HIV in the news

[lenny]

"Experimental HIV Vaccine Approved By FDA For Human Testing

Testing on humans of a HIV vaccine will begin in January. If successful, the vaccine could be available for use in 5 years.

Canadian researchers received approval Tuesday from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin testing an experimental and potentially breakthrough HIV vaccine on human subjects with the first phase of clinical trials scheduled for January, the National Post has reported.

The vaccine could be a milestone achievement in HIV prevention because it works similarly to existing vaccines for polio and the flu: by using whole samples of dead viruses to stimulate an immune response in recipients without causing them to contract the disease. The National Post has also reported that the vaccine has gone through preliminary toxicology tests without raising safety concerns.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...942.html?1324411271&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/12/22/fda-clears-hiv-vaccine-for-human-trials/

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/20/2135254/hiv-vaccine-approval-for-human-trials

https://merb.cc/vbulletin//archive/index.php/t-79127.html


-------------



"HIV Vaccine That Could Turn Disease Into ‘Minor Infection`

Scientists from the Spanish Superior Scientific Research Council have discovered an immunity vaccine that could potentially prevent HIV turning into AIDS.

The research, found 90% of its healthy volunteers developed an immunity against HIV after taking the vaccine, with 85% keeping the immunity in their system for a year.

The vaccine, which is based on treatment similar to the smallpox vaccine, works by training the immune system of a healthy person to detect and learn how to combat HIV.

Scientists are hoping that this vaccine will turn HIV into a ‘minor chronic infection’ in the long run rather than a life-threatening disease.

"It is like showing a picture of the HIV so that it is able to recognise it if it sees it again in the future," says Professor Mariano Esteban, from the Spanish Superior Scientific Research Council.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...rn-disease-into-minor-infection_n_987251.html



----------------


"Dr Valerie Delpech, consultant epidemiologist and head of HIV surveillance at the HPA, said: "HIV is an infection
which can nowadays be treated and those diagnosed promptly can expect to experience similar life expectancy as an
individual without the infection."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/28/half-diagnosed-late-wit_n_1117654.html

 

[jesuschrist]

Don't celebrate just yet. Unless for some very exceptional reason, even when after they do find a vaccine, add at least 5 years to get it to the population. By some accounts, I heard as much as 10.

It's no reason, though many will (and have) used these sorts of announcements, to become reckless.

I have said this before, that exhaustion from public policy expounded by the medical community, which amounted to paranoia rather than medicine and science, is the reason why young people today don't use condoms. If the medical community had been completely objective and truthful in fact and in spirit about the transmissability of HIV, young people today would be deciding condom use intelligently rather than from a fear that was largely fabricated, and we would not have articles upon books of AIDS deniers.

 

[violetblake]

I think people don't use condoms because there is not nearly enough education in "sex ed". They have no idea just how common STDs are, and how they can be transmitted. Add to that the fact teens think they're invincible, and it's no wonder it's turned out this way. The only sex ed a lot of kids get is porn, which is not exactly great for teaching people safe sex.

But I totally agree that although this would be fantastic if they could create a vaccine for HIV, until they can get rid of all STDs, which will never happen, there will always be a need for condom use. But at least people can protect themself in case a mistake were to happen. Also, one of the major transmissions of HIV is actually through IV drug use, not sex. So people may use less condoms thinking they're safer, when in fact HIV was likely never a major threat to them in the first place. People just gotta use their head, unfortunately, most don't, lol.

 

[jesuschrist]

But I totally agree that although this would be fantastic if they could create a vaccine for HIV, until they can get rid of all STDs, which will never happen, there will always be a need for condom use.

Would it really be a fantastic world if they could create a vaccine for HIV? I wouldn't be so sure. A vaccine is a small portion of the virus introduced into the body, and using the body's own defenses, builds a resistance to it. So it would "cure" us from being receptive to the effects of HIV, but it also provides the ground for susceptibility to the generation of a deadlier virus, perhaps one that kills in half the time and mutates at twice the rate. The other downside of the "curing" of HIV is that it would cause a lot of people to be extremely promiscuous, which in itself is not bad, but human beings were not made to be exchanging bodily fluids with a lot of people because it makes our immune defenses fight harder - and eventually the right combination of germs would evolve a new virus or at least help spread viruses faster.

Biologists have been warning us for years against the indiscretionary application of new vaccines, whereas the medical authorities have seemed to resort to it without discrimination. Medical authorities have in this way been acting like the police when, in motivation to make public victories, gravitate to easy solutions that often subvert the larger goal and ultimately frustrate society from truly advancing.

For this reason, I think that we do need the existence of fatal viruses.

 

[greatshark]

I think people don't use condoms because there is not nearly enough education in "sex ed". They have no idea just how common STDs are, and how they can be transmitted. Add to that the fact teens think they're invincible, and it's no wonder it's turned out this way. The only sex ed a lot of kids get is porn, which is not exactly great for teaching people safe sex.

But I totally agree that although this would be fantastic if they could create a vaccine for HIV, until they can get rid of all STDs, which will never happen, there will always be a need for condom use. But at least people can protect themself in case a mistake were to happen. Also, one of the major transmissions of HIV is actually through IV drug use, not sex. So people may use less condoms thinking they're safer, when in fact HIV was likely never a major threat to them in the first place. People just gotta use their head, unfortunately, most don't, lol.

You are wrong. Actually unprotected vaginal and anal sex is a major transmission of HIV. Educate yourself. Go to the BC Centre of Disease Control or the US Centers for Disease control. Most of the world's infections are from unprotected HIV during sex. Nearly all of sub-saharan Africa infections are that way. Majic Johnson was infected this way too.

 

[lenny]

Most of the world's infections are from unprotected HIV during sex.

I suppose you meant most of the "world's HIV infections are from (or occur during) unprotected sex."

Which, of course, would include the many millions (billions?) of instances of condoms being used but failing to protect from HIV.

 

[InTheBum]

I suppose you meant most of the "world's HIV infections are from (or occur during) unprotected sex."

Which, of course, would include the many millions (billions?) of instances of condoms being used but failing to protect from HIV.

I doubt there are millions of instances of condoms being used correctly and people getting HIV...try .001% of the time...

 

[carvesg]

Dear Lenny,
If I were you I would find a way to get infected and then give one of those vaccine trial a try as they use just 4 genes of the Hiv virus genome out of nine while they still can't understand its mutation. Stop reading the headlines only and check along the following pages on googles which explain what those trials really involve and their real chances of success after almost a dozen so far none have been successful with humains once put against a real virus . Even if one would have an effect on a certain strain they are quite sure that it would not work with a different strain because the mutation occur differently from one type (DNA) to the other. Thanks for making me read about it.

For most of us common sense will always prevail about the use of condoms so keep playing the devil's advocate all you want and pushing whatever agenda but the pourcentage is on our side even if it is not perfect. Being skeptical is a two way street so the rhetoric after almost a week is more then comical ..... laughable .

Good day

 

[jesuschrist]

I doubt there are millions of instances of condoms being used correctly and people getting HIV...try .001% of the time...

You are exactly right and lenny is distorting the truth and spreading lies when he says "Which, of course, would include the many millions (billions?) of instances of condoms being used but failing to protect from HIV." I wish he would stop trying to justify condomless sex with SP's and instead just do it because he wants to take the risk, whatever he truly thinks that is. The consequences he will be forced to deal with should he catch something, it won't be an act of will like choosing not to use condoms.

I just can't stand hearing justification after justification for bbfs that he uses. If he wants a reason, it's really as easy as: "it's 1% chance for vaginal and 3% for anal and I think it's worth it".

It's like having a gun with 1000 barrels and you put a bullet in one of them, and there is a $100 bill in front of you that you get if you don't die in one shot. For lenny, he would play that game over and over again and feel his wallet get fatter.

I make a similar argument for SP's who do CIM. If there was a glass of HIV infected cum in front of them, and $200, would they drink it if the chance was .01% of transmission?

 

[violetblake]

You are wrong. Actually unprotected vaginal and anal sex is a major transmission of HIV. Educate yourself. Go to the BC Centre of Disease Control or the US Centers for Disease control. Most of the world's infections are from unprotected HIV during sex. Nearly all of sub-saharan Africa infections are that way. Majic Johnson was infected this way too.

I was thinking in terms of Canada actually, I suppose I should have specified. And I have educated myself. Although I can't recall the exact percentage as it was a while ago I was reading up on this, IV drug use is one of the major transmission methods in Canada.

 

[myselftheother]

You are exactly right and lenny is distorting the truth and spreading lies when he says "Which, of course, would include the many millions (billions?) of instances of condoms being used but failing to protect from HIV." I wish he would stop trying to justify condomless sex with SP's and instead just do it because he wants to take the risk, whatever he truly thinks that is. The consequences he will be forced to deal with should he catch something, it won't be an act of will like choosing not to use condoms.

I just can't stand hearing justification after justification for bbfs that he uses. If he wants a reason, it's really as easy as: "it's 1% chance for vaginal and 3% for anal and I think it's worth it".

It's like having a gun with 1000 barrels and you put a bullet in one of them, and there is a $100 bill in front of you that you get if you don't die in one shot. For lenny, he would play that game over and over again and feel his wallet get fatter.

I make a similar argument for SP's who do CIM. If there was a glass of HIV infected cum in front of them, and $200, would they drink it if the chance was .01% of transmission?

You said it better than I could. To add; if there were catastrophic failures of condoms that led to HIV exposure and infection by the 'millions' then where are the lawsuits? In the US alone, if this was true, Durex and anybody else would be in front of a Congressional Committee on the carpet, getting grilled....like a rack of ribs....mmmm ribs.

 

[lenny]

What is "condom failure"? From my reading on condom sites it typicly includes incorrect usage by the user:

"Six Reasons For Condom Failure"
http://menshealth.about.com/od/contraception/a/condom_failure.htm

"Causes of Failure"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bagging#Causes_of_failure

"An Explanation of Condom Failure Rates"
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/explanation-condom-failure-rates

"How To Use Condoms and Prevent Condom Failure"
http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/ht/condom.htm

I doubt there are millions of instances of condoms being used correctly and people getting HIV...try .001% of the time...

Perhaps there is a failure to understand or in reading comprehension here:

1. condoms being used "correctly"...your word, not mine. BTW i commented upon the health nurse`s misleading fantasy world of perfect
use of always perfect condoms in the "bareback {no condom) sex article" thread, post # 46:

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?146701-Bareback-no-condom**-sex-article

2. people "getting HIV"...again your words, not mine. Quite different from millions of condoms "failing to protect from HIV" because of
manufacturing defects, being compromised in transport (e.g. left in extreme weather or storage conditions), users misuse, sabotage,
accidents, etc. Fortunately even when condoms fail to protect, the body`s natural defence systems will almost always protect a person
anyway. So just because a condom "fails to protect one from HIV" does not mean one is going to be "getting HIV".


"According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)...consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years.[52] Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch [53] and the World Health Organization[54] found similar risk reductions of 80–95%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#In_preventing_STDs

"Hand out all the condoms you want, make sure they are used, and there will still be an epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. I`m old enough to recall when the pill came out. I was just a child, but I remember the stir. Reliable birth control, for the 1st time!! Condoms have been around for centuries, in one form or another. They have never been reliable...a user might have an 85% protection rate against HIV, or pregnancy. In the real world, where the users are drunk, or stoned, it`s dark, and he is rushing...are you getting the picture?"

You are exactly right and lenny is distorting the truth and spreading lies when he says "Which, of course, would include the many millions (billions?) of instances of condoms being used but failing to protect from HIV."

See above.

Consider that there are multilple tens of millions of condoms used daily and millions of `condom failures` (user or manufacturing or
transportation related) every 24 hours. Over the course of a few years this easily exceeds a billion `condom failures`.

Obviously `condom failures` should be included amongst the cases of HIV infection due to "unprotected sex". Since when condoms fail
it is either much like or exactly the same as having so-called "unprotected" or BB sex. Amongst condom users a helluva lot of bareback
sex goes on, because it often occurs that the `condoms fail` {break, slip off, leak, etc). So, like i`ve said before, you condom users
are also having BB sex. And some of you condom only users are having it more often than some who only do it bareback.

I think this post elaborates upon and clarifies my original intended point, which was perhaps too obvious to even need to be stated.

 

[lenny]

"Microbicides for sexually transmitted diseases

"Although there are many approaches to preventing sexually transmitted diseases in general and HIV in particular, current methods have not been sufficient to halt the spread of these diseases — particularly among women and people who live in less-developed nations. Sexual abstinence is not a realistic option for women who want to bear children or who are at risk of sexual violence.[1] In such situations, use of microbicides could offer both primary protection in the absence of condoms and secondary protection if a condom breaks or slips off during intercourse. Microbicides may eventually prove to be safe and effective in reducing the risk of HIV transmission during sexual activity with an infected partner."

"...Substantial clinical evidence suggests that regular use of a commonly used spermicide called nonoxynol-9 actually increases the risk of HIV infection. Early in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, it was discovered that nonoxynol-9 could block the replication of HIV in laboratory tests. For more than a decade, public health professionals recommended nonoxynol-9 for use as a topical microbicide, and many condom and sexual lubricant brands incorporated nonoxynol-9 for this purpose. However, subsequent clinical research showed that nonoxynol-9 can result in the formation of erosions or sores in the vagina or rectum, which are now believed to serve as points of entry for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Consequently, there is now a broad consensus in the public health community that nonoxynol-9 should NOT be used as a topical microbicide.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbicides_for_sexually_transmitted_diseases


"Because nonoxynol-9 kills HIV in the test tube, it was considered as a way to prevent HIV infection during sex.
Unfortunately, many people are allergic to it. Their sex organs (penis, vagina, and rectum) can get irritated and develop
small sores that actually make it easier for HIV infection to spread. Nonoxynol-9 should not be used as a way to prevent
HIV infection."


http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Q185380.html?h96o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonoxynol-9
http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/swav/healthcards/nonox.html
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_94/out-9402.html
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_92/ap-920000.html
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_92/guardian-920211.html
http://gaylife.about.com/cs/physicalhealth/a/nonoxynol.htm
http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/nscom1/en/index.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Nonoxynol-9_-_Uses/id/1805842
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Nonoxynol-9/
http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/pages/default.aspx
http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...nol 9&Scope=AllIssues&txtKeywords=Nonoxynol 9

 

[jesuschrist]

"Because nonoxynol-9 kills HIV in the test tube, it was considered as a way to prevent HIV infection during sex.
Unfortunately, many people are allergic to it. Their sex organs (penis, vagina, and rectum) can get irritated and develop
small sores that actually make it easier for HIV infection to spread. Nonoxynol-9 should not be used as a way to prevent
HIV infection."

That's a very interesting tidbit of information. What it is saying is that, though this particular chemical that is meant to kill germs and HIV, and does so very effectively, when used in an orifice promotes the transmission of HIV because it damages the tissue. In other words, as effective as the chemical is, if you have damaged tissue you are still more likely to get transmission.

There was some talk about saliva being able to kill the HIV virus, and that is why it is safe to get semen into the mouth. If Nonoxynol-9, which was made to kill it, can't do so, why would saliva be any better? When Nonoxynol-9 is applied, it probably is applied liberally and with far more quantity than a person could generate saliva with their mouths. Yet Nonoxynol-9 in quantity can't seem to kill the virus if there is an open sore, so why should saliva with less quantity? Every time I read some SP or guy posting that oral sex is safe against the transfer of HIV because saliva kills the germs, they never specify details about it, like quantity of saliva, length of contact and submersion levels, etc. In fact, it always reads like wishful thinking. Why would anyone want to prefer their imagination over their lives?

 

[lenny]

Although I can`t recall the exact percentage as it was a while ago I was reading up on this, IV drug use is one of the major transmission methods in Canada.

Yes, it is. And apparently also in some other regions of the world. Based on the following stats which date back a number of years.

"IDU comprised 17 per cent of the estimated annual number of new HIV infections in Canada in 2008,..."

"...In 2008, a substantial decrease in new positive HIV tests among IDU was identified in provincial HIV surveillance data: from 118 new positive HIV tests in 2007 to 61 new positive tests in 2008 (Figure 1).8 In 2009, the number of new positive tests among IDU had increased slightly to 64, but this is still low compared to earlier years. During the same time period, trends in new positive HIV tests among other exposure categories, including men who have sex with men (MSM) and individuals acquiring HIV through heterosexual contact did not show the same decrease. A review by the BC Centre for Disease Control did not find any changes in the reporting of new positive HIV tests, laboratory testing protocols, or handling of surveillance data, which would explain the decrease in new positive HIV tests among IDU.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/51472120/Decreasing-HIV-in-IDU-Population


"Before 1995 the proportion of IDUs among people with newly reported HIV/AIDS in Canada was less than 3%,17 which is relatively low compared with rates in the United States and most European countries.16 Currently in Ontario and British Columbia, IDUs account for 6% and 38% respectively of newly reported HIV/AIDS cases.17 Across Canada this rate is reported to have increased from 10% in 1986 to 47% in 1996.18 In 1994, for the first time in British Columbia, there was a greater number of IDUs than men who have sex with men among people with new cases of HIV infection, and this gap has widened since that time.14

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/162/12/1709.full


http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/hiv-vih/idus-eng.php

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/hiv-vih/drugr-eng.php


"Within Canada, injection drug users (IDU) account for a significant proportion of prevalent HIV and other BBP
(such as hepatitis C [HCV]) infections, and are an especially important risk group sustaining endemicity of
these pathogens within Aboriginal populations[4,7-9]. However, despite progress in, and substantial efforts
towards both understanding, and addressing BBP epidemics in Canadian Aboriginal populations[7], the transmission
of some BBP, such as HIV and HCV, appear to be growing unabated[10-12].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911412/

"An enhanced surveillance system (I-Track) to track HIV associated risk behaviours among injecting drug users (IDU) is being established in Canada.

"...The pilot study confirmed that HIV and HCV prevalence among IDU are unacceptably high in Canada. High levels of injecting and sexual risk behaviours reported by the study population indicate that the potential for the spread of HIV in Canadian IDU populations remains significant.

http://www.aegis.org/conferences/iac/2004/C12419.html

If you look at Canadian health stats approx 65000 Canadians are living with hiv. Gay/bisexual men make up a large chunk of this. Over 40% of new hiv cases over the last decade are gay/bisexual men. Leaving roughly 1 in 750 women having hiv.

So again with basic stats. Having bbfs with some random Canadian woman.......3,000,000-1 chance of getting hiv.
Then we get posters saying things like.......Sps are probably safer than random women.....cause they get tested more often, and other reasons.

So safer than 3mil to 1........yet deadly.

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?146701-Bareback-no-condom**-sex-article/page4

post # 57

 

[Lancaster]

Imagine if there is a vaccine for HIV, some conservative parents would be outraged if the school try giving it for kids...
"Give HIV vaccine to my children? Are you trying to promote their intravenous drug use or their promiscuity?!?!"

 

[myselftheother]

What surprises me even more about the bbfs advocates or the anti-condom brigade is their lack of social responsibility. If you are not using condoms, not getting regular check-ups, a regular of the DTES Sw's services and doing that bareback, and then having sex with your wife, gf, BFWB...whatever....you're spreading whatever it is you caught. That's criminal, irresponsible behavior. No matter if there might be a vacine one day, a magic pill...you're being selfish and stupid. Period.

That is, if you guys really believe in what you're preaching. If not...troll.

 

[storm rider]

What surprises me even more about the bbfs advocates or the anti-condom brigade is their lack of social responsibility. If you are not using condoms, not getting regular check-ups, a regular of the DTES Sw's services and doing that bareback, and then having sex with your wife, gf, BFWB...whatever....you're spreading whatever it is you caught. That's criminal, irresponsible behavior. No matter if there might be a vacine one day, a magic pill...you're being selfish and stupid. Period.

That is, if you guys really believe in what you're preaching. If not...troll.

Personally I cant fathom why anybody would want BBFS from an SP who takes care of herself and gets tested regularly...as for a skanky SW who is most likely a drug addict the idea of BBFS is just plain fucking dumb...and if it is a married man who would do this and thusly transmit anything he catches to his spouse he is an absolute douchebag who deserves to be shot and pissed on.....hell the one thing I grasped before the first time I ever got laid is that because of nasty stuff like herpes/HIV is that I would be using condoms for my entire life every time I had sex...unless of course I got married and wanted to have a child....I have been married and in the course of that marriage I never once had BB sex as neither of us wanted to have a child....I have several friends that have illegitimate children because they wanted BB sex and were told by their respective GF's that they were on the pill.....yeah well it is pretty easy for a gal to not take the pill so as to get knocked up so as to trap a guy...condoms are not just for disease prevention...they are the best form of birth control....if I ever do get into a serious relationship I will not take up the offer of unprotected sex.

Anybody that is an active pooner should be responsible with regards to the use of condoms and by not promoting/encouraging BBFS.....I personally think BBBJ is OK.

SR

 

[bcneil]

WOW, I have had a couple of mean spirited PM's over my post in Lenny's other thread.
Listen kiddies. I am in no way supporting having sex with SP's without a condom.
Hiv aside there are many many reasons to continue to have safer sex.
From the diseases that do have a higher transmission rate, right down to pregnancy.

I was purely using statistics on available data, thats it.

Mr. Banana...who are you really?
I would venture a guess on HIV deaths for you.

In Canada, strictly straight non drug users, not even smokers?
Probably less than 100

 

[lenny]

I can't believe all the uneducated misinformation being thrown around in this thread. It's no wonder there's still no clear answer on HIV. Here's what I would really like to know, perhaps Lenny might have these specific numbers because I can almost guarantee no condom manufacturer or drug company would have these results without any form of a bias.

How many deaths have been attributed specifically to HIV alone.
The following parameters must be met :

- 100% straight strictly male-female penis-vagina unprotected sex
- must NOT be a drug user of ANY sort (even smoking weed/cigarettes, IV drug use, etc)
- is NOT a hemophiliac whom requires transfusions
- and most importantly, is NOT taking ANY antiretroviral medication

Basically, I want to know how many people out there, are actually dying from HIV. That means, a person, who otherwise has NO previous known immune deficiencies and is in perfect health leading a perfectly "regular" life, is dying strictly from HIV alone.

Because I think once that truth is discovered - well - I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Where are you going with this, SB? That HIV is a myth?

Re deaths from HIV, do people actually die from HIV, or from AIDS? And is it the AIDS that kills or the diseases
one can get as a result of AIDS?

"Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2] a condition in humans in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV