Slashdot Mirror

I was talking about the global AIDS pandemic when I said:

"Most people [ie not just Americans] who get AIDS today are young heterosexual females"

So it doesn't matter what CDC estimates for HIV in the US because that is only one place on the globe. For the full information read the UNAIDS 2011 World AIDS Day Fact Sheet

The proportion of women living with HIV has remained stable at 50% globally, women are more affected in sub-Saharan Africa (59% of all people living with HIV).

Also, more than 10% of those infected with AIDS in 2010 were children who got the disease from their mother. Are you going to blame those children for their loose morals and homosexual adventures?

UNAIDS 2011 World AIDS Day Fact Sheet

The proportion of women living with HIV has remained stable at 50% globally, women are more affected in sub-Saharan Africa (59% of all people living with HIV).

Also, more than 10% of those infected with AIDS in 2010 were children who got the disease from their mother. Are you going to blame those children for their loose morals and homosexual adventures?

By the end of 1985, 20,303 cases of AIDS had been reported to the World Health Organisation.In the USA 15,948 cases of AIDS had been reported, and in the UK 275 cases. -- http://www.avert.org/aids-history-86.htm

In 1985 there was a reliable test for AIDS and 36,526 known cases worldwide. I stand by my original numbers of there being in the 100s of thousands of cases or less at the time.

Given that there are an estimated 33.4 million people currently living with HIV/AIDS in the world and millions of people dyeing each year. I also stand by my numbers of millions of lives saved. Could all HIV/AIDS infected people now be removed from population to limit the continuance of this virus? Not likely IMO, I feel it would certainly have been curtailable in the 80's though.

I don't do the fancy pseudo-math to fudge around with the margins of error to find the number of false-positive deaths as well as the number of false-negative slips, but I do guarantee that it wouldn't be 33.4 million living dead now.

It's estimated that worldwide there are about 34 million people living with HIV. In the US, it's nearly a million with about a third of those people having AIDS symptoms. Only about 40k new cases are diagnosed each year, but because many fewer people are dying (because they're on these drugs) the number of people living with HIV continues to increase. A few years ago, AIDS was even the leading cause of death for young African American men and high up on the list for most other groups of young people.

Stop believing big pharma's FUD.

There are several significant factors undercutting this supposed billion dollar price tag. The first is that AIDS research has received significant public funding, and second is that antiretroviral drugs have the shortest time to approval of any class of drugs, approximately half the time of normal clinical trials (the mean time for antiretrovirals is 44.6 months, compared to an industry average of 87.4 months).

See this report from Doctors Without Boarders for more information.

How do you know all this stuff is true though? In the cold war the CIA believed that the GDR had a larger economy than France. Maybe they're overly concerned about not underestimating their enemies, like with WMD. Certainly, once the cold war ended, all Eastern Block countries turned out to be in a much weaker state than everyone expected. It's not too hard for a closed country to fool outsiders, just make sure you only invite people who are sympathetic, and only show them the best hospitals. Seriously ill people can be forceably locked up too, like they do with AIDS patients. Most importantly, if there are any problems with healthcare, ordinary people can't do anything about them.

Every couple of weeks or so the media buy a press release about how 'a new drug' / 'gene therapy' / 'Nanotechnology' could possibly cure AIDS.

Now let's get a few things straight -

Firstly, all these potential cures work against HIV (which causes AIDS).

Secondly, there are already some great meds around for extend life span of people infected with the HI virus by 20+ years as long as people infected are adherrent to their drugs and live healthly lifestyle. Of course when you live in poverty and without access to decent healthcare this is damn hard - hence the problems in resource poor communities.

Thirdly, there is a huge pipeline of new potential drugs which may improve on the current medication regimes and if anyone is interested these tables below will give some indication of the new advanced that may possibly become approved over the next few years after extensive tests: -

• Immune-Based Therapies & Preventive Technologies Pipeline Tables Note that VRX496 is just one of the 5 listed gene therapies.
  
• 2006 Antiretrovirals in Development Pipeline

Finally, if people are really interested in the latest new drugs for HIV they can get the simply subscribe to thebody.com that has an excellent newsletter which includes new developments. Or look at their latest update on Other Antiviral Drugs in Development- Sept 13 2006 and note the following paragraph

'Antisense Drugs These are a "mirror image" of part of the HIV genetic code. The drug locks onto the virus to prevent it from functioning. One antisense drug, HGTV43 by Enzo Therapeutics, is starting Phase II trials. VIRxSYS has completed a Phase I trial of its product, VRX496.'

I'm a study patient in a Phase II trial of an HIV vaccine and I personally know of at least one other vaccine in Phase II. This web page seems to confirm that. The Merck Gag-Pol-Nef study started Phase II testing in January 2005 and has positive results. I thought I remembered my study doctor saying is was going to phase three, article on the current HIV vaccine landscape indicated two studies in Phase III. Phase III is where they get 800 people of high risk and give half the vaccine and half placebo and see if the vaccine group stays uninfected.

Either way, there have been quite a number of Phase I trials.

I also question this quote:

The recipients appeared immune to the HIV-1 virus 15 days after the injection,

How did they determine that? Certainly they didn't infect these people. I think this whole article is just some China-PR person's belch.

Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers.

Except that's not true at all. The highest estimate is 33%, which is not "usually."

Estimates of the proportion of children born to women with HIV infection who are themselves infected with HIV vary, ranging from 14% to 33% in studies performed in the United States and Europe before the new knowledge about treatment was disseminated. More recent estimates of the transmission rate, reflecting the increasing use of protective treatment, range from 3% to 10%.

i really hate it when people get high and mighty and give glib "it's so easy" responses to pandemics.

while the "1,2,3" reasoning may work in the States / West (and that's a *big* may), i encourage you to find the nearest fireman and borrow his 'jaws of life' so that your head may be removed from your own ass. take your little "changes to social norms", board an airplane, and tell it to the raped and abused the world over.

fucking prick. seriously, what mods posted this arrogant shit insightful?

in Japan, Kumamoto University researchers have developed a drug that will block cells from the AIDS virus, thus making something akin to an AIDS vaccine.

Ok, first of all, an *HIV* vaccine (AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus) is NOT akin to what they are talking about here. Although the article is woefully unsourced, the drug they are talking about is probably what they call a Fusion inhibitor. It basically keeps the virus particles on an HIV viron from interacting with the CCR5 receptor on the outside of a macrophage cell. Normally a HIV viron would be able to shut down the cells functioning by attaching to the CCR5 and thus gain an easy target to penetrate and infect.

This drug class, while becoming more popular and good for those extremely drug resistant who are being treated with anti-retroviral meds, is not going to do anything but supress the virus a bit in it's current state in an already infected person. Once infected, you always have HIV. Fact. HIV has far to many ways to attack the body (cell-to-cell mediation, inducing an autoimmune response, etc). There is also no big trials mentioned. I'd like to know what stage theirs is in, but 40 people is NOT a big test group. It takes a much bigger one to test a drug, and even then, 'AIDS miricle drugs' don't have a great history (see AIDSVAX).

Finally, an excellent article to read on everything HIV/AIDS is Wikipedia's AIDS article. Educate yourselves, please people. If I hear one more person afraid to pick up gum cause they think 'they'll get the AIDS', i'm gonna seriously wreck up the place.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

Ummm... He let AIDS explode by not talking to the public about it and not even acknowledging it until many cases were reported in most major cities. Does anyone remember the phrase "Gay Cancer"? That is exactly why people refused to move. It wasn't until several high profile heterosexual people contracted it through blood transfusions, health care services, andother non gay/drug related causes that he actually took a stance.Yes he eventually spent money and made a public address, but the damage had been done.

Please check your facts before you elevate a human to the level of a god.

After almost six years of silence on the epidemic,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman D.-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, ''the president has finally said that he will fight the disease. Source

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Source

When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Source

Just as a person can lie by omission, someone can be guilty by inaction. Six years is a long time to remain silent about a disease that can infect anyone and kill slowly and painfully, especially when that person is the most powerful one in the world.

Now this is a divergence of the topic slightly, but I think its an important thing to look at. Several people have joked about how now we can have open, unprotected sex... but that's just it. If the counter virus was really successful then what would be the main motivation behind having protective sex... You can't die from it really, and the only other thing you risk are the other STD's out there... and hell if they got AIDS, maybe it's just a couple more years till they cure anything that you might catch. Now I don't have anybody that is in my circle of family or friends that has contracted HIV/AIDS so I am biased. However with this disease being the " now the world's deadliest infectious disease" Satistics and given the fact that it would be advantageous to sleep with people, unproductively with this counter-virus... hello millions of new unwanted pregnancies and also millions of more humans living longer. Hopefully a Grad student can invent a spaceship and a living environment to take us to other planets to populate there as well. Slashdot posting

• Participation of Racial/Ethnic Groups in Clinical Trials and Race-Related Labeling
• Gender, Ethnicity, and Clinical Trials.

FUD, pure and simple. HIV is only spread by direct contact. If you sneezed directly into someones open wound, you MIGHT be able to infect them. You also might be able to hit the Lotto. Your odds are about the same.
There are many other dangerous dieases out there. See the MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) We used to get a flyer every week in the ER telling us whats killing people this week, and what to look out for

If you live in a country where 30% of the country is infected with AIDS, the fact that the disease is preventable is not going to do you a whole heck of a lot of good.

There are towns of children because all the adults have died, there are countries that can not produce food because everyone is either sick or caring for the dying. These people need help. Even far right Senator Jesse Helms agrees.

That said, I don't know why NASA is the agency we have to cut.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Treatment of diseases is a HUGE CASH COW. Do you honestly think a drug company or medical researcher is going to give up this massive revenue stream by developing a cure for cancer or AIDS?

In third world countries, yes. Some places have discovered a marvel of science and nature known as antibiotics. Syphilis is a bacterium and is killed by antibiotics.

In third world countries, yes. Some places have discovered a marvel of science and nature known as antibiotics. Syphilis is a bacterium and is killed by antibiotics.

Seriously, humans can't even share diseases with most other mammals.

Yeah - except for a few exceptions. Example:

Creutzfeld-Jakob variants
AIDS

Get it ?

Thomas Miconi

The HIV education programs here in South Africa are now getting some funding from the health insurance companies (guess why). Personally, being educated by someone who has the disease has been a powerful experience, knowing that they're only being funded to improve profits is not.

Only recently has the gov allowed AZT to be given to pregnant mothers, after it's insane stance up to now.

The big resentment here in SA has been that the former freedom-fighters, the ANC, has been screwing the poeple and selling out to the IMF, WB, WTO, drug companies, arms dealers, you-name-it... We now have a representative democracy that doesn't give a shit about the people or the invoronment when there's a buck to be made.
--
mrBlond

Urine is actually very sterile. Cheeck out this site. Do a google search for even more.

Yes I know you weren't serious, but..urine is very drinkable, and many people do. :)

well almost no AIDS