Not "just" before birth, they are put on this drug for a full six months of their pregnancy. Should it come as any surprise that a DNA chain-terminator that randomly destroys rapidly dividing cells would reduce HIV transmission from mother to child? But as Duesberg notes, while AZT lowers transmission of HIV from mother to child by 17%, it comes at the cost of putting 100% of those same mothers on AZT CHEMOTHERAPY. And what of the side effects of the HIV-negative babies who are born from mothers who were put on prophylactic AZT? These babies suffer from "fevers, pneumonia, anemia, and mitochondrial dysfunction." And the reason should come as no surpise, given the exteme toxicity of AZT.
It depends on the country, drug availability and choice of patient given their situation. I've read a few studies results where the drug or drugs were given for a minimum of a day or two antenatally and intrapartum. It works.
Panel’s Recommendations:Combination antepartum antiretroviral drug regimens are more effective than single-drug regimens in reducing perinatal transmission. • Longer duration of antepartum antiretroviral prophylaxis (e.g., starting at 28 weeks gestation) is more effective than shorter duration (e.g., starting at 36 weeks gestation); therefore, for women who do not require immediate initiation of therapy for their own health, prophylaxis should be started by 28 weeks gestation (see Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs during Pregnancy). If women do not receive antepartum antiretroviral drugs, intrapartum combined with infant antiretroviral prophylaxis should be given to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission (see Intrapartum Care), although this is not as effective as when antepartum therapy is also given.If women do not receive antepartum or intrapartum antiretroviral drugs, postnatal infant antiretroviral prophylaxis is recommended with a minimum of 6 weeks of ZDV (see Postpartum Care).In the United States, the addition of single-dose intrapartum/newborn NVP to the standard antepartum combination antiretroviral regimens used for prophylaxis or treatment in pregnant women is not recommended because it does not appear to provide additional efficacy in reducing transmission and may be associated with the development of NVP resistance. • • • •July 8, 2008 5 Recommendations for Use of Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant HIV-Infected Women for Maternal Health and Interventions to Reduce Perinatal HIV Transmission in the United States
Short-term efficacy has been demonstrated for a number of short-course antiretroviral regimens, including those with ZDV alone; ZDV plus 3TC; single-dose NVP; and more recently, combining single-dose NVP with either short-course ZDV or ZDV/3TC [14, 15, 17-24]. In general, combination regimens are more effective than single-drug regimens in reducing perinatal transmission, and when it's feasible and affordable, a longer 3-part regimen given antenatally, intrapartum, and postpartum is superior in preventing perinatal transmission than a shorter 2-part antepartum/intrapartum or intrapartum/postpartum regimen [15, 25, 26]
(split between pages 4 & 5 on the article, ending on page 10 of the Adobe page counter)
Copying text from pdf to html is problematic.
Adverse effects from zidovudine, AZT, are well known. That's probably why the daily dose is down to 600 mg.
==Those graphs have nothing to do with the decrease of new HIV/AIDS cases where the only risk factor was a transfusion of blood or blood product. They just show new increases in the total of all HIV/AIDS cases.
Let me repeat the question you asked me: “How do you explain the drop in new HIV/AIDS cases after blood was screened for HIV before transfusion of blood and blood products?”
The graph clearly shows that AIDS cases continued their steep rise long after blood began being screened for HIV.
==It depends on the country, drug availability and choice of patient given their situation. I’ve read a few studies results where the drug or drugs were given for a minimum of a day or two antenatally and intrapartum. It works.
You missed the whole point of my reply. Bottom line, AZT is extremely toxic and harms both mother and baby. The side effects are known, and they aren’t pretty. Even if you assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS, it only infects 1 in 500 T-cells. That means they have to kill 500 healthy cells just to get one infected cell. Is it any wonder there are so many nasty side effects? And if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, these treatments are downright criminal!