Here's a typical cheerleading article, where the
stenographer journalist merely transcribes the hyper-ventilating medics touting the much ballyhooed progress of AIDS science. The clear import of the article is that prescription drugs are saving lives.
'Today, I can tell my patients with HIV that they can have a normal life expectancy,' said Stefano Vella, director of drug research and evaluation at the Institute Superiore di Sanita in Rome, the equivalent of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Well, Hell yeah, we celebrate a normal life expectancy for HIV+ folks. That's great news, right? The implication from the article, of course, is that the
toxic drugs life-saving meds are prolonging life, ie, decreasing mortality. Who on earth can complain about this?
Problem: The Lancet just came out with a mega study of 22,000 patients over the past 10 years on meds, entitled, "HIV Treatment Response and Prognosis in Europe and North America In The First Decade of HAART: A Collaborative Analysis."
"Virological Response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality." (pg 453).
In short, T-4 cells increased, viral load decreased -- but patients did not live any longer as a result of these wonderous drugs.
Typical AIDS shell game -- they bombard you with all these numbers and indicators that bear little on a person's health --and, according to his massive study, bear nothing on a person's survival rate.
But, according to the cheerleading paper above -- normal life expectancy has been attained!!!!
Logical deduction: If life-expectancy has increased, but meds have nothing to do with it, something other than the meds is providing great health benefits.