Showing posts with label HIV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HIV. Show all posts

Friday, May 3, 2019

SCIENTISTS DEVELOP 100% EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR HIV, ACCORDING TO STUDY





Scientists reported that an antiretroviral drug prevented the spread of HIV in 1,000 sexually active homosexual couples, according to an eight-year study conducted in Europe.

The authors published their findings in the Lancet medical journal Thursday, Reuters reported. Researchers followed 1,000 couples, each composed of one HIV-positive partner and one HIV-negative partner. The couples were sexually active and did not use condoms during intercourse, according to the researchers. Despite a lack of protection, none of the HIV-negative men reportedly contracted HIV.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Thousands on HIV drugs desperate amid budget woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_aids_drug_funding;_ylt=Agi1.hoqtHce46rWBJgGyZhn.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTMyMG1iODM3BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwL3VzX2FpZHNfZHJ1Z19mdW5kaW5nBGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdGhvdXNhbmRzb25o


This sounds cruel I know, but we're going to have to kick realism into high gear here in this country.
It's time to kill the drug programs, neither State or Federal, (which is you the taxpayer, in both instances anyway), can no longer afford to be this charitable.
People are meant to die. That's just one of those facts of life that must be taken back into the reality of thought. It's Mother Natures way of population control.
Neonatal units are in the same boat as well as triple or quad bypasses, transplants and a whole lot more.
It's hard to say how much the value of a life is worth.
I suppose one must decide first, whether that value is to be measured up by emotion or the monitary feasibility.
Emotion is a personal thing and unless it sold in a song, book, play or movie, it actually holds no stable weight for the sway of taxpayer cost based realism.
So when that life is not sustainable naturally, a value sum must realistically, monetarily be placed on it.
True story without the emotional adage placed upon it, told only from the point of the assisted monitary realism of the situation.
I had a friend that was very over weight and pregnant. The weight was a pre factor, and not due to the cause pregnancy. Her previous habit of non self denial carried on into her pregnancy. She developed preeclampsia and her blood pressure went through the roof. Her Doctor ordered total bed rest as well as the termination of all salt in take, to which by her choice, neither of either order was put into practice. So by 19 weeks, ( because of her own personal choice, to ignore her Doctors orders) her life became threatened. She had started to puke up the poison from her own liver, and consequently went into convulsions. They took her baby immediately to save her life. Her baby wasn't even formed all the way. It's lungs hadn't developed enough to function on their own, along with a host of other things that are to numerous to mention, that weren't yet capable of functioning yet either. The child had to stay in the neonatal unit for over 4 months, at a phenomenal expense of over a million dollars, that the taxpayers of South Carolina picked up, and the expense didn't stop there.
The child had a heart problem, as well as a development problem, and a massive eye problem due to the life sustaining oxygen that was required for so long. So the untold cost burden to the taxpayer went on for years.
The child grew to the ripe age of 15 and then consequently repeated her own mothers example.
Realistically I ask you, was the taxpayers monitary burden from this repeated situation worth the emotional value of her life?
I was her friend, and my answer is no.
Neither life should have been sustained, nor would they have been if the taxpayer was not forced to shoulder the burden.
History is more than likely to repeat it's self in a few more years by the child's child, and the taxpayers burden will continue to carry on, unless we start looking into the cold harsh face of realism and realize, that Mother Nature's system has intelligent merit, and should be allowed to proceed without the man made interference otherwise known as the Medical Industry.
It's the reality of the real, people. We, as a country can no longer afford the phenomenal costs, of other people's emotional burdens.
The hardships placed upon the country because of them, are to much to sustain.


Cash-strapped states are cutting back on a program that provides free medicine to people with HIV, leaving thousands of patients to wonder where their drugs will come from and stirring fears of a return to the days when an AIDS diagnosis meant certain death.

At least 19 states have taken such steps as capping enrollment, dropping patients, instituting waiting lists, lowering the income ceiling for eligibility, and no longer covering certain drugs or tests.

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program is funded by the federal and state governments and run by the states. It provides free drugs in all 50 states and U.S. territories. But because people are living longer with HIV and the recession has created more demand for the program, states have been unable to keep up.

"It's very frustrating to be stuck in this position at this age and not feel well and be wondering if I am going to die any differently than the people who I helped die in the '80s," said Stephen Farrar, 55, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has HIV and is going on Florida's waiting list. "Am I going to be one of those people?"

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Obama's Electronic Health Records Czar: HIV Status and Abortions Need Not be Included

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69743

None of this makes sense people. First we could opt out now you can't.
Now you can leave out abortion or HIV, which absolutely make no sense to me especially after you read what's required information.
And to save money the government is going to bonus out for the hospitals and Doctors who have the new system up and running by 2014. Yeah that makes alot of sense for a system that was designed to save money.
Did you ever ask yourself what the government doesn't reward or entice with incentives of some sort anymore, except for the tax payer that is.



Dr. David Blumenthal, the Obama administration's National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said on Tuesday that patients can choose to omit procedures such as abortions and positive HIV tests from the electronic health records (EHR) that every American is supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year

HHS: Everyone Can Opt Out of Government-Mandated Electronic Health Records System
Monday, October 05, 2009

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/54999

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says that everyone can opt out of having an electronic health record included in the federally mandated national electronic-health-record system created by the stimulus law enacted in February

Thursday, October 15, 2009

HI Legislators Question H1N1 Vaccines Doctors Express Serious Reservations About Safety

http://www.rense.com/general88/dwqs.htm

Ah those little coincidences they forget to tell you about.

Discussing H1N1 vaccine safety, on behalf of Hawaii legislators considering the question, Dr. Michele Carbone, Director of the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, and full Professor and Chairman, Department of Pathology at the John A. Burns School of Medicine, openly acknowledged HIV/AIDS was spread by the hepatitis B vaccine produced by Merck & Co. during the early 1970s.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

UN report: Male circumcision cost-effective to curb HIV spread

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/10/content_12028497.htm

So just exactly WHO does it protect?

Male circumcision is a cost-effective means to prevent the spread of HIV, a new UN report said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal PLoS Medicine, found that one HIV infection could be prevented for every 5 to 15 procedures performed on heterosexual men.

The report however pointed out that male circumcision may be of a little use to curb HIV transmission among men who have sex with men.

Despite studies confirming that circumcision could reduce female-to-male HIV transmission by 60 percent, the procedure does not directly protect women from the virus, the report said.