?

Log in

Not to be a Debbie Downer or anything..

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 2nd, 2009 | 02:25 pm

but I saw this on the Joe.My.God. blog today, a very sobering article from New York magazine about exacerbated aging disorders for people with HIV.

http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/

As far as news go, it's not easy to read. It makes me worry for my friends, and I hesitate to tell them about the article because it is pretty tough to read, but every day that they can guard their health better is a day saved, so I'm going to tell them all the same.

I was shocked to read that bone density is so adversely affected in men with HIV, and insulin resistance. And that the recent trend of delaying treatment after seroconversion until a target T-cell limit is reached, has had severely adverse effects over time.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {8}

Steve

(no subject)

from: happyengineer
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 08:43 pm (UTC)
Link

Just saw a profile earlier of someone looking for a "gifter".

*retch*

Reply | Thread

Pud

(no subject)

from: stivalineri
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 09:56 pm (UTC)
Link

One segment of that article that dealt with memory loss said that the years stress alone of dealing with HIV was enough to harm the "white matter" of the brain, robbing people of the ability to remember to carry out daily tasks like taking their medications. It makes me wonder how many guys I know that are sort of ditsy are already coming down with brain impairment.

Reply | Parent | Thread

nipper_dawg

(no subject)

from: nipper_dawg
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 09:52 pm (UTC)
Link

My personal observations. I have noticed that whatever diseases that people aquired on that downward slope in T cells they have to deal with as a chronic condition (with me is is skin rashes). The cholestorol issue is one of the meds.
i have noticed that some of my friends are aginging horribly, but they also never took care of themselves earlier in life.
i think some of this may be as with any disease that was killing quickly, stop people from dying now and we will worry about it later. The bone density thing is not an unknown to HIV patients (its the meds) as well as kidney failure. I am not seeing anything here that would or could claim to be accelerating old age. It seems to be that it is just that people have been on the meds long enough (we all age) that they are getting side effects from the meds, and they are coming to the wrong conclusions. Also it is hard to tell what is the disease and what is the meds or what is ageing. The general population numbers for alzheimers is scarily high recently. i personally think it is the sampling rate of the people, as is pointed out in the peice, as opposed to the illness itself.

I think the key is on page four, 2nd to last paragraph about brain inflamation.

SHould you share this, yes, but make sure they read the ENTIRE article. i don't see this as anything new, in fact i would almost list this as a slow news week. I know people in thier 20's who have been on meds for ten years with most of the issues listed, and it is tied to the side effects of the meds, or them not taking care of themselves.

For me, i'm 48, been on meds 7 years. i forget things from time to time under high stress. i still have a skin rash. i am big boned and ever 3 months my liver and all that good stuff get checked.


Just because your HIV pos and forget your keys doesnt mean you have a brain desiase. Just because you are hetero and forget your kesy doesnt mean you dont have the begninings of alzhiemers.



Do tell your friends, as it will remind them that we still need to listen to our bodies, no matter if we are 20 or 50 with HIV.

Reply | Thread

Pud

(no subject)

from: stivalineri
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 10:12 pm (UTC)
Link

You are smart and you read and you're pro active about your health and not reactive like so many people. I don't want to add to the burdens of stress that people have to deal with. I want to support them, and help them handle their burdens, but I might have to kick some asses to get them to take care of these issues sooner rather than later. It's not the sort of ass kicking I like to give, but thems the breaks.

Reply | Parent | Thread

nipper_dawg

(no subject)

from: nipper_dawg
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 10:35 pm (UTC)
Link

Living with HIV really does require being very proactive. i do preach to not let it run your life (i couldnt tell you what meds im on without looking), but do be aware of what is around the next bend, and try to keep ahead of it. i know too many who skip thier quarterly blood tests and then it is too late to stop something.

Also another thing i discovered, they healthier you (honestly) were going into HIV, the better off you are in the long run.

And the rest is just luck (DNA).

Reply | Parent | Thread

oscarlikesbugsy

(no subject)

from: oscarlikesbugsy
date: Nov. 2nd, 2009 11:48 pm (UTC)
Link

Into the void, again, with this virus ... I remember when all the early speculation about the long-term affects of 'the cocktail' centered pretty much on liver failure alone.

...after visercally not having been on the side of mandatory testing, I'm so much closer, these days:

From the article, "In a dramatic move last week, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases upped the ante even further by announcing a massive new plan to test virtually every single adult in the Bronx and the District of Columbia—homes to some of the highest rates of infection in the country—and put everybody who tests positive on anti-HIV drugs, whether they have depleted T-cell counts or not."

Reply | Thread

Pud

(no subject)

from: stivalineri
date: Nov. 3rd, 2009 06:35 pm (UTC)
Link

Do people have a civil right to spread disease without government interference? I'd say no, but having the government pry into my body's health without my consent is disturbing, and reminds me of the abortion debate. On the other hand, having whole populations decimated to uphold the libertarian right to privacy doesn't make sense either.

Reply | Parent | Thread

oscarlikesbugsy

(no subject)

from: oscarlikesbugsy
date: Nov. 4th, 2009 01:29 am (UTC)
Link

For my own part, it wasn't a libertarian ideal whatsoever at stake. It had more to do with the fact that this information was (is?) hardly neutral, in ways that had nothing to do with the health of the individual. Mandatory testing dovetails with the worst of the history of those who would subvert 'public safety' by fitting it into their moral crusade ...

Reply | Parent | Thread