pre-HAART lifespan. I personally was diagnosed with AIDS in 1995 with a CD4 count of 16 and viral load in the millions (3 bouts with PCP, and one with CMV the last PCP case I was days away from death), yet here 7 some years latter I am still here posting. With out HAART I most assuredly would not have survived. As many other posters to this newsgroup would not have as well. Gary Stein I know several people who have been positive for 16 to 20 years already! When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

Dear Betty and Gary, Thanks for the information, especially your personal testimonial, Gary. I am happy that you are with us, and I hope that you will continue to do well! Anything that helps people extend life and be healthier is great, and each time I’m asked by TAN (Treatment Action Network) to write to our Congressional delegation and the White House to support funding for all those who need medication I’ve done so, and I will continue to do so. I do wish the pharmaceutical firms would lower their prices so that no one is left out who would be helped by medications–North Carolina, where I live, has the longest waiting list among all the states for AIDS drugs! The drug companies are making all the money, and profits are quite high, so they should do their share to help lower costs when federal and state budgets are tight. Since much of the money for AIDS drugs is paid for by the taxpayers, and most of the research is done at public institutions (or private ones like Duke which receive government support and contracts), all information about research, expenses, and profits should be made public. The portion of AIDS research and treatment paid for by the taxpayers should be public property, instead of being totally controlled by private corporations with all the money going into private pockets. I’ve heard from others who, like you, feel they’ve been helped by HAART. The ability to lower viral load and increase CD4+ cell count is measurable evidence that there is a biological effect of HAART. I’ve also heard from folks like Christine Maggiore, Ed Sherbeyn (a formerly frequent poster on various lists who has his own website) and others who take no medication and have lived long, healthy lives so far, too. According to a 1986 (I think!) article in "Nature" (Gonda, et. al.) those suffering from "slim disease" (HIV-1)in Sub-saharan Africa were estimated to live about ten years after initial HIV infection, on average, with no drugs whatsoever! We must also remember that many people, despite the best medical care, including HAART, are still dying of AIDS. They are not here to give their testimony. I’d still be very interested in seeing a truly large-scale meta-analysis (studying thousands or tens of thousands of people retrospectively) comparing all types of HIV/AIDS treatment, including those who have not taken drugs, to get an idea of which treatments add the most years to life after initial infection, how many years, comparing all other markers including viral load, CD4+ counts, etc. And I still think we should continue vigorously pursuing all reasonable approaches to HIV treatment, especially immune therapy approaches. Given the 40% first-year "failure rate" of HAART (you could also call it a 60% "success rate"), which was directly told to several of us by Dr. Fox during our meeting at NIH last April, I don’t think HAART is the final word in AIDS treatment. Perhaps there won’t be a total "cure", but we should do the best we can to find more effective treatments that are even better than HAART. People should have the dignity of making their own informed choices, in collaboration with medical professionals if they wish, from a reasonably wide range of treatment options. People should be given clear, objective answers to their questions, not jargon or sales pitches. This should be true in all areas of health care, including AIDS. Well, thanks for the information, Gary and Betty! the "other Gary" http://gjminter.addr.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary: In the 1980’s and early 1990’s after an AIDS diagnosis (not HIV infection but rather progression to full AIDS) the expected lifespan was between 6 to 12 months with the largest number of patients falling in the 6 month to 8 month range. Since HAART there are literally tens of thousands of patients who had an AIDS diagnosis upon starting HAART therapy and who are still alive today. There was a Canadian Study that found in a cohort of about 200 AIDS patients that lifespan on HAART was expected to be around 15 to 20 years. This would be a 15 times increase over that expected pre-HAART lifespan. I personally was diagnosed with AIDS in 1995 with a CD4 count of 16 and viral load in the millions (3 bouts with PCP, and one with CMV the last PCP case I was days away from death), yet here 7 some years latter I am still here posting. With out HAART I most assuredly would not have survived. As many other posters to this newsgroup would not have as well. Gary Stein I know several people who have been positive for 16 to 20 years already! When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t

Response:

Gary: In the 1980’s and early 1990’s after an AIDS diagnosis (not HIV infection but rather progression to full AIDS) the expected lifespan was between 6 to 12 months with the largest number of patients falling in the 6 month to 8 month range. Since HAART there are literally tens of thousands of patients who had an AIDS diagnosis upon starting HAART therapy and who are still alive today. There was a Canadian Study that found in a cohort of about 200 AIDS patients that lifespan on HAART was expected to be around 15 to 20 years. This would be a 15 times increase over that expected pre-HAART lifespan. I personally was diagnosed with AIDS in 1995 with a CD4 count of 16 and viral load in the millions (3 bouts with PCP, and one with CMV the last PCP case I was days away from death), yet here 7 some years latter I am still here posting. With out HAART I most assuredly would not have survived. As many other posters to this newsgroup would not have as well. Gary Stein

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I know several people who have been positive for 16 to 20 years already! When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

I know several people who have been positive for 16 to 20 years already! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

Still a bit unclear about your psychic message–sometimes I do wish Miss Cleo were still around! Even though she was "just an actress" playing a psychic on TV! I’ve always written in support of TAC’s crusade for AIDS funding, to the White House and Congressional delegation. Yet I also want to know what the taxpayers are getting for their money. Couldn’t big pharma cut drug prices significantly and still make a profit? Couldn’t they cut down on those corporate salaries and marketing expenses and fancy offices and payments to various politicians, doctors, etc.? And how well do the drugs really work? How many additional years of life can be expected with various treatments? There’ve been so many high hopes and short-term apparent successes, only to be followed by dismal failure. I’ve heard from many who says HAART makes them feel much better, and it does lower viral blood count to low levels, at least for awhile. Yet in the long run, does it give additional years of life compared to those who receive no treatment? I’ve also heard from folks like Christine Maggiore and Ed Sherbeyn, and others who claim good health for many years without treatment with "antiretrovirals." Has there ever been a clear, objective, large-scale study of all approaches to AIDS, comparing actual length of life from date of initial infection? It would have to be a very large study to get a fair comparison of overall effectiveness. Anyone who is ill should have access to unbiased, honest facts giving comparisons among all possible options, as Consumer Reports does in its reports. I really would like to see how all types of treatment, including no treatment, herbal and naturalistic approaches, HAART, the new ones in the pipeline, compare with each other. I also think people should be informed if their doctor, AIDS group, or other advisor has any ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as being paid to attend conferences, give presentations, co-author articles, or any other conflict of interest. According to recent news articles, most oncologists in private practice buy chemotherapy drugs at deep discount from the drug companies and resell them at high markups to their patients. It has been estimated that 1/2 to 2/3 of the income of these private cancer doctors is from sales of marked-up cancer drugs! The common practice of paying AIDS doctors to attend continuing education seminars, or "consult" in any way, by drug companies, might be considered by a reasonable person to influence the doctor’s recommendation of which drugs they prescribe, whether to recommend early treatment or structured treatment interruptions (STIs), or not to prescribe drugs at all. There is such a cozy, incestuous relationship among AIDS doctors with the drug industry, and with health bureaucrats, politicians, medical journals, the media, research institutions, and AIDS service organizations, and the "lure of easy money has a very strong appeal" as the former Eagle wrote in "Smuggler’s Blues." Life often does imitate art! (Maybe because art imitates life in the first place!) Anyone have some comments on all this? Can anyone give links to clear, objective, large comparison studies of all various approaches to AIDS treatment? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? I’m glad you asked me because as your psychic friend I feel kwalified to answer on behalf of the Program Director of AWARE. After all I can read her mind. She meant that it was the *square root* of seven to twelve years added to the modulus of the ratio of their current life divided by all their past lives averaged by one third! If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). There was no change. Definately. Ignore the dead. The fact that I’m alive and those I know who didn’t get HAART died of AIDS should be overlooked. Move along no pills keeping people alive to see here… If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

I’m glad you asked me because as your psychic friend I feel kwalified to answer on behalf of the Program Director of AWARE. After all I can read her mind. She meant that it was the *square root* of seven to twelve years added to the modulus of the ratio of their current life divided by all their past lives averaged by one third! If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1).

There was no change. Definately. Ignore the dead. The fact that I’m alive and those I know who didn’t get HAART died of AIDS should be overlooked. Move along no pills keeping people alive to see here… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

When the Program Director of AWARE says that new medications have extended lifespan "7 to 12 years" is he saying this is the average lifespan of people with HIV, or that the AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years to expected lifespan? If the former, there really has been no change from the CDC’s estimated 10-year average from date of HIV infection till development of AIDS, which has been the case since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic, even among those studied in the 80s with African "slim disease" (HIV-1). If new AIDS drugs have ADDED 7 to 12 years, as his statement implies, this would mean that the AVERAGE length of life from first date of infection is now 17 to 22 years! I don’t seem to recall this ever being claimed. This is a crucial point: have any AIDS drug treatments proven ability to extend lifespan, and if so, by how many months or years? As I posted earlier, lots of people, including many state health officials, are loosely claiming that the AIDS drugs have given people longer lives, but I’ve yet to see a single backup of this claim. If anyone has one, please reply to this message. The same implied claims were made for AZT, then for protease inhibitors, then for HAART…..where’s the beef? Does anyone have contacts with this AWARE group, to get clarification? Gary http://gjminter.addr.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

some wire stories: http://www.kcitfox14.com/Global/story.asp?S=1088203&nav=2FDkDQTN 16 January 2003 HIV Med Cuts Possible by stefanie /dot/ bryant <at fox14 dot< tv A budget shortfall could keep thousands HIV-positive of Texans from getting their medications. Thursday, dozens of HIV patients went before members of the Texas Department of Health in Austin, urging them not to cut their benefits. Due to the rising costs of drugs, the health department is proposing to restrict the income cutoff for those who rely on the life-saving drugs. Amarillo’s Are We All Really Educated program is an organization that provides education, testing and counseling to those who are HIV-positive. Over the years, they’ve seen the positive affect medications have to those infected. Program director Allen Graves commented, "We know that these medications are increasing life expectancy spans anywhere from 7-12 years, possibly without symptoms, that’s when we had very few medications. Now, they have primarily categorized this as a chronic medication with a long-term life span." Because of an extended life span, HIV cases have risen 19 percent — and that’s not including how much it costs to treat someone with the medications, "One medication would run anywhere from $800-$1,200 month and we’re talking about a regimen of a ‘cocktail,’ so we’re looking at three medications." Cuts to the program could also hurt organizations like AWARE. Graves continued, "If one person is disqualified as a result of the guidelines, it’s going to impact our program." Graves says they will look at other avenues. "Their are pharmaceutical manufacturers out there, that have patient assistance programs. I think what it means is we’re gonna have to become more creative." A decision on the proposed cuts will be reached February 27th. http://home.klbk.com/Global/story.asp?S=1089181&nav=0zGYDREm Michelle Hayes State Budget Crunch Could Affect AIDS Funding For the past month, Kenneth Kendrick has been looking for funds to help his HIV positive clients pay for their medication. "It’s very scary to us knowing our clients won’t have the basic healthcare they need and we know we’ll loose a lot of people," says Kendrick. Right now, HIV patients who earn $17,000 a year or less get their meds for about $15 a month. But because Texas is tight on money, the state health department is considering lowering that income level from $17,000 to $12,000 a year. "Basically making minimum wage or not much above working full time would disqualify one person from this program," says Kendrick. "It’s a death sentence, that’s what it is," says Mary Jo Hayes, executive director for the South Plains AIDS Resource Center. She says the proposed cutback is. "They can end up with millions and millions of viruses per millimeter of blood and that won’t take very long to make them very sick, they’ll catch pnuemonia, thrash, all the diseases you and I can live with will kill them," says Hayes. It’s a situation Kendricks says could affect more than just the AIDS community. "People who aren’t treated will get sick quickly and that becomes a public health concern for everyone, as pnuemonia, TB, can spread because our clients immune systems are compromised by not taking their meds." But whether the state continues to pay for HIV drugs or not, ultimately someone will pay for it in the end. AIDS activists have been lobbying in Austin this past week and the Texas Department of Health will make a decision by February 27th.

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism