Nicodemus
- 58
- 0
bobze said:Not sure what your quip is here. I pointed out that some strains of Ebola, if untreated would have mortality rates of near 100%, I believe 'essentially 100%" was the wording I used. Ebola-Z has a 90% mortality rate for individuals being treated (you can scroll up and see some of those aggressive symptom treatments I pointed out). Nothing I said there isn't consistent with reality.
Since HIV research is so "big name" and so much money goes into surely these studies of HIV+ men, who didn't receive treatment, had latent infections and now test negative should be well known. Perhaps you could reference some of these case reports?
I'm going to address your latter point first, to quote the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/science/09askscience.html
NYT said:A. Unfortunately, because there is no international registry of people with AIDS, no one knows interesting statistics like the longest survivor. Informally, I would say that there are undoubtedly now people with AIDS diagnosed in the late 1980s and early 1990s who are still alive (formally called "long-term survivors" in epidemiologic studies). There are also those who have had H.I.V. infection since the late 1970s or early 1980s, who never developed immunodeficiency or progressed to AIDS, and are called "long-term nonprogressors."
If you really want to debate this point, I don't and would happily choose another disease to illustrate my point. If you want to dig into HIV statistics and ongoing epidemiological studies you should already be aware of, forget it.
To my quip, you're right, you worded it very carefully to make your point; I'll be sure to couch all of my future posts in "nearly", and "essentially", when I'm off by anywhere from a minimum of 10% (Zaire) to 100% (Reston). You said "strains", which is plural, and I'm curious what other strain besides Zaire you were referring to which have a similar lethality.