Mwenye UKIMWI akitumia ARV hana tena uwezo wa kuambukiza wengine!

Mwenye UKIMWI akitumia ARV hana tena uwezo wa kuambukiza wengine!

Mshinga, Hapa ndipo ninaposema kunapokuwa kuna UPOTOSHAJI.

1. Kisayansi, Hatuvutii watu kusoma, bali ukweli ndio unaoongea...Mada kutopendwa haimaanishi UVUTIE KWA KUPINDISHA UKWELI, to make it palatable to some people DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE, mkuu.
sayansi ipi isiyovutia watu kusoma unayoiongelea wewe?sayansi inataka kila kitu kiwe na mvuto ndio maana hata tafiti zinatangazwa ili kuvutia watu wazisome na wazijue kama zinawahusu,labda ungesema sayansi hairusu kudanganya hapo ningekubali na mimi nimeuzungumza ukweli ndani humu humu na taarifa yenyewe haijaongezwa hata chembe ya chumvi katika ukweli wake.


2. Usemapo atumiaye dawa za ARV haambukizi virusi, na kisha kusema kwa asilimia chache bado inaleta MKANGANYIKO, na ndio maana hapa nikasema hebu na tuone statistics za wapi, na study hii ilifanywaje, zisije kuwa study za mtu mmoja , under sample size ya watu thelathini, then tuhitimishe kwa kusema hayo hapo juu.
Pili, dara validation ina umuhimu wake, tafiti zinapofanyika hutoa asilimia fulani kwa maana ya majibu, mfano confidence values/interval na hapa ndipo kwenye uzito wenyewe.
rudi juu usome kwenye topic namna maelezo mafupi yalivyowasilishwa na mtafiti

3. Uliposema hujaelewa, nikufafanulie..Unasema kuwa mgonjwa/muathirika akitumia ARV huwa katika hali ya kutoambukiza, nami nikauliza unapoongelea suala la utumiaji wa ARV na "kutosababisha maambukizi" unapaswa kutambua muda.
-Hapa namaanisha Muda wa Utumiaji dawa. Mf. magonjwa hutofautiana, na hata uwepo wa dawa katika mwili/mzunguko wa damu (Half life) hutofautiana.Yaani mgonjwa anapotumia dawa za malaria, si sawa na dawa za Kichocho.
Sasa unapokuja katika suala la UKIMWI picha ni tofauti, kwa sababu kitabibu kuna vitu viamuavyo/viashiriavyo hali ya uponaji wa mgonjwa kama.(Prognostic factors)


i. Muda wa mgonjwa kujitambua hadi kuanza kutumia dawa.
(aliyeathirika toka mwaka 1999 na kuanza kutumia dawa mwaka 2013 si sawa na aliyeathirika mwaka 1999 na kuanza kutumia dawa mwaka 2000)
utofauti wa hawa utakuwa juu ya uimarikaji wa afya zao na si juu ya uwezekano wa kuzuia maambukizi mabao unategemea matumizi ya dawa tajwa

ii. Muda mgonjwa aliyowisha tumia tiba.( Hapa namaanisha Muathirika aliyetumia dawa kwa Mwaka mmoja si sawa na aliyeanza kutumia dawa wiki mbili, ingawa wote ni waathirika).
mgonjwa akimeza dawa kuna mambo mawili ambayo ungeyaongelea ndo ningekuelewa na si swala la muda.
1.mtu anameza dawa lakini kiwango cha dawa ile hata akipimwa hakionekani katika mzunguko wa damu maana mkusanyiko wa dawa ile haujakuwa mwingi katika damu (undetectable level)
2.mtu akimeza dawa kuna kiwango wakati ambapo akiwa anaendendelea kumeza dawa,dawa ile inakuwa imesambaa mwilini kiasi cha kuonekana moja kwa moja katika mzunguko wa damu (medicine at the detectable level), na hili swala halitegemei sana muda kama sababu pekee, bali linategemea dawa yenyewe na kiwango cha dawa

iii.Muathirika amekuwa akitumiaje dawa.
Hapa, kuna mengi sana ya kuongelewa, mara kadhaa wagonjwa huacha dawa wanapojisikia unafuu/au hali fulani ya kumudu kazi zao za kila siku. Pili kuna kipindi cha nyuma dawa zilikuwa za shida katika baadhi ya vituo hivyo kufanya kutopatikana kwa urahisi. Tatu, kutokana na baadhi ya madhara mfano, Ganzi, kuishiwa damu n.k waathirika wamekuwa wakisita kuzitumia.Sasa uwapo na wagonjwa wawili mmoja mwenye kutumia dawa kila siku na mwingine mwenye kuwa katika tiba anapojisikia, ni yupi mwenye kusema "hawezi kuambukiza"..au kwako wote hawa ni sawa?!!!
Ikumbukwe tunapoangalia Clinical, Immunological treatment faiure, IRIS, n k muda kama ambavyo nimekwisha sema hapo juu ni crucial.
sikulenga watu wanaokiuka mashariti, nililenga wale wanaotumia dawa, nikimaanisha lazima utumiaji wa dawa uambatane na mashariti, sasa akiacha ni mambo mengine

4. Ninapingana na wewe kusema kwamba maginjwa nyemelezi hayapo, mkuu sijui uko maeneo gani au labda hospitali/ kituo gani cha afya ambako hakuna wagonjwa hawa! Lakini kwa uelewa wangu mdogo, ni kwamba magonjwa nyemelezi yapo sana, na hata kwa baadhi ya wagonjwa ambao wamekuwa wakitumia kinga (CTX prophylaxis).
Ikumbukwe, kuwa si vituo vyote vyenye dawa, si waathirika wite watumiao dawa inavyopaswa, si waathirika wote wenye kujijua!
hapa napo nilimaanisha kwa wale wanaopimwa mapema na kupata dawa mapema na nimeweka wazi katika maelezo ya awali kuwa labda kwa wale wasiopima na kupewa dawa,unaweza kurejea maelezo yangu, na kwa kuongezea , yote yanawezekana lakini utafiti ama ushahidi wa kisansi unahitajika kuthibitisha haya tofauti na inavyosemwa sasa katika maelezo hayo hayo ya kisansi

5. Mwisho mkuu, tafiti ni nyingi, na ni vizuri kupata taarifa kupitia barua pepe kama ambavyo umesema hapo juu, Subsription ni jambo ambalo mtu yeyote anaweza kufanya na kupata taarifa hizo, ila cha muhimu ni VALIDITY ya taarifa. Muda wa tafiti zaidi ya mwaka mmoja ni mwanya/pengo kubwa kitabibu hasa kitafiti! Mfano tazama baadhi ya takwimu niliyoweka ya miezi miwili iliyopita ina tofauti kubwa na maelezo yako.
fine,nimeweka maelezo yangu,japo kwa leo sina muda sana wa kupitia vitu vingi katika hayo maelezo unayosema,nitafanya hivyo
 
Kwanza nikupe pongezi kwa maelezo yako mazuri na yenyekuhamasisha watu kuyasoma. Ila nami ningependa kuchangia mambo mawili matatu hivi ili kuuboresha Uzi huu

kwa kuwa umekiri mwenyewe kuwa we si daktari wa magonjwa ya binadamu pengine ni mwanaharakati wa mambo ya UKIMWI au muelimishaji rika tu, sasa nafikiri it's a right time ukaupload hapa hiyo paper ya tafiti unayorelay upon ili nasi tujiridhishe VALIDITY yake nafikiri utetezi wa kuwa unatumia tu via email au kutaja tu website hautoshelezi kudhibitisha maelezo.
Elewe mkuu sio ka tunakupinga na maelezo yako mazuri na yenyekuleta tumaini na faraja kwa watanzania wengi la-hasha ni katika hali ya kujiridhisha behind reasonable doubt maana hapa tunaongelea uhai wa mwanadamu.
Maambukizi yakishatokea there's no reverse mechanism kwahiyo tuwe makini jamani
[h=1]Treatment is prevention: HPTN 052 study shows 96% reduction in transmission when HIV-positive partner starts treatment early[/h] Keith Alcorn
Published: 18 July 2011


myron_cohen.jpg
Prof. Myron Cohen, University of North Carolina ©IAS/Marcus Rose/Worker's Photos

[h=5]Jump to[/h]

Results from a trial showing that antiretroviral treatment prevents HIV from being passed onto uninfected partners received a standing ovation today at the Sixth International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2011) in Rome.
HPTN 052 showed that early treatment – started at a CD4 count between 350 and 550 cells/mm[SUP]3[/SUP] – reduced the risk of HIV transmission to an uninfected partner – by at least 96%. Almost all the study participants were heterosexual couples.
"These are important results to give to a serodiscordant couple." Myron Cohen
The study lends some support to advice given three years ago in the Swiss statement, a document issued by Swiss doctors which stated that, for heterosexual couples where the HIV-positive partner had an undetectable viral load on stable treatment (and no sexually transmitted infections) the risk of HIV transmission through vaginal intercourse was negligible.
But Professor Myron Cohen of the University of North Carolina, who led the study, urged caution in interpreting the results, reminding the audience that the transmission study had followed patients for a median of 1.7 years.
Nevertheless, he said, "these are important results to give to a serodiscordant couple."
The HPTN 052 study recruited 1763 couples in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Thailand, the US and India. The trial recruited serodiscordant couples – one HIV-positive, one HIV-negative – in which the HIV-positive partner had a CD4 cell count between 350 and 550 cells/mm[SUP]3[/SUP], and was thus ineligible for treatment.
The HIV-positive participants were randomised either to start treatment immediately, or to defer treatment until their CD4 counts fell into the range 250 to 200, the threshold for starting treatment in national guidelines at the time the study began recruiting.
The overall gender balance in the trial was even, but the HIV-positive participants were significantly more likely to be women in the Africa region.
Approximately 95% of the couples were married, and 6% reported unprotected intercourse in the previous month at baseline.
Of note, just over one-quarter of HIV-positive individuals reported no sexual activity at baseline, and there is some indication that sexual activity actually declined at some points during the follow-up period in both the immediate- and the deferred-treatment arms.
However, condom use was high, reported by 94% of HIV-positive individuals at baseline, and there was no evidence of a decline in self-reported condom use as the study went on.


[h=3]Results[/h] A total of 39 individuals became infected during the study, four in the immediate-treatment arm and 36 in the deferred-treatment arm, during a median follow-up period of 1.7 years.
A careful genetic analysis of virus samples from the HIV-positive partner and the subsequently infected partner was conducted to determine how many of the infections could be attributed to the index partners.
Eleven cases of transmission were unlinked, that is, attributable either to sex outside the primary relationship, or else the source could not be confidently determined. There was a strong association between unlinked infection and reporting more than one sexual partner in the three months prior to seroconversion (p<0.0001).
This left 28 infections, of which only one occurred in the immediate-treatment arm. This represented a reduction in the risk of transmission of 96%, and was highly statistically significant (P <0.001).
Sixty-four per cent of transmissions occurred from the female to the male partner, and 82% of transmissions took place at African trial sites.
Surprisingly, the majority of transmission events were estimated to have occurred when the index partner had a CD4 count above 350 cells/mm[SUP]3[/SUP], indicating that any potential prevention benefit of treatment might only be maximised by providing treatment above the threshold currently recommended by the World Health Organization. (It recommends that treatment should start once a person's CD4 cell count has fallen below 350.)
In the delayed arm, the median viral load (as measured at the last clinic visit) at which transmission took place was 4.9 log (approximately 80,000 copies/ml), while the median CD4 count was 391 cells/mm[SUP]3[/SUP].
In the immediate treatment arm the only verified transmission took place during the early months of treatment, with HIV antibodies fully detectable 85 days after baseline in the partner who became infected. The transmitting partner had a baseline viral load of 87,202 copies, and after 28 days a viral load below 400 copies/ml.
Professor Cohen said that couples need to be counselled about the possible differences in risk between the first few months of treatment and later periods.
Final multivariate analysis showed that baseline viral load was the strongest predictor of transmission in both groups (hazard ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.51-5.41). Consistent condom use at baseline was highly protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.91).
 
Mshinga ungejibu maswali critically na si kwa emotions ungeeleweka, Pili Bado study uliyoweka hapo juu, imeonyesha REDUCTION IN HIV/AIDS transmission, kitu ambacho si kigeni na ndio masna tunashauri waathirika kutunia dawa hizi, unless ugonjwa huu ndio umejulikana mwaka 2011! ...Kuna tofauti kubwa sana(SIGNIFICANT) kati ya kupunguuza kasi/maambukizi na kusema


"NIISHIE HAPA KWA KUSEMA KUWA MTU ANAETUMIA
ARV HANA UWEZO WA KUAMBUKIZA UKIMWI."

Uliyosema na Study uliyoweka hapa ni tofauti..ni mtazamo wako, lakini uhalisia wa study.

I stand to be corrected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mshinga ungejibu maswali critically na si kwa emotions ungeeleweka, Pili Bado study uliyoweka hapo juu, imeonyesha REDUCTION IN HIV/AIDS transmission, kitu ambacho si kigeni na ndio masna tunashauri waathirika kutunia dawa hizi, unless ugonjwa huu ndio umejulikana mwaka 2011! ...Kuna tofauti kubwa sana(SIGNIFICANT) kati ya kupunguuza kasi/maambukizi na kusema


"NIISHIE HAPA KWA KUSEMA KUWA MTU ANAETUMIA
ARV HANA UWEZO WA KUAMBUKIZA UKIMWI."

Uliyosema na Study uliyoweka hapa ni tofauti..ni mtazamo wako, lakini uhalisia wa study.

I stand to be corrected.
hii siyo siasa na uwezo wa kujenga hoja, tunazungumzia facts katika utafiti.
na toka mwanzo nilisema,uelewa tunatofautiana pia na hata lugha inayotumika si yetu na kila mtu anaweza kuelewa tofauti.

heading imeandikwa.
Treatment is prevention: HPTN 052 study shows 96% reduction in transmission when HIV-positive partner starts treatment early

kuna maelezo ya ndani yameandikwa
This left 28 infections, of which only one occurred in the immediate-treatment arm. This represented a reduction in the risk of transmission of 96%, and was highly statistically significant (P <0.001).

sitaki kuanza kuwa mwalimu wa kiingereza hapa, na leo I am not normal, ila jaribu kuelewa kiingereza hicho na maana yake na si kuishia kusoma maelezo ya heading tu na kutoa majawabu kutokana na maelezo yako,
pia hata katika maelezo ya heading,
kama ARV ikitumika na kusaidia kupunguza maambukizi ya ukimwi kwa asilimia 96 maana yake ni nini?wanapoandika treatment is prevention maana yake ni nini?
MWISHO NAACHA KILA MTU ANG'AMUE KULINGANA NA UTAFITI WENYEWE.
 
Mkuu Mshinga ahsante kwa mada nzuri inayogusa maisha yetu ya kila siku, hakika umenifungua, ni wakati wa kwenda kupima sasa kuliko kuegemea kwenye majibu ya wenzi wetu.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ahsante mkuu kwa somo lako
swali langu ni je NASIKIA KUWA WATU WENYE BLOOD GROUP O+ HUWA HAWAATHIRIWI NA HIV kwa maana kwamba hata kama akipata HIV yeye haimdhuru bali anaweza kuambukiza wengine tu..naomba jibu

fine nakungoja
 
Nitarudi nimeanza na kugonga like kwanza kisha natafakari uliyoandika na kurudi kwa maswali

mimi nikushukuru wewe mtafiti, lakini naomba unijibu maswali yafuatayo:
a) utafiti huu umefanyika wapi na lini na kwa kutumia njia zipa za kisayansi?
b) ni unasema umefanya utafiti, unakiwango gani cha elimu ya taaluma yasayansi ya afya yabinadamu ili itusaidie kuamini utafiti wako sisi wana jf na watz kwa ujumla?
c) serikali kupitia wataalam wake wa afya imekuwa ikitoa elimu ya afya kwa watz inayo kinzana kabisa na maelezo yako kuhusu arv, maambukizi ya
 
hii siyo siasa na uwezo wa kujenga hoja, tunazungumzia facts katika utafiti.
na toka mwanzo nilisema,uelewa tunatofautiana pia na hata lugha inayotumika si yetu na kila mtu anaweza kuelewa tofauti.

heading imeandikwa.
Treatment is prevention: HPTN 052 study shows 96% reduction in transmission when HIV-positive partner starts treatment early

kuna maelezo ya ndani yameandikwa
This left 28 infections, of which only one occurred in the immediate-treatment arm. This represented a reduction in the risk of transmission of 96%, and was highly statistically significant (P <0.001).

sitaki kuanza kuwa mwalimu wa kiingereza hapa, na leo I am not normal, ila jaribu kuelewa kiingereza hicho na maana yake na si kuishia kusoma maelezo ya heading tu na kutoa majawabu kutokana na maelezo yako,
pia hata katika maelezo ya heading,
kama ARV ikitumika na kusaidia kupunguza maambukizi ya ukimwi kwa asilimia 96 maana yake ni nini?wanapoandika treatment is prevention maana yake ni nini?
MWISHO NAACHA KILA MTU ANG'AMUE KULINGANA NA UTAFITI WENYEWE.


Si siasa, hata dawa kuna dawa zina efficacy ya 1(100%), sasa unaponiambia reduction ni ERADICATION then nikubaliane na hilo simply because ni utafiti, ni ngumu. Reason kama mwanasayansi pia zaidi fanyia uchunguzi NDANI YA NCHI YAKO MWENYEWE ukioanisha uchunguzi huo na uhalisia katika vituo vya upimaji, hospitali, vituo vya afya na hata toka kwa waathirika wenyewe.

Pili, Hakuna hoja zilizojengwa ila maswali ambayo hayakujibiwa(Pitia swali moja moja ukielewa mantiki/maaana dhumuni la muuliza swali) kisha Jibu maswali kwa kina kulingana na muuliza swali, ila si mtazamo binafsi!

Evidently, katika ufanyaji wangu wa kazi katika sekta ya Afya (si miaka mingi sana) na hata katika tafiti tunazofanya MPAKA SASA, vifo ni vingi, na bado kuna maambuukizi MAKUBWA kwa waathirika wanaotumia dawa.

Tuna wahudumu wa Afya wengi(madaktari, wauguzi, wataaluma wa maabara, wafanya usafi wa hospitali n.k) ambao hawa wameathirika kupitia kujikata wakati wa upasuaji, kujichoma/kuchomwa sindano n.k despite the use of Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) kutoka kwa waathirika wenye kutumia dawa kwa muda mrefu (wengine wakiwa wametumia dawa bila kuacha kwa miaka minne)!

I here by Concur with your last statement, na "..kila mtu ang'amue kulingana na utafiti wake mwenyewe."
 
on my side cant believe if the one affected with hiv/aids sleep wit one whome not bein afeeced and denied to ge hiv that is imposible thing
 
nimefuatilia maelezo yako na maswali ya wengi na majibu yako,
mim nina swali hapa,umesema mgonjwa anaetumia ARV uwezo wake kuambukiza wenzie ni mdogo sana yaan 4% na iwapo anatumia dawa kwa usahihi,na kuanza matumizi ya hiz dawa ni lazima kinga zako za mwil ziwe zimepungua,below 350 cells,je kama kinga haijapungua kiasi cha kuanza kutumia dawa,kiwango na uwezekano wa maambukizi upo vip iwapo mtu huyu anashiriki tendo?
 
Umesema kwamba CD4 hupewa mtu ambaye CD4 zake zimepungua kufikia 350; na yule mwenye CD4 zaidi ya 350 hupewa vdonge vingine vya kuzuia magonjwa nyemelezi. Ikiwa mtu anayetumia ARV anaweza kuzuia maambukizi ya UKIMWI kwa 96% na kusababisha maambukizi kwa 4% je huyu ambaye hatumii ARV anaweza kusababisha maambukizi au la?:drama:
 
Vipi kuhusu BERLIN PATIENT na Story za Dr.Simon Barasa Situma wa Kenya Polytechnic University College ?!
 
mimi nikushukuru wewe mtafiti, lakini naomba unijibu maswali yafuatayo:
a) utafiti huu umefanyika wapi na lini na kwa kutumia njia zipa za kisayansi?
b) ni unasema umefanya utafiti, unakiwango gani cha elimu ya taaluma yasayansi ya afya yabinadamu ili itusaidie kuamini utafiti wako sisi wana jf na watz kwa ujumla?
c) serikali kupitia wataalam wake wa afya imekuwa ikitoa elimu ya afya kwa watz inayo kinzana kabisa na maelezo yako kuhusu arv, maambukizi ya
Mkuu umenipa tittle kubwa ya MTAFITI btw uzi ni wa Mshinga nimem-mention hapo nadhani atakupa majibu
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we can have a read leo 01/12/2015.
 
kwa kifupi sana,UKIMWI unaharibu mfumo mzima wa ulinzi katika mwili,na hili linaongeza uwezekano mkubwa kwa ngonjwa wa UKIMWI kuugua magonjwa ya moyo ambayo yapo mengi na ndio maana inakuwa rahisi kwao kufa na presha zitokanazo na moyo kuugua, pia tafiti zimeonyesha watu wanaotumia ARV wanahatari kubwa zaidi ya kuugua magonjwa ya moyo kwa kuwa kunakuwa na mkusanyiko wa mafuta mengi katika mishipa mikubwa ya moyo na hata kwenye moyo wenyewe na kusababisha mishipa kuwa miembamba na hata moyo unapata tabu kutanuka na kusinyaa,matumizi ya ARV yanaripotiwa kuongeza unene japo hilo halijathibitishwa,na mwisho bado tafiti zinaendelea kubaini kwa nini ARV zinaleta ama kusababisha matatizo ya moyo

kuaribika kwa kinga ya mwili kukasababishe magonjwa ya moyo?kweli! mhhh mkuu kuna uhusiano kweli hapo?
 
Back
Top Bottom