HAART? You’ve got to be crazy . . .
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/09/07
Early “HIV” surveys had revealed that “HIV-positive” status is quite common among psychiatric patients. Indeed, rates of “HIV-positive” were found to be higher in psychiatric hospitals than in HIV clinics, prisons, or abortion clinics, and within the range found among the highest-risk groups of TB patients, drug abusers, and gay men:
It is a natural inference from this manner in which “HIV” varies between groups that “HIV-positive” status is a highly non-specific condition, associated with a large range of conditions that bespeak physiological stress of some sort and not necessarily an infection.
That people with serious emotional or mental illnesses are under physiological stress is self-evident. By contrast, it is implausible and problematic, why patients in psychiatric hospitals should be so much more likely to contract or to have contracted a sexually transmitted disease (STD), particularly one that is so difficult to contract since it is transmitted at such a low rate — about 1 per 1000 unprotected sexual contacts, orders of magnitude less than the common STDs.
Nevertheless, mainstreamers have no other explanation than infection for “HIV-positive” status, so the study of “HIV” in people with mental illness is a fairly flourishing sub-trough of the Research Trough [Inventing more epidemics; the Research Trough; and “peer review” , 2 August 2009; The Research Trough — where lack of progress brings more grants, 10 September 2008]. Many questions can be devised: Do the mentally ill receive equal treatment for “HIV” as others do? Do they begin HAART under equivalent conditions? Do they adhere or non-adhere to HAART equally as others?
As usual in HIV/AIDS matters, studies have reached a variety of conclusions, and the promise of definitive answers is fertile ground for grant applications. Now Himelhof et al. [AIDS 2009, 23:1735-42] have published a longitudinal study of adherence to HAART, finding that “Individuals with psychiatric disorders were significantly less likely to discontinue HAART in the first and second years of treatment. Mental health visits are associated with decreased risk of discontinuing HAART”.
(In more detail:
“patients with six to 11 mental health visits in a year were 22% less likely to discontinue HAART, whereas those with 12 or more mental health visits in a year were 40% less likely to discontinue HAART compared with patients with no mental health visits”).
The first sentence can be rephrased thus:
“People of sound mind are more likely to discontinue HAART than are people who suffer from mental illness”.
The second sentence can be rephrased thus:
”People who are being frequently brainwashed by mental-health professionals are more likely to continue on HAART than are people who are not being continually urged to remain on HAART despite the nasty ‘side’-effects.”
This entry was posted on 2009/09/07 at 11:19 am and is filed under antiretroviral drugs, clinical trials, experts, Funds for HIV/AIDS, HIV absurdities, HIV as stress, HIV risk groups, HIV skepticism. Tagged: Clayton H. Brown, Geetanjali Chander, HAART adherence and mental illness, James Walkup, Joseph Afful, Kelly A. Gebo, P. Todd Korthius, Seth Himelhoch. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.