Slashdot Mirror
Drugs May Offer AIDS Prevention
FlipFlopSnowMan writes "There is an interesting article on MSNBC about the possibility of preventing AIDS using the same pills that are currently used to fight the virus in affected individuals." From the article: "The drugs are tenofovir (Viread) and emtricitabine, or FTC (Emtriva), sold in combination as Truvada by Gilead Sciences Inc., a California company best known for inventing Tamiflu, a drug showing promise against bird flu. Unlike vaccines, which work through the immune system -- the very thing HIV destroys -- AIDS drugs simply keep the virus from reproducing. They already are used to prevent infection in health care workers accidentally exposed to HIV, and in babies whose pregnant mothers receive them."
Why'd you have to release this story? Now sex workers all over the world will be killing each other to get their hands on these drugs. Eventually their diseases will become super-strains and come back with a vengence!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Q. How to make more money from expensive AIDS drugs?
A. Obvious - sell it to people who don't have AIDS as well as people who do.
As I understand, these drugs are very expensive, and personally I can't see any justification for using them prophylactically.
Oh no... it's the future.
Actually, I think you'll find Tamiflu is useless against bird flu!
Tamiflu is an overhyped, not really effective anti-flu drug. Not more. It would be a bomb in the budget of Roche if we didn't "suddenly" (read: 3 years after it was first detected) get "washed over" (read: Every couple of days we find a dead bird somewhere on the planet) by the "epidemic" (read: Umm... yeah, somewhere in the Far East a handful of people died who pretty much washed their hands in infected bird blood).
Now everyone's crazy to get their hands on Tamiflu. Is it me or does it smell like a well placed marketing hype that the media picked up all too eagerly, since there's nothing else going on that would make people buy their news?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wouldn't this speed up the development of virus strains resistant to those medicines?
But Nancy Reagan told me to just say no to drugs! Oh the conundrum!
We would all be better off if there was simply a vaccine for viral diseases, instead of drugs which have been proven to stimulate the evolution of resistant strains. Vaccines on the other hand have been proven to not only reduce the incidence of disease, but also virtually completely eradicate them, e.g. smallpox. Vaccines have the advantage of being able to adapt along with the evolving virus. Drugs do not.
May the Maths Be with you!
Hush! Not due 'til next week, don't get the timetable messed up. Besides, today we already had the "connect brain to computer" story, how many evergreens do you want per day, can't burn them all at once! :)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pandemic? Really? Tuberculosis affects far more people worldwide but doesn't have all the sensationalism that we see surrounding AIDS. I don't mean to imply that nothing is being done about TB, or that AIDS isn't a problem, but I'm tired of the media treating this disease like we're all living on the set of "Rent"
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
Abstinence may also offer AIDS prevention (or at least greatly reduce one's chances of being infected). This method, however, doesn't make drug companies any money.
My way back has been erased.
As an HIV researcher myself, I realize that we are not going to have a highly effective, preventative vaccine for HIV any time in the near future. There are no clear 'winners' in the pipeline right now, and even if a vaccine looked effective right now, it would be years (and millions of new infections) before it clears human testing and it broadly available. Issues like viral resistance to the vaccine, incomplete protection from infection, potential side effects, and a false sense of security would plauge any vaccine that is developed -- and these are many of the same issues confronting the use of drugs as HIV preventatives.
One major hurdle to testing these drugs in populations highly affected by HIV is to convince them that this intervention is not a magic bullet. There will be problems, some of which we probably can't predict. There will be breakthrough infections in people taking the drugs. And the long-term health consequences aren't known. So far, these concerns have led to the abandonment of several trials of PrEP (using tenofovir in HIV-, high-risk populations) around the world. Hopefully the new data (using multiple drugs together works better than tenofovir alone) will encourage vulnerable populations that the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.
before you do your thing with that cheap hooker... :-P
J.
PS real question is: how long before?
Yeah, all this is well and good, but don't forget the 2 P's, Patents and Profits. A company makes products for profit, whether they make clothing or life-saving drugs. If it is not profitable, they will not produce. This is linked with patents. IIRC, there was a major dispute with the big pharma companies a few years back, ended up with a drug taken off the market. And let's not forget the penicillin disputes (Chain, Merck-Sharp-Dome, Florey, Fleming etc.)
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
As an AIDS heretic, I find articles like these tiresome to read. There have been many, many such articles about "curing AIDS" which have all proven to be sound and fury signifying nothing. I think the reason for this is because AIDS has become something much larger than a disease. It is a way of life for thousands of scientists, a huge cash cow for drug manufacturers, and a political plank for both gay activists and gay-bashing activists.
e w%20copy.pdf
t %20caused%20AIDS%20if%20not%20HIV.pdf
If you are open to the idea that the orthodoxy about AIDS might not be correct or might not be scientific, then I suggest you read these two pieces of investigative journalism that came out a couple of months ago. They detail in the most succinct way possible how AIDS came about, and that is *VERY* hard to do because of how immensely complex this subject is.
http://www.sparks-of-light.org/HIVGATE%20-%20revi
http://www.sparks-of-light.org/AIDSGATE%20-%20wha
If you think that I'm insane, or that I just want to have a whole lot of unprotected sex, or that I'm a conspiracy theorist, then please just ignore this post. It means that you are not open-minded to criticism of your ideas, and the only thing I want to do is give criticism of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis a fair hearing. I believe that there are HUGE problems with the hypothesis and it has led to many people getting fabulously wealthy off of what has turned out to be misdiagnosis. I am aware that this is a serious charge, and I do not take this subject lightly.
All of that is in effort to say, "Don't mod me down. Don't be a jerk. Don't prevent someone who *wants* to hear what I have to say from hearing it." I hope it works.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
... what if one of the various "environmental factors" models is right rather than the "single pathogen" model? IE, retroviruses start multiplying in people whose immune systems are shot already -- it's the symptom; not the cause.
I know we like single-pathogen disease models but frankly those are pretty rare. Especially with autoimmune and immunodeficient disorders, it's not as easy as people think to even define the given disorder in the first place, let alone establish a pathogenic cause. Take lupus: the diagnostic criteria is a list of 11 symptoms of which the patient must present 4. AIDS *was* like that for a long time, now it's defined by presentation of a short list of symptoms and presence of HIV antibodies. But then again, any death in Africa by pneumonia is counted as an AIDS case; antibodies are not even tested for. At any rate, there are numerous other that stress environmental factors.
Single pathogens are sexy for epidemiologists. They let you focus funding on a single area and clean up a mess with some drugs (which, btw, makes lots of money for pharmaceudical companies, who fund a lot of the research in the first place). Environmental causes are less sexy. They are hard to identify. They are hard to correct. And correcting them can cost a lot of money to the people funding your research.
All's true that is mistrusted
I don't get it, personally. How many Slashdotters are actually at risk? The only way I could see someone around here getting it is from a blood transfusion.
How about in regions where AIDS is an everyday reality? There are places in Africa where it's over 70% infection. In such situations, AIDS preventing drugs would be justified. It's just a matter of affording the $1000/month price tag...
Now I can get spam offering bootleg copies of yet another drug from "teh ultmate online pahrm hacy"
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I hear abstinence is good AIDS prevention as well.
Low id slashdotter, I'm sure we can rule the "lot of sex" option out.
One would think! As it turns out, I'm a gay man, so I don't have to overcome the female recalcitrance that you straights have to face every time you want to score. Nor do I have to endure any of the "female neurosis" -- you know, the questions you can never answer correctly like "Does this outfit make my butt look big?" and the inordinate amount of time spent "getting ready". It truly is a blessing that my partner will never be offended that I didn't notice his haircut, and I'm reminded of this blessing every time one of my straight friends mentions the communication difficulties that are so very common in male-female partnerships.
Of course, many will choose to see my admission to being gay as prima facie that I find AIDS as an intolerable inconvenience to my psychotic desire for incessant unprotected anal sex enhanced by designer drugs.
It's hard to find people who really wish to discuss tough topics, particularly topics that challenge the things that we hold very dear and very close (such as our faith in the integrity of the practicioners of science and medicine).
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
1- Navigate to the My Video folder.
2- Click on one of your numerous porn clips.
3- Wank!
See folks. Stopping the spread of AIDS is easy...and its on your hands*.
*-Three sessions of thirty seconds per day recommended. Lubricants, may apply.
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
Those are US wholesale costs. Since manufactureing costs 57 cents a pill for tenofovir and 87 cents for Truvada I doubt you'll see prices like $650/month outside of the United States. Isn't it great to live in the best country in the world that treats the health of its citizens as a top priority? USA, USA, USA.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
I believe there was some problem explaining to natives in Africa what it means to be in a double-blind test involving placebos. I don't believe these PREP trials are highly regarded by everyone, see here: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request =get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020234
Just and FYI...
AIDS diagnosis as it is practiced today assumes HIV-AIDS causation. In fact, two persons could have the exact set of symptoms, but if only one of them tests positive for HIV antibodies (even ignoring the fact that viral load cannot be determined accurately using current methods), only that person has AIDS.
Conversely, you have two distinct "AIDS" populations in Africa and North America/Europe, with totally different symptom sets and epidemiological characteristics.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Yes, that seems about right, since last week we already had fusion power and artificial gravity.
as an AIDS counsellor, I've worked with many people who are taking these drugs on a daily basis. While they are a brilliant development and have already saved millions of lives, they are EXTREMELY TOXIC; they are totally unsuitable for preventive purposes, apart from being very expensive, they require regular blood tests for specialised medical monitoring (to check your body's responses, get the doses correct, etc), and there are often really grim side effects (such as vomiting, diahoerrea, nausea, fatigue, depression, etc etc); I know many who have chosen to come off the drugs because the quality of their life had got so bad from the side effects that they would rather die with a bit of diginity.
They hammer your immune system; it's like taking poison every day, it's a bit like chemotherapy in ways.. in fact, that's not a bad analogy: why don't we all start on an ongoing course of chemotherapy as a preventive measure against getting cancer?
ps. I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I'm a *Lazy* Anonymous Coward from Ireland
Look, it was a big deal a few years ago when straight people hit the 50% make of HIV infections in the US, hit as high in the upper 50s, and then saw a rise in the gay community. Some speculated that while the 50% mark made it easier to sell AIDS as a problem for everyone, not just the gay community, it also caused the gay community to take their eye off the ball.
Regardless, say 50% of the AIDS cases are in the male gay community. The male gay community is between 1.5% and 3.5% of the US population. That means that 2.5% of the population is responsible for 50% of the cases, and 97.5% is responsible for the other 50%.
AIDS remains a GAY problem, because you are 40x more likely to contract AIDS in the gay community. A single, moderate income gay man in an urban area may be more than happy to spend $1,000/mo. from his disposable income to engage in this behavior. In urban areas, the heterosexual community is rarely focused on future financial planning and preparing for children, I can't imagine that the gay community is MORE focused away from hedonism then their straight neighbors.
That said, can you get AIDS from heterosexual sex? Of course, but not likely. The transmission rate from a man to a woman via vaginal sex is a fraction of the rate from anal sex... less than half. And the transmission rate from a woman to a man via vaginal sex is EXTREMELY low.
What does this mean? A man having sex on occaision with a prostitute is mathematically unlikely to catch HIV, but if he does, it is more likely that he passes it to his wife than it was that he got it. However, that same prostitute has a decent chance of getting HIV if a few of her customers have it.
In addition, a man having sex with a prostitute no doubt will add 1-3 additional sexual partners. A woman working as a prostitute will have from 2-12 partners/DAY.
The fact is, there are areas where the return from the drugs may play a benefit to society. Keeping prostitutes from getting HIV could have a HUGE impact on the culture at large. While a VERY small percentage of men go to prostitutes, if you figure that each prostitute has sex with 25 men/week (a low figure) and a 4% transmission rate, then each HIV-postiive prostitute infects one straight male each week. If half of those men are married or otherwise having sex with a partner regularly, then they WILL infect their wife/partner over time, as the transmission rate is around 20%-30%.
So an HIV positive prostitute will cause 1.5 additional infections per week, MINIMUM, assuming that the client and their spouse/partner DOESN'T commit any additional infidelities.
At under $1000/mo./prositute, I bet it is a positive return to give the drug away. When an infected Prostitute causes 75 infections, even if we assume that each case only bleeds the government for $10k (the rest borne by private insurance), avoiding an infected prostitute saves you 750,000/year. At less than $12,000/year for the prevention, if we assume that 1/60 prostitutes is invected, then we spend less than $720,000 to save $750,000 in treatment.... Each saved life is a bonus!
My point is, normal single straight person that has 1-4 partners a year probably won't cough up $1k/month to reduce their already low risk. Extremely sexually active gay male with 4+ partners a month probably will. Gay man in monogamous relationship or in a normal dating patter, 1-3 partners/year probably will. Woman working as a prostitute SHOULD do so, but can't afford it, but might be targetted by a government that wants to stop the spread.
There are people that will cough up the money, or at least should, and areas where society would benefit from doing so, but no, the general population need not be on permenant AIDS treatment.
What kind words for you to write, and I thank you for them. I am also happy to hear that men who are, generally speaking, turned on by the same things that I am turned on by have left a stereotype-improving impression upon you. It would be my hope that other gay men can catch the runoff from those positive stereotypes.
:)
There have been some gay men who have done all gay people a severe disservice by promoting the fast-track, drug-addicted "gay lifestyle" as, well, THE "gay lifestyle". When people talked about "being gay", that's what they were referring to. It was, in fact, a non-stop orgy of the gym, sex, and high-end drugs. This segment of the population still exists and is still just as hedonistic as it ever was, but society is changing and ever-allowing more options to what it means to be a gay man. My partner and I are adoptive parents and live in the conservative suburbs of a Southern city.
Anyway, thanks again.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Case in point: the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Now here's the thing with HPV: it's sexually transmitted, condoms don't protect against it, and doctors believe that it's responsible for seven out of ten cases of cervical cancer later in life. So, if we could develop a vaccine against it, that would be a huge strike against cancer, right?
Well... sure. But ultra right groups like the Family Research Council oppose such a vaccine, even though pharmaceutical companies have already conducted successful clinical trials. Why? Because they want to scare people into not having sex.
If this is the reaction an HPV vaccine (or, for that matter, condoms) gets, how do you think they're going to react to a cure to something which disproportionately affects gay men?
Oh great. All we have to do is have every healthy person in the world spend $20k-$40k per year on drugs that kill their liver and otherwise destroy thier health... for the rest of their lives. What a great solution!
This space available.
Divorce stats are low if people just shack up instead of getting married. In some places, people just don't bother to get married. That does NOT mean they abstain.
Drugs are good, mkaay?
That's like saying black people only want watermelons and fried chicken.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That's just not a serious possibility anymore; here are just some basic observations:
Single pathogens are sexy for epidemiologists.
Yes, and they are also the rule for infectious diseases. While susceptibility and severity of a disease may vary with environmental factors, for infectious diseases, there is usually a well-defined, clearly characterizable pathogen responsible.
That about does it actually. Other causes (rape, knife fight...) are uncommon in the civilized world.
You sir, are very naive.
Or you live in Norway... Or maybe Switzerland. I hear it is nice over there.
My current city of residence has had about 200+ some murders last year and it isn't as bad as the city across the river. And yes... We had a big rape scandal about some guy who jumped a lady on the subway last summer. I'm sure much more happens and isn't reported.
Either way... I'm just glad I don't live in Detroit.
PS If you happen to live in Norway or Switzerland do you know of any non-AIDs infected girls I can marry for citizenship?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That, and it's not like taking an Advil. Most of these drugs are absolutely _awful_ to take, especially the first few weeks. If condoms caused shingles the first 100 times you used them and then after that would randomly make you throw up and break out in hives, people wouldn't use them either, even if they were free.
Hell, I know HIV-positive people who can't keep on their meds because they just get sick of all the side-effects. So, how they think people who aren't infected are going to stick to them "just in case" is pretty astonishing.
if you are taking expensive medication to pervent AIDS, i am going to assume you are not planning on getting raped.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
YEAAARRRGGGHH! Religion aside, but how culturally biased can you be?!?!?! If our culture included the continual use of gloves and zero contact among our population would we stop the research of antibiotics?
I'm one for a leveled debate, I don't even like the idea of "Culture Engineering" the world but this consistent puritanical bias seems to be doing just that. If you don't believe what we believe or more importantly who we believe in you deserve no protection from science.
We would be opposed to putting our kids in quartine till the age of 8 or stopping all contact, but these so called "sins" of drugs and sex can be suppresed. What an "enlightened" world we have.
I fault the Africans for not embracing condoms due to cultural values but our blind adherence to our biases is just as damning. Boy I'm so glad I'm in the... majority?
Uh oh.
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
I don't know which ones are red and which are blue, but I am pretty sure Mass. is pretty liberal, and Wyoming is conservative. Nevada is highest, but I don't know if it counts. Partly because I imagine there are inflated divorce rates, and partly because Clark County is very liberal, and the entire rest of the state is very conservative.
But, like you said, what does this really mean? There are more reasons to divorce than cheating. Also, there are far more promiscuous people out there than the cheating divorcees.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I hold the patent on "From the Article" satirical summaries, so you'll be hearing from my lawyer and the O'Reilly Fox News Security team.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
This is slashdot. Nobody here is having sex with anyone.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that right-wing groups have tried to block the approval of this vaccine, or that they are, but it's because they're anti-children out of wedlock, and not anti-sex.
If it's the former, the facts I've already quoted simply give the lie to your assertion. Did an FRC rep not say that such a vaccine would have the unwanted effect of encouraging premarital sex? The notion that she isn't against such a vaccine goes against the plain language of her statement.
If it's the latter, consider what you're saying: it's acceptable to block access to a treatment which could save millions of lives (an AIDS vaccine), or greatly reduce the incidence of cervical cancer (an HPV vaccine) if it also achieves the goals of making people get married before they have sex.
Actually? I do think that. See, we already have a procedure which can greatly lessen the spread of the HIV virus. The technical term is "wearing a condom."
From The Guardian:
So, if the right wing is so intent on preventing unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, how come they're slashing funding for condom-providing facilities in Africa in favor of "abstinence only" education? I mean, besides this administration's devotion to policies that don't work.
My take is that they seriously want to punish people who are having "unapproved" sex. And no matter how many times conservatives insist that this isn't the case - they may even believe that it isn't the case - once engaged on the subject, their speech consistently comes back to a central theme: "You can't deal with the consequences? Don't have sex."
But then, I can't be trusted. I'm "wacky."
Both of those misconceptions have been shown, clinically, time and time again, to be demonstrably false.
All's true that is mistrusted
This is old news.....NPR had a much better (IMHO) and more subjective story on this on March 6th. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5246856
This motherfucker knows what he's talking about.
:-D
About five years ago... No, I'm sorry, six or seven. Anyway, a long time ago, my girlfriend at the time and I were hanging out outside a bowling alley waiting for a ride home and she put her hand down on a hypodermic needle. Now, there was no way of telling whether this had been used for insulin or heroin, and she had to go into a regimen of anti-hepatitis and anti-HIV drugs.
The side effects were... awesome. She became moodier than she had ever been, went from having a period every three months to having one every three weeks, and cheated on me with two of my best friends and two of my other friends.
Fuck these drugs.
No, their motive is to try to reduce the larger social problem of out of wedlock births
Were that even a sane statement, then they would be the number one single biggest supporters of birth control education and availability. What's that they're the ones doing everything in their power to prevent basic simple facts from being taught?
Save the idiotic hateful lies.
Their agenda is to fuck people over for sin of having sex with no regard for how badly they fuck over the children as well.
These people are evil shitbags of the lowest degree who prey on the innocent and the ignorant.
Don't forget the daily iPod story.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
If it's a decision to take tenofovir for $417 and I may be safe from Aids but not from the other sexualy transmitted diseases and Condoms for 50 cents for good STD coverage , I'll wrap that rascal every time.
"Never say Never."
I appreciate your response! Most people just call me names and refuse to debate the issue.
.. in Africa it's different -- but you knew that, of course!)
The paper's initial assertion is that AIDS was introduced as a polio virus. Simple logical disproof
No need to disprove it. The anecdote was the lead-into to her investigation about HIV/AIDS.
Several pages deal with the controversy surrounding the initial discovery of the HIV virus. There was also controversy surrounding the discovery of DNA, therefore we shouldn't believe DNA is the 'source code' of life?
You are trying to change the subject. Do you care to defend the methods used to "discover" HIV? Specifically, I'd like to know how you think it's possible to do the following:
1. Draw blood from GRIDS-suffering gay men and obtain protein samples from said blood
2. Inject blood into rabbit
3. Allow rabbit to produce antibodies
4. Assume that these antibodies react to a totally new type of retrovirus
That is what Gallo (actually, Popovic) did, and I'm wondering where the science is. Will you illuminate me? I find it particularly damning considering that this is the very same process that Gallo was discredited for in the HTLV debacle.
She makes light of the microliter aliquots used in the CBC tests
This seems rather minor considering the fact that HIV seems to be a big hoax and people are being fed poison to fight a non-existant disease. If these are the types of objections you're going to come up with, then you are practically endorsing your opponent's position.
She also does not respect the validity of the HIV Load test, saying that since it uses PCR (a very common technique in medicine) it cannot be accurate.
She does not discount "viral load" because it uses PCR, but because the notion of the "viral load" test is flawed by design. The "viral load" test looks for "viral particles" which are *assumed* to come from HIV. (Since HIV has never been isolated according to the virologcal standard, such a thing must be assumed.) Then, PCR multiplies (not "amplifies") the number of these tiny particles and the resultant number is assumed to be representative of the amount of virus in your system.
Problems:
1. We have no way of knowing that the virus particles come from any virus, much less a specific retrovirus known as HIV
2. We have no way of knowing that the particles represent working viruses
3. Since PCR is a multiplicative act, any errors will also be multiplied
Your response?
But the coup-de-gras for me was her statistics that showed how low CD4 counts don't correlate to AIDS. (AIDS is, incidentally, practically being defined by low CD4 count)
In truth, "AIDS" has been redefined multiple times, and has different definitions based on the year, the politics, and the continent. ("AIDS" in Africa is diagnosed by clinical symptoms, not by anything fancy like PCR or even an ELISA -- but you knew that, of course!) Since the "discovery" of HIV, AIDS is "incidentally, practically" defined by the positive result of an "HIV test". (In USA and Europe only
* "61% of people with CD4 count = 200 in 1997 were AIDS free"
* -response: Yes, CD4=200 is the upper limit at which you see AIDS symptoms, this is expecte
What page was this on? I'm happy to discuss the validity of using CD4 counts as a "hallmark" for AIDS.
-response: No, but anti-retovirals have been tightly correlated to increased CD4 counts, and their withdrawal to lower CD4 counts. It has also been shown repeatedly (and even in this paper!) that low CD4 count correlates with disease.
Low CD4 counts correlate with many diseases NOT in conjunction with a positive result on an "HIV test", such as pneumonia.
I just pointed out a few of the most egregious and most easily refuted examples.
Why not bring up the hard ones? Is it perhaps because you do not have an answer? For instance:
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Were that even a sane statement, then they would be the number one single biggest supporters of birth control education and availability. What's that they're the ones doing everything in their power to prevent basic simple facts from being taught?
Emboldened by their successful assault on the innocence of grade school children in the US through the guise of public education, the leftist smut merchants are now trowling their swill in a UN funded, worldwide pogrom with even more devastating negative consequences on world health.
These people are evil shitbags of the lowest degree who prey on the innocent and the ignorant.
One of many foolish assertions.
an ill wind that blows no good
I was going to just foe and filter you as a crank/troll ("lol thers no AIDS hurh"), but this post convinced me you're interesting enough to keep around.
:) I must correct you: my argument is NOT one of "There's no AIDS". I believe that "AIDS" is actually the mis-diagnosis of many other diseases and clincal symptoms. My position is that I do not believe that HIV exists, and I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Heh, I get lucky every now and then.
My position is also that AIDS is a huge part of Western culture, and it is practially a religion to many people who believe in it. It is *much* more offensive to say, "I do not believe in HIV" than it is "I do not believe in Jesus", even in the Southern USA where I live.
However, I'm not even going to bother reading a PDF(!) on a website called "sparks of light". Find some better references next time, or just copy-paste the interesting bits into your post.
There is simply not enough space in Slashdot to post every "interesting bit" about AIDS. I can probably convince anyone that the War on Drugs should end, but it will take me 30 minutes.
30 minutes is not nearly enough time to explain to you why HIV has not been proven to exist and why you should never get another "HIV test" under any circumstance. It would take me hours and I would probably have to fight through many layers of resistance and scorn.
But here is something that I consider "juicy" -- maybe a good intro to AIDS for you.
AZT is still the #1 "retroviral therapy" used to "treat" HIV. AZT was *not* invented for this purpose. In fact, AZT was invented decades ago for cancer chemotherapy and then shelved because it was deemed too toxic for use. It was un-shelved during the AIDS panic of 1984-5 and then given quick FDA approval after a very unscientific trial.
AZT is what is called a "DNA chain terminator". It works by substituting itself for thymine in the DNA chain and thus DNA chains stop being build during cell synthesis. The result is that the cell dies. It targets all cells in this manner.
In other words, AZT is strictly poison. Its use is reasonable in the case of cancer chemotherapy ("Poison you until the cancer dies, and hope that all the cancer cells die before you do"), but not for AIDS ("You're going to die anyway, so keep taking the poison until you die").
The manufacturer of AZT provides this warning about AZT: "prolonged use of Retrovir [AZT] has been associated with systematic myopathy [body wasting] similar to that produced by HIV". How do you know that the body wasting is NOT coming from the AZT rather than from the HIV? How do you know that AZT is not "AIDS by prescription", as many have called it?
Here's the warning label for AZT. This is the label that patients do not see:
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/azt.html#label
Here's the text on the warning label:
"TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
Notice that it targets the "bone marrow"? This is where our white blood cells are produced. In other words, AZT targets the immune system.
"AIDS by prescription"? Juicy enough for you?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
That place is about as queer as a three dollar bill
;)
I've always preferred the term, "queer as a football bat", said with a serious Southern drawl. I'm gay and from the South, so I feel I have the latitutde to poke fun at both!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
While it is not the only factor involved, there is a very big difference.
Gay men are statistically more likely to have AIDS than straight men. Okay, call it 45% of the cases are gay, and call the gay community 4.5% of the population. HIV and AIDS remain much more prevalent in the gay community, in part because of transmission rates.
My point was that statistically speaking there are people MORE likely to encounter HIV, and people that are LESS likely to encounter HIV.
With a high cost of prevention, you will get more bang for your buck in areas with higher concentrations of usage.
I have no idea if the minor genetic differences between blacks and whites make transmission more likely (i.e. is there a genetic combination that disproportionately comes up either community that makes transmission easier/harder), or the more likely a matter of social factors where slightly higher rates of risky behavior cause a skew in the distribution.
How is that bigotted? A small percentage of the population, the percentage that engages in gay sex, forms a LARGE block of the cases, and my suggestion that segments of that population are higher risk?
Are you suggestion that the "urban gay partier" is not a demographic? I don't suggest that it is a majority of the gay demographic, but is likely a minority that is high risk. The "urban heterosexual partier" is also a demographic, and a minority of the heterosexual demographic, but remains low risk.
The distribution of HIV in America is NOT at all evenly distributed, which suggests that some combination of biological and social factors (perhaps 0% and 100%, but nonetheless there are factors) causes the distribution to skew.
To stop a communicable disease, targetting the high risk factor groupings makes more sense.
Suggesting that every American pop AIDS pills to prevent the spread is a non-starter, but certain communities may make sense to subsidize to stop the spread.
Alex
Using both your right and left hands?
I may not be an expert on that period of history, but I doubt even in the 70's nerds got much.
Emboldened by their successful assault on the innocence of grade school children in the US through the guise of public education, the leftist smut merchants are now trowling their swill in a UN funded, worldwide pogrom with even more devastating negative consequences on world health.
The frightening thing is that it is possible that there are people who are deluded enough to believe this.
The fundamental issue with world health in this context is the lack of available protection.
What do you know the sickening evil that is the religious right too away all funding for programs that had a scrap of reality in them. "Abstinence only" programs help kill people. Condoms help save lives. That's reality.
I'm sure that it really had anything to do with American "leftists" that people from other cultures don't live according to your beliefs. That's the thing you really can't stand. If every single person in the world doesn't believe exactly as you do then since your faith is weak, you get upset. Try growing up!
Too bad that evil hypocrites like yourself would rather see people suffer and die in punishment for being human than act like a decent person who would know what a moral was if it bit them on the ass.
You're all too typical of this sickeningly evil breed.
One of many foolish assertions.
It's called a simple statement of fact backed up by 100% of the evidence
...the same fundamentalist kooks who oppose the vaccine to human papilloma virus... jump all over this as "encouraging irresponsible behavior" or some such nonsense.
Okay. Now this is just getting silly. To begin, the conflation of condom programs as "promoting promiscuity." Would you define seat belts as promoting unsafe driving?
Then, your justification for opposing programs. In your first reply to me: "No, their motive is to try to reduce the larger social problem of out of wedlock births... Do you think they would want to deprive a vaccine from the millions infected with HIV in Africa? Pretty wacky."
In your second: "Devotion to a policy of encouraging promiscuity among a population to whom such behavior is suicide is better? Yikes!"
So, the goal isn't to prevent people from having sex per se, except where it is. And that's only to prevent either births out of wedlock or life-threatening diseases, except when there are proven methods for reducing the incidence of both.
Abstinence-only education has never been shown to work, as my previous link demonstrated. The use of condoms has a measureable and highly successful track record in the prevention of AIDS. And yet it's me and my wacky "ilk" which are "impervious to logic" in suggesting that de-funding programs which supply condoms, and transferring that money to abstinence-only programs, may not be a good idea.
I also notice that you ignore the issue of the HPV vaccine here. So tell me - how is denying women access to a vaccine to HPV (and therefore reducing their risk of cervical cancer later in life) showing concern for their health?
(Not particular to this respondant, just needed a place to stick this comment.) When did the name change occur from "AIDS" to "HIV AIDS"? They don't call leprosy "Hansen's baccillus leprosy". I think it's that it's too hard to avoid the fact that there are idiopathetic immunodeficiency disorders (which are, presumably, acquired), so we need to distinguish them. But if the only distinguishing characteristic is the existence of certain antibodys, well....
All's true that is mistrusted
Both of those misconceptions have been shown, clinically, time and time again, to be demonstrably false.
Then surely you'd have no problem linking to proof of this claim. Preferably one that hasn't been refuted already.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Hi there!
/. to read what I have to write (and also hear your responses), I find doing so on /. to be a drag and know that we will inevitably be shut out of the discussion.
Thank you for your long and insightful response. Naturally, I have a answers and responses to much of what you wrote, but this is bound to get very, very long. As much as I want others on
Furthermore, getting a medical professional (I make assumptions based on the "MD" in your nick, please correct me if I'm wrong) to actually *talk* to me about this issue without being a total abusive jerk is rare, rare, rare. I value you like I do a precious gem and want to give you great respect.
Can we continue this discussion in e-mail, please?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.