Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

A 'lucky' few survived the early days of AIDS

LISA PRIEST

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:38 AM EST 09/08/06

In the mid- '80s, a diagnosis of HIV was almost a death sentence; today, new therapies offer hope for long lives ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Why are there treatments AIDS (a recent ailment) but still none for cancer (an 'older' illness)? Does this have anything to do with profits from the sale of medications? Is this a question for our drug companies??
  2. Robb Stevenson from Kelowna, Canada writes: While HIV/AIDS has become more manageable in recent years with the advent of newer therapies and more potent drug combinations, it is articles such as this one that have led to increased public perception that HIV/AIDS is no longer a public health crisis. Indeed, many teenagers and young adults perceive HIV/AIDS to be cureable. HIV/AIDS is not a chronic disease like high blood pressure or Diabetes. While those who contract HIV/AIDS now most certainly have a longer life expectancy, it is still a life laced with medications that cause severe side effects, and a death that though prolonged, is still very much similar to the wasting diseases that affected the first HIV/AIDS victims. HIV/AIDS is not a chronic illness; it is a death sentence. HIV/AIDS is changing, it is becoming more virulent. Strains are becoming resistant to current therapies, and in some cases the speed at which the virus moves from HIV infection to full blown AIDS and death occurs in a matter of years, not decades. While the condition may have become more manageable, the epicdemic is hardly over, it would be good for journalists to remember that.
  3. Tony Burson from Toronto/Campinas, Brazil writes: It is very hard to read even the headline in this article and not be saddened by the loss of so many friends and aquaintances during this time in the 80's. I frequently wonder what happened, some survived and so very many died. The sad thing is that so many outside North America, in Africa, Russia, China and Brasil continue to die when it is so very obvious that we do have the wherewithall to prevent death. It also pains to read of the amount of unprotected sex that continues within communities in Canada.
  4. Patricia Shapiro from Ottawa, Canada writes: So many were lost, including my dearly loved brother-in-law. I am very grateful for those that have survived. One I know is making an important contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS. We must find a way to share the benefits of medication with those outside North America, particularly in Africa.
  5. Jon Jon from los angeles, United States writes: Mr. Robb Stevenson (comment # 2), wrote: 'HIV/AIDS is not a chronic illness; it is a death sentence.' While I suspect that Mr. Stevenson's comment was of benevolent political motives (which I most likely share with him), it would be good for all of us to “remember” that “death sentences” are handed out by gangsters and the courts of countries with draconian, inhumane and archaic laws (such as the one I happen live in, but that’s another subject of unfortunate debate). No person in their right mind, dictates to another person when and how they are going to die. In 1987, I was told by my doctor that I had AIDS and three years left (five if I was “lucky”), to live. I was twenty-two years old in 1987, and naive enough to believe my doctor's 'prognosis.' As a forty-one year old man who has LIVED (and lived well), with HIV for nearly two full decades, it upsets me to hear anyone make assertions about another’s imminent death from HIV. It is a fact (and an existential mountain), that we all die; how and when remains undetermined until the fat lady sings!
  6. Manon Allaire from Ottawa, Canada writes: It's very sad the hear about HIV/AIDS. Not enough is done to help the people and their families infected with the disease. The Canadian government should do more to help fund HIV/Aids organizations and research.
  7. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Comment # 1 Roop Misir, that ridiculous conspiracy theory about drug companies preventing the cure for cancer to protect their profits has been around for decades, and it's complete nonsense. The theory is so full of holes I don't know where to start. First of all, unlike AIDS, cancer is not a single disease, it is a collection of more than 100 different diseases, which have in common only the single trait of uncontolled cell growth. Other than that, the various cancers are completely different diseases from one-another. Therefore, there NEVER WILL BE a single cure for cancer, there will only be cures to treat specific cancers, and these must be discovered one at a time. Second, there are already various cancers that can be cured. Hodgkins disease used to be a death sentence. It's survival rate is now 99% plus. Even advanced Hodgkins can be cured. Third, the fact that AIDS treatments have advanced so quickly proves that drug companies are NOT hiding treatments from the public. Fourth, if any drug company ever did find 'cure for cancer', that drug company would make a fortune. So why would they hide it? But as I said, no such 'cure for cancer' will ever exist.
  8. Ralph Wiggam from Springfield, Canada writes: #6 - as we were discussing on a similar thread yesterday, Canada likely spends too much on AIDS prevention and other related programs, considering that it is the FIFTEENTH greatest killer of Canadians, behind car accidents, psychosis and suicide, among other causes of death (according to the latest StatsCan figures). While 600 people died of AIDS and related illnesses in 1997, more than 58,000 died of cancer, and another 57,000 died of heart disease that same year. We still need to invest in research, for the sake combating AIDS in Africa, but it's important to realize that at home, there's other diseases that should be a higher priority, since they afflict much larger proportions of the population.
  9. David Jenkins from Edmonton, Canada writes: To poster number one, if you want to see something truly depressing, walk through any health sciences library and see the section on Cancer reasearch. It is staggering the amount of research that has been done on Cancer and to date we have 'cured' very few Cancers. The reasons behind this are not obvious to the lay-person, who view Cancer as a single disease, however the term 'Cancer' is a catch-all term for a spectrum of diseases. Cancer in it's simplest definition is 'the uncontrolled growth of cells within the body' and this can mean any kind of cells. The reason that we have been more successful with treating (not curing) HIV/AIDS is the fact that we are dealing with a single virus, albeit one that has the ability to mutate rapidly, and as such have just one target to focus on. I believe that in the future we will see much progess in the treatment of Cancer's as we learn more about the Human genome and start targetting Cancer at the molecular level.
  10. Sandra Bullock from Sweden writes: In response to Poster #8: The money spent on HIV research has helped in many ways. I don't believe money was spent out of proportion. First, the drugs that help people to live longer work by decreasing the viral load (the amount of free virus in the blood) to an undetectable level. While this keeps infected people's immune systems strong, it also means that it is much more difficult for the virus to be passed to another person (e.g., in case a condom breaks or slips off during sex). Because this is an infectious disease (spreadable person to person) the virus is now spread to many fewer people which helps to keep the number of people who are sick lower... without the drugs, the prevalence of this disease would be MUCH higher in North America right now (see Russia, Thailand,etc.) and the costs to the health care system would be HUGE. Second, the research done has increased general knowledge of immunology in leaps and bounds. Treatments for other diseases have been discovered along the way. Thus helping many more people than only those directly infected with HIV. So, along with the other posters comments about how you are lumping cancers together... your comparison between money spent on cancer and HIV is quite weak.
  11. Shawn B from Toronto, Canada writes: How many ignorant people are there in Canada? Do they all have theirs head stuck in the sand? Africa, Asia, Russia and now Eastern Europe - AIDS has pushed its way into mainstream society and still we talk about it like it won't happen to our self-centred population - WAKE UP! For those who think it only happens to 'sodomites' (that's how I was infected of course) or IDUs, I truly worry about your children, but before you get on your high horses about how moral your children are compared to the rest - take a good look at statistics. And please let go of the conspiracy theories - those living with AIDS are more likely to die of some type of Cancer than those not. And Jon Jon, take a look at your glasses, they are tinted a bit to rosey for my liking - you sound like those compassionate people that say.... you never know, I could get hit by bus tomorrow.
  12. Pat Gesner from Canada writes: I'm glad that otheres have tried to enlighten poater#1. Its appaling to think that in this day and age there are Canadians of adquate intelligence so ignorant about medicine. Is like scientists who s belief in God makes them unable to think that Darwin's theory of evolution has validity. They can only be "good " scientists in fields where evolution is not necessary for understanding their science. No wonder there is a lot of "Antibiotic resistant" illinesses. Doctors with no understanding of Evolution prescribed medicines with no thought for the consequences of future generations. Their own ignorance of the application of evolutionary theory to the mediciens they pescribed for people is shameful. NO doctor should be qualified unless he believes "evolution" is valid. Do post this - possibly people like #1 will then be not suprised when AIDS 'Cures" become impotentent like malaria and TB "cures" in a few years time. If he can not understand my post and that of those others who have replied , he SHOULD be aware he is very "deficit" in the benifits of having a resource like the www. Equating AIDS with Cancer !!!!!
  13. Ron Romhanyi from Hamilton, ON, Canada writes: #1 – The answer is really quite simple. Cancer is the mutation of healthy/normal cells in the human body. These mutations occur at the genetic level and to date, the truth is researchers are still not quite sure exactly how or why this occurs. The aftermath however is now dealt with quite effectively in most cases, with survival rates rising rapidly. HIV/AIDS, is a foreign viral invader, not innate to the human body and was more easily identified. At least researchers knew the nature of the beast they are dealing with. The simplest analogy unfortunately, is apples and oranges. Not a conspiracy.
  14. Hugh Vincelette from Vancouver, Canada writes: As a Canadian living in San Diego during the early years of the epidemic, I remember well several factors that enabled HIV/AIDS to reach global proportions, and it is all related to the absence of funding and the religious right. But that is not the issue I wish to address herein. For those who think too much is being spent on AIDS research, permit me to correct your errors. Research into HIV/AIDS is , by nature of the disease process itself; research into the two previously most ignored and poorly understood areas of health - immunology and virology. Doors have been opened that sceince never knew existed. Keep in mind that the average virus is about 1/100 the size of a bacterium. Until the complexities of electron microscopy were ironed out ; most viruses could not be visualized. We only knew they existed due to the presence of antibodies to them.Today we can not only see them ; we can map their genetic code, as a result of a method developed at UCSD in 1991 called PCR. Jumping ahead : the biggest disappointment in medical research in the 20th century , was - cancer. We knew almost everything about the innumerable types of cancers - except what caused them. (Smoking & ditary indiscretions , for example, don't actually cause cancer , they are precipitating factors.) As a direct result of the intense scrutiny of HIV , a virus called HHV6 was identified as a CAUSE of a type of skin cancer , & three months later , another similar virus called HHV8 was identified as causing a type of breast cancer. Most diseases will benefit from AIDS research. A good example ; my youngest sister has MS . She will benfit from said medical endeavours. We should have had these things a number of years earlier , thereby saving many lives of people that were loved and cherished. A strong element of blame rests with the fundamentalist Christians across this continent.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top