Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

I'm just more upset that we have spent billions of dollars in research and the Japanese (may) have figured out a cure first.


bastards!!


Hi my name is Kano. Just because I don't smoke, I don't need to worry about cancer. There is virtually zero risk compared to smokers! Huurrr.

 

[Kano]

I don't think anyone is saying they don't care about the cure. I think some of us are just tired of this emphasis on heterosexual risk. The "risk" is so low as to almost be not worth mentioning. I think that there are sensitivities to framing this epidemic as one that is predominantly of a homosexual grade. That's completely understandable, as I'm sure that many homosexuals will take exception to the possibility of finding themselves categorized as the harbingers or catalysts for the AIDS epidemic. I just think that there needs to be a bit more honesty in tackling this disease.

 

[Tritroid]

The facts above counter nothing I've said. It's a fact that many homosexuals are also in heterosexual relationships, meaning they're bringing their unsafe practice of anal sex back to their female partners. It's also a fact that women are far more susceptible to contracting the disease than men -- almost 80% compared to 7% risk in men. If you're not a homosexual, you're right, the chance of "getting AIDS" is "PRETTY DAMN large" if you're a woman involved with a man who is committing with men or partaking of intravenous drug use.

You all are making this into a "heterosexual" vs. "homosexual" argument -- when it is anything but. It's a matter of placing things into their proper perspective. We need to target and assist those groups who are at a greater risk of contraction, intervening where we may stem the spread of this disease.

By overstating the disease's threat to the heterosexual community, you're thinning resources that could be better spent combating the true causes.

Actually if the target group is concentrated on for awareness and prevention, the problem of other means of transmission, including heterosexual intercourse, becomes worse.

Already, there are too many people who think that AIDS is a gay disease. And because of that, they actually believe that HIV cannot be transfered if they're engaged in 'healthy' male-female sex. This assumption, along with multiple others, is one of the reasons why HIV/AIDS still is considered an epidemic among humans. HIV/AIDS education has dropped completely off the map since the late 80s-early 90s, and as such ignorance has fueled the progression of this disease.

Anal intercourse is just as risky as Vaginal intercourse, in fact both are considered to be high risk by the CDC. The mucus membranes that line the rectum AND the vagina make it very easy for the HIV virus to enter the blood stream via semen, secretion, or blood itself. This is why homosexual sex should NOT be pinpointed as the 'only' or 'most' risky course of transmission.

 

[Lord Error]

Just because I don't smoke, I don't need to worry about cancer. There is virtually zero risk compared to smokers! Huurrr.

I don't think that's such a good comparision. I mean, what are the chances you ever get aids if you live in NA and only engage in protected sex?

 

[sly]

A question for the AIDS "experts":

Do have a higher chance of being infected through anal sex(male or female) or penis/vagina copulation?

 

[Kano]

A question for the AIDS "experts":

Do have a higher chance of being infected through anal sex(male or female) or penis/vagina copulation?

Anal Sex.

 

[Gek54]

The tissue that lines the walls of the colon is more likely to tear and bleed than vaginal tissue. Why people want to stick their dick in a bloody shit hole is beyond me.

 

[Kano]

The tissue that lines the walls of the colon is more likely to tear and bleed than vaginal tissue. Why people want to stick their dick in a bloody shit hole is beyond me.

Especially when they know the risk associated with that act. It doesn't make sense.

 

[sly]

Anal Sex.

The tissue that lines the walls of the colon is more likely to tear and bleed than vaginal tissue.

I'm so ignorant :lol I thought the virus was transmitted through the vaginal fluids and semen/pre-ejaculation fluids? I thought the virus could find its way through the tip/hole of the penis? So are you saying the skin around the penis or around/inside the vagina has to be briused or broken before the virus can be tranmitted?

 

[BigGreenMat]

An experiment with no control? What scientific method are we supposed to be following again?




Did we read the same study?






We're talking about UNPROTECTED sex. Condom usage is PROTECTED sex.

The 'control' you are trying to implicate is not a control to begin with and is what the entire study is based on, but you seem to be completely missing that the whole analysis is based on serodiscordant couples. Are you freaking BLIND. READ! You highlight a phrase and complain when the answer is right next to it. It said 5-16% and it says in the freaking study that this is a negligable % given the amount of unprotected contact. Are you seriously this blind.

I seriously need to get out of this thread. The level of ignorance and WILLED ignorance is unbearable.

 

[Tritroid]

I'm so ignorant :lol I thought the virus was transmitted through the vaginal fluids and semen/pre-ejaculation fluids? I thought the virus could find its way through the tip/hole of the penis? So are you saying the skin around the penis or around/inside the vagina has to be briused or broken before the virus can be tranmitted?

And this is exactly why the people who try to justify Anal/Gay sex as being the only 'true' form of HIV transmission cause mass confusion, and essentially contribute to the spread of the virus among people who are unknowledgeable of the facts.

HIV is present in both vaginal fluids AND pre-semen. It can be spread through both of them.

Yes, the virus can be transmitted to a male through the urethra, as well as through small slits on the tip of the penis that could be a result from rough sex.

No, the penis or vagina does not have to be bruised or broken for transmission to take place. The membranes of the vagina (and urethra of the penis) are essentially a direct link to the blood stream, whether or not they are torn or ripped, HIV can still be transmitted if infected fluid comes in contact with them.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I don't think that's such a good comparision. I mean, what are the chances you ever get aids if you live in NA and only engage in protected sex?

Pretty good, if I am shooting up heroin in random drug houses.

 

[sly]

And this is exactly why the people who try to justify Anal/Gay sex as being the only 'true' form of HIV transmission cause mass confusion, and essentially contribute to the spread of the virus among people who are unknowledgeable of the facts.

HIV is present in both vaginal fluids AND pre-semen. It can be spread through both of them.

Yes, the virus can be transmitted to a male through the urethra, as well as through small slits on the tip of the penis that could be a result from rough sex.

No, the penis or vagina does not have to be bruised or broken for transmission to take place. The membranes of the vagina (and urethra of the penis) are essentially a direct link to the blood stream, whether or not they are torn or ripped, HIV can still be transmitted if infected fluid comes in contact with them.

So I wasn't ignorant? :lol Thanks for explaining.

 

[BigGreenMat]

The facts above counter nothing I've said. It's a fact that many homosexuals are also in heterosexual relationships, meaning they're bringing their unsafe practice of anal sex back to their female partners. It's also a fact that women are far more susceptible to contracting the disease than men -- almost 80% compared to 7% risk in men. If you're not a homosexual, you're right, the chance of "getting AIDS" is "PRETTY DAMN large" if you're a woman involved with a man who is committing infidelity with men or partaking of intravenous drug use.

You all are making this into a "heterosexual" vs. "homosexual" argument -- when it is anything but. It's a matter of placing things into their proper perspective. We need to target and assist those groups who are at a greater risk of contraction, intervening where we may stem the spread of this disease.

By overstating the disease's threat to the heterosexual community, you're thinning resources that could be better spent combating the true causes.

Kano, you are on the right path although not necessarily with the right frame of mind. Women are NOT more susceptible than men if the men are uncircumcized. The lower risk for men in the US is because we are perhaps the only country where a great majority of men are circumcized at birth. Also men generally carry a higher viral load upon infection than women therefore increasing their ability to pass on infection. When you adjust for this viral load and circumcision the statistics bear out that women and men are equally susceptible, but men have been physically modified to be less susceptible and are more contagious.

I will agree with one great sentiment in this thread. If you don't know the person well or if you figure there has been a lot of risky behavior just wrap it up. I know my exact chances of being infected are low and are especially low because I live in the US, but I still feel it is incredibly important to protect myself as best I can. Unless I monogamous with a girl and we both have been tested I will wrap it up. You all should know your risks and do the same.

 

[BigGreenMat]

And this is exactly why the people who try to justify Anal/Gay sex as being the only 'true' form of HIV transmission cause mass confusion, and essentially contribute to the spread of the virus among people who are unknowledgeable of the facts.

HIV is present in both vaginal fluids AND pre-semen. It can be spread through both of them.

Yes, the virus can be transmitted to a male through the urethra, as well as through small slits on the tip of the penis that could be a result from rough sex.

No, the penis or vagina does not have to be bruised or broken for transmission to take place. The membranes of the vagina (and urethra of the penis) are essentially a direct link to the blood stream, whether or not they are torn or ripped, HIV can still be transmitted if infected fluid comes in contact with them.

You are mostly right here. Except that an intact vaginal wall and urethra will stop the virus. Ususally there are microulcerations of vaginal walls and on the penis which can permit a fluid transfer into the blood stream for HIV transmiision. There is HIV present in saliva, but you simply do not get transmission because of the lack of such ulcerations and the limited amount of virus. Which again shows the impacts of viral load.

 

[Lord Error]

Pretty good, if I am shooting up heroin in random drug houses.

Yeah, I assumed that to not be the case My point was that as far as lethal transmittable diseases go, aids is not really something a person living in civilized countries, who takes no drugs and has protected sex with 'unsafe' partners, has much to be worried about. It's easily preventable with some basic knowledge. Hell, if that CDC report is anything to go by, even an unprotected sex in NA would only get you infected if you are really unlucky.

From the selfish point of view, the cure for cancer would be hell of a lot more welcome for people in western world than cure for aids. Not so if you look at the Africa though.

 

[Tritroid]

You are mostly right here. Except that an intact vaginal wall and urethra will stop the virus. Ususally there are microulcerations of vaginal walls and on the penis which can permit a fluid transfer into the blood stream for HIV transmiision. There is HIV present in saliva, but you simply do not get transmission because of the lack of such ulcerations and the limited amount of virus. Which again shows the impacts of viral load.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. I assumed he was talking about visual bruised or broken areas in the vagina.

 

[3phemeral]

This is what my friend had to say on the matter:

I don't like this article, poorly written, plenty of inaccuracies, I feel. Too lazy to look up if it's true at all, but I would believe that there is a kernal of truth behind it all. Blocking viral entry into the cell is something that people have been working on. The mechanism of entry is known, just a matter of getting something that works.

Of course there are going to be side effect. The sample size (n=40) is very small, so this would only be a phase I trial anyway, and you're not necessarily going to see what the side effects are. Cells don't just have random proteins on their surface, so if you block one, you're going to be influencing whatever that protein's function was, which will be the cause of the side effects (and is in fact the cause of all side effects).

Just because the virus itself isn't being directly attacked does not mean that evolution and survival of the fittest ceases to act. The virus simply waits until a mutation arises whereby the virus has greater affinity for the CD4 receptor than the drug AK602 has. When the virus binds tighter than the drug, then it can gain the upper hand and enter if the mechanism of the block is reversible inhibition. If it is irreversible inhibition, than the virus could counter with an increased number of daughter viruses released by an infected cell, raising the viral load in the bloodstream in order to better compete with the drug for binding sites.

The binding site is the CD4 molecule, but that molecule comes in different flavors, and the nature of the infection changes as the virus population switches its focus from one to the other, from attacking monocytes to T cells. Does the drug protect against both? Protect equally against both? Who knows?

After a 10 day course, the article says viral load dropped to an average of 1%. 1 percent of what? One percent of their starting viral load? Everyone had different starting viral loads, I am sure. Isn't it a coincidence that they all lost different numbers of virus such that each was left with one percent of what they started with?

Who uses ounces to measure drug dosages? No one.

Oh, and it's a Japanese team doing research on US patients. That seemed weird to me as well.

 

[Phoenix]

The 'control' you are trying to implicate is not a control to begin with and is what the entire study is based on,

Do you know what a control is? Where is the control group against which this is compared?

but you seem to be completely missing that the whole analysis is based on serodiscordant couples. Are you freaking BLIND. READ! You highlight a phrase and complain when the answer is right next to it. It said 5-16% and it says in the freaking study that this is a negligable % given the amount of unprotected contact. Are you seriously this blind.

I seriously need to get out of this thread. The level of ignorance and WILLED ignorance is unbearable.

Of the 415 serodiscordant couples, the male was infected in 55%, and the female partner was infected in 45% of the couples at enrollment. (EDIT: Of the COUPLES there is 100% - there is no Single sex control that makes up 100%)


The most important variable that was associated with both transmission and acquisition was the viral level of HIV in the infected partner prior to seroconversion in the HIV-negative partner. (EDIT: RISES WITH VIRAL RATE)


The rate of transmission rose from 2.2% among individuals with viral RNA levels <3,500 c/ml to 23.0% at levels >50,000 c/ml. (EDIT: RISES WITH VIRAL RATE)

When viral load was analyzed as a continuous variable, the risk of transmission increased 2.45 for each log10 increment in viral load. (EDIT: RISES WITH VIRAL RATE)

Heterosexual transmission remains the most common mode of transmission of HIV throughout the world. Over 85% of new infections are acquired heterosexually, with the greatest predominance still in sub-Saharan Africa. (EDIT: Heterosexual transmission remains most common)

The concern is that there may be compartmentalization of viral levels in the genital secretions that may not necessarily correlate with reductions in the peripheral blood viral load due to antiretroviral drugs. This issue needs to be carefully studied in the near future (EDIT: NOTE they are studying transmission with antriretroviral drugs)

You just need to get out of the thread if you're skimming over the facts that are in the sources that you've introduced yourself.

To be fair I've picked out something for you to read in the interim:

 

[BigGreenMat]

Do you know what a control is? Where is the control group against which this is compared?





You just need to get out of the thread if you're skimming over the facts that are in the sources that you've introduced yourself.

To be fair I've picked out something for you to read in the interim:

There is nothing left to say man. You are out of your element. I do medical research for a living. If you want to harp on a publication from Johns Hopkins and call it fraudulent go ahead I think they have their shit together more than you. This is a brilliant analysis of a quite large set of data which is very illuminating on the risks we face. In fact in Microbiology at Dartmouth one of my professors William Green discussed this very same data set and we went through it step by step identifying risk levels and rates of transmission. If you want to go on in blind ignorance please go ahead. The facts are in front of you.

 

[Phoenix]

There is nothing left to say man. You are out of your element. I do medical research for a living. If you want to harp on a publication from Johns Hopkins and call it fraudulent go ahead I think they have their shit together more than you. This is a brilliant analysis of a quite large set of data which is very illuminating on the risks we face.

415 people localized in one area of a problem area who make up one racial basis and due to culture in the region are likely to have similar genetic traits is a large data set these days? Hopefully when you get out of school you'll recognize that using this constrained of a data set and a constrained set of people is flawed for reaching any meaningful conclusions that is outside that set of people. I wonder what you guys would derive if you tested the people of Bay St. Louis, MS for diabetes as a basis for people around the world.