HIV/AIDS Myths: Top Ten Myths About HIV and AIDS
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Becky Kuhn, M.D., co-founder of Global Lifeworks, debunks the following 10 myths about HIV and AIDS: HIV doesn't cause AIDS; because of ARV medications, we no longer need to be concerned about HIV/AIDS; if you have HIV and are sexually active, you no longer need to practice safer sex; you can't contract HIV through oral sex; you can't get HIV from one sexual encounter; a woman cannot spread HIV to another woman by having sex with her; if you are HIV positive but your viral load is undetectable, you cannot spread HIV; AIDS can be spread by kissing, hugging, or shaking hands; if you have HIV, you can cure it by having sex with a virgin; every individual with HIV will eventually develop AIDS. This video refutes misinformation from videos "Lee Evans Speaks Out About the HIV Tests," "Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS," "AIDS Inc.," "The Other Side of AIDS," and "House of Numbers." It also debunks the claims of HIV denialists like Peter Duesberg, Stefan Lanka, Kary Mullis, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore, Gary Null, Andrew Maniotis, the Perth Group, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, David Rasnick, Valendar Turner, Robin Scovill, Brent Leung, David Crowe, Walter Gilbert, Harvey Bialy, Rebecca Culshaw, Roberto Giraldo, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, and Matthias Rath. Visit aidstruth.org/d..., www.GlobalLifew... and AIDSvideos.org to learn more. This video is freely downloadable from www.archive.org... . Disabled accessibility: The transcript for this and many other AIDSvideos.org videos can be downloaded from aidsvideos.org/... . [Do you want to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Are you fluent in a language other than English? Then volunteer to translate our videos into other languages! Click AIDSvideos.org/... to to learn how you can help!!! © Copyright 2006-2011 Global Lifeworks. All rights reserved. This work is licensed to be used for non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons....]
Thank you Dr. Kuhn. As a 20 year LTNP its good to see serious, usable information that I can easily share. I have had no HIV related illness and no visible side affects from meds. I'm candid about my status and many people say they would never guess. Thank you for your efforts.
@RoboMuffins: Go to the aidsvideos site and click "Risk" and "FAQ." Watch our videos "What's the Risk I Have Contracted HIV?" See a doctor; get tested; follow the doctor's instructions.
Yes, if you are HIV+, you should be able to get free medical care under the Ryan White Care Act. Note that it hasn't been fully funded so there are waiting lists for treatment in some areas, unfortunately.
There's no censorship going on. HIV denialists are free to say their views in public, put them on the Internet and videos, and publish them in books, and they have done so. They have complete freedom of speech. Thanks for encouraging people to view the AIDSvideos links. Yes individuals have the right to decide for themselves whether to take prescribed medications. When they decide, I hope they'll rely on the findings of published peer-reviewed controlled scientific studies.
During the so-called "latent period," HIV is not inactive, nor is there a "trigger" it's "waiting" for. It's actively attacking and killing CD4 cells, but the body is generating new ones at the same pace so the patient may remain asymptomatic. Typically, over time, the body no longer can keep up, CD4 count drops, and the patient becomes symptomatic and develops clinical AIDS. Presence of HIV in the body can be detected directly using the PCR test.
That's what that study showed. Remember, other factors can increase the risk above that estimated average, e.g. if the woman just contracted HIV and is in the middle of primary HIV infection with a high viral load, or if one or both partners have other STDs, etc.
No abusive language or namecalling, please. I didn't take your words out of context at all. Your statement was all-inclusive and included no exceptions. I simply pointed out some specific cases where I found it hard to believe you'd argue for death. But I'm really curious: so you believe divorce is "not permitted." (It's legal where I live. Where do you live?) According to what belief system do you think divorce deserves a painful death?
A patient is diagnosed as having clinical AIDS when they are (1) HIV positive, and either (2a) have a CD4 count under 200, or (2b) have one or more opportunistic infections or cancers (e.g. pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, tuberculosis, Kaposi's sarcoma, etc.) that indicate their immune system has been compromised by the HIV infection. CD4 cells are also referred to as "T cells" or "white blood cells."
ARVs do sometimes have unpleasant side effects. But remember: (1) often people are put on ARVs because they're already becoming sick with a low CD4 count and/or clinical AIDS symptoms, and they're no panacea, so it's no surprise if people on ARVs still look sick, and (2) they might be sicker or dead if they weren't on the ARVs. Studies have proven that ARVs are safe and effective for treating clinical AIDS. The death rate is lower for those on ARVs than those not treated.
The video was created in 2006 and all the information is fully up-to-date as of the video's filming date. If you think it's out of date, be specific about your concerns.
Infants who contract HIV from their mother usually become infected during the birth process (via exposure to blood & other maternal fluids during passage through the birth canal) or after birth by nursing on the mother's milk. This is why to prevent mother-to-child transmission, we use ARVs for the mother to reduce maternal viral load, Caesarian section to reduce exposure to maternal blood, ARVs for the infant as post-exposure prophylaxis, and infant formula to avoid exposure to HIV in milk.
"Casual contact through closed-mouth or 'social' kissing is not a risk for transmission of HIV. Because of the potential for contact with blood during "French" or open-mouth kissing, CDC recommends against engaging in this activity with a person known to be infected. However, the risk of acquiring HIV during open-mouth kissing is believed to be very low. CDC has investigated only one case of HIV infection that may be attributed to contact with blood during open-mouth kissing." [CDC]
The argument about latex pores is a red herring spread by people who want to raise doubts about the effectiveness of condoms. Water molecules are far smaller than the pores of latex condoms, but condoms still hold water. Oxygen molecules are far smaller than the pores, but latex condoms still hold air like a balloon. Why? Because the pores don't overlap. Condoms, if used correctly for every act, are a highly effective means of reducing your risk of contracting HIV.
To be clear: I've never said that HIV+ SHOULD (or should not) remain sexually active after infection; that's their decision. What I've said is that HIV+ people have a moral obligation to inform and take steps to protect (e.g. via using condoms correctly every time) any partners and in many places a legal obligation to inform as well.
Saliva and sweat are both considered to not pose a high risk of HIV transmission. They have a low concentration of HIV so it's believed you're unlikely to be exposed to enough in ordinary contact for transmission to be a meaningful possibility. (Note: It *is* believed possible to transmit HIV through oral sex.)
True. That's why the video says "Although the risk of an HIV positive woman infecting another woman by having sex is lower, the risk is still not zero." No "huge disservice" there either.
NIAID: As of 1991, "10 to 20 percent of wives and sex partners of male HIV-positive hemophiliacs in the United States are also HIV-infected (Pitchenik et al., 1984; Kreiss et al., 1985; Peterman et al., 1988; Smiley et al., 1988; Dietrich and Boone, 1990; Lusher et al., 1991). Through December 1994, the CDC had received reports of 266 cases of AIDS in those who had sex with a person with hemophilia (CDC, 1995a). These data cannot be explained by a non-infectious theory of AIDS etiology."
You're entitled to your opinion. To be clear, we took no position on that question in this video. We simply stated that "HIV positive individuals WHO CHOOSE to be sexually active need to practice safer sex to reduce the risk that their HIV negative partner will become infected. When both partners are HIV positive, they also need to practice safer sex .... If a person is HIV positive and chooses to be sexually active, it is important for them to inform their partners."
There are multiple issues here that interact. The virus is present in saliva. However, it's in extremely low levels that are considered to present essentially no risk of infection through "light" kissing. You're unlikely to be infected by HIV when exposed to a single HIV virion, for example. It's believed possible to contract HIV by giving or receiving oral sex. Genital or oral sores from HIV or other infections would increase risk of transmission. See the original articles for more.
(1) Rates of HIV transmission in the adult film industry in the U.S. are relatively low because the actors are counseled on HIV prevention outside of their work and tested for HIV monthly and a database is kept of their sexual partners for contact tracing if one becomes HIV+. (2) They are not immune. Recently, one actor contracted HIV through unprotected sex in Brazil, and three of his female sex partners subsequently tested HIV positive, with PCR confirming he was the source for two.
Vaccine trial recruiters are NOT discouraging safe sex. The trials are designed to include education for the participants warning them that they may get the vaccine or a placebo, that the vaccine may or may not be effective, and that even an effective vaccine may not work 100% of the time. Participants are always advised to continue using safer sex practices.
Margaret Heckler made a bad call in saying she hoped that a vaccine would be found within two years. She was basing this on past experience with some other viruses that have been much easier to develop a vaccine for. Unfortunately HIV is hard because it mutates rapidly. None of this changes the fact that HIV causes AIDS.
The reason research isn't done on ozone is there's no evidence you could ever develop a therapy using ozone to treat HIV in humans. Even if ozone could be shown to kill HIV in vitro, that doesn't mean you could use it therapeutically in vivo. For example, hydrochloric acid will kill the virus, but you can't use that therapeutically! As for "toxic drugs:" if testing shows a drug does more harm than good, it won't be approved. If it's not approved, the pharmaceutical company makes no money.
Yes, the theory that HIV causes AIDS absolutely passes the Occam's Razor test. It's the simplest explanation for why HIV+ infants born to HIV+ mothers, HIV+ infants who were nursed on milk from HIV+ mothers, HIV+ recipients of transfusions, HIV+ health care workers who were jabbed with needles with HIV+ blood, and HIV+ patients of an HIV+ dentist who used nonsterile procedure all develop AIDS. The only thing they have in common is being HIV+. They do not share lifestyle factors.
I'm not saying that people don't need or deserve our help. I don't believe that people that are HIV+ are to be outcast, condemned, or punished for their actions. I think they have enough to worry about without that attitude. What I am saying is that I can't understand how such a nonchalant attitude can be taken toward the risks involved with irresponsible behavior.
Without a copy of the article there's no way I can evaluate whatever it stated. Generally speaking using condoms at "typical" frequencies reduces your overall risk of contracting HIV in heterosexual married by 85% below the risk level for not using condoms; in that study, among couples who used a condom every time, there were no transmissions at all during the study.
Who are YOU to decide whether life is living after you contract HIV? It's ABSOLUTELY worth living--just ask the HIV+ people we've interviewed in our videos! Quarantine and isolation as you've suggested is completely unnecessary from a public health standpoint (this is not an airborne disease or XDR TB), morally wrong from a human rights standpoint, and would INCREASE spread because people would then avoid being tested and continue to transmit it without knowing they were HIV+. Value life!
The only thing I don't like about advice from the medical community is their insistence of "caution" in words; true, when they say "you may, you increase risk, etc." but what if we take a tough stance, "Don't DO action X, otherwise you'll get result Y." That might jolt people from the slumber that life is a zero-consequence party and get them to practice self respect.
It varies based on many factors: how aggressive the person's strain of HIV is, their overall health and nutrition, personal genetic makeup, etc. Therefore you really can't predict for an individual; you can only speak of averages. In the developed world, a person may be HIV positive for 10 years before developing clinical AIDS. With treatment, ARVs, nutrition, and overall good health, they may live close to a normal lifespan. If you're HIV positive, see a doctor as treatment can be lifesaving.
We are *NOT* saying that all HIV+ people (infants or otherwise) necessarily progress to clinical AIDS. There are documented cases of HIV+ people going twenty years without progressing to clinical AIDS, even without ARV treatment, and evidence that some of these people have natural innate genetic resistance to HIV infection such as a mutation that they lack a receptor HIV normally uses to enter a cell. Unfortunately, after 20 years, overwhelming majority of HIV+ people progress to clinical AIDS.
HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the U.S. in '06 by race: 49% black, 30% white, 18% Hispanic, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander,
MTCT is not how ALL HIV+ Africans were infected. In Africa, there's a significant amount of heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV. However, it would be fair to say that MTCT is more common in Africa than in the developed world due to the higher rate of HIV among pregnant women and less access to antiretroviral medications that can prevent MTCT.
Comments like that really put me in a dilemma. If I delete them, I'm whitewashing reality and creating the appearance that hatred and lack of compassion are less common than they really are. But I'm obviously not happy about letting them through either. I hope readers will respond with their thoughts about such comments and that we'll all recognize from seeing them that stigmatization of people with HIV/AIDS remains a real problem and be motivated to address that problem.
I agree that notifying a partner does not then justify unprotected sex or transmission. But remember, just because an HIV+ person has sex doesn't mean that HIV will be transmitted. If all sexually active people used condoms correctly every time, HIV transmission risk would be reduced to a level so low that the sexual epidemic would be halted. (We'd need to stop transmission through needle sharing and MTCT as well to halt the entire epidemic.)
No contradiction at all. Patients are free to take medications or not, fully comply with dosage schedule or not, and enter drug treatment or not. Dr. Kuhn tries to persuade them to make choices that will lead to longer, healthier lives. But the choice is theirs. There is no contradiction between persuasion and freedom of choice. Persuasion is the effort to convince a person who has freedom of choice to make a particular choice. If they have no choice, no persuasion is needed.
This is Eric. Thanks for your interest. Fortunately, the prevalence of HIV hasn't reached 1/3 of the population. About 33 million people are believed to be HIV positive currently, IIRC. Only a fraction of them will have progressed to clinical AIDS. I wish you success in pursuing your dream of a medical career!
Once an infant is HIV+, whether and how quickly they progress to clinical AIDS depends on many factors including (rare) genetic resistance, nutrition, general health, and access to ARVs that can prevent progression. In Africa, on average, HIV+ infants have rapid progression to clinical AIDS and a short life expectancy due to poverty, malnutrition, and disease. In developed countries with nutrition and ARVs they may be able to live close to a normal lifespan.
No stigmatizing language, please. There's no reason to believe that having a person's beer spilled on you, even if they're HIV positive, could transmit HIV. Ordinary exposure to foods & beverages is not believed to be a route of transmission for this virus. Anyone who's worried they're HIV positive for any reason should get tested just for peace of mind and to be safe regardless.
BW002 trial showed only 1 of 145 patients treated with AZT died vs. 19 of 137 on placebo; 24 on AZT had opportunistic infections vs. 45 on placebo. [NIAID citing Fischl et al, "The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT)...." N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185-91.] ACTG016 trial showed that HIV+ patients with CD4 counts of 200-500 on AZT were less likely to experience disease progression. [NIAID citing Fischl et al, "The Safety ..." Ann Intern Med. 1990 May 15;112(10):727-37.]
This is Eric. I agree no one should be cast aside, and I also agree we shouldn't create "classes" of HIV+ depending on how they contracted the disease. One thing I need to point out: unfortunately, there are some people who deliberately seek to become infected with HIV. See the documentary "The Gift" and wikipedia article "Bugchasing and giftgiving" for details.
There is ONE documented case of HIV being passed through kissing so that myth has to a degree been proven true. Granted, both people had severe gum disease and thus the chances of passing the virus were greatly increased (perhaps from negligible) but no one can ever say "Aids can not be spread through kissing" anymore.
Antiretroviral medications (ARVs) do not cause AIDS. Clinical AIDS has been diagnosed in countless people who were never treated with ARVs. Examples include all who developed AIDS before ARVs were invented, all who have developed it in places where ARVs were not yet available when they contracted HIV (e.g. the developing world), and all who developed AIDS before being treated with ARVs. HIV+ people treated with ARVs live longer and progress to AIDS more slowly. [Jordan, BMJ 2002;324:757.]
You are correct that the risk of contracting HIV via oral sex is lower than anal/vaginal sex. That's why the video says "Although the risk of spreading HIV through oral sex may not be quite as high as through some other sexual practices such as vaginal or anal sex, the risk is still there." We are in agreement. No "huge disservice" there.
There is no cure for polio. There is a vaccine against polio that will immunize an unexposed person, preventing symptoms if they are later exposed to polio. But if a person has been infected with the polio virus (and is not already immune due to vaccination), there is no "cure" for the disease. Some people will recover fully on their own, some will recover partially, and some will be paralyzed for life.
Huh? We've stated in numerous videos that a condom is not a guarantee against HIV transmission. This particular video is not focused on condoms in detail. It makes in passing the valid point that if you're sexually active, you should use a condom, but it doesn't say this is a guarantee against any disease transmission.
There's no evidence that HIV has spread widely from the small number of hemophiliacs who were tragically infected through Factor 8 injections. The highest rates of HIV/AIDS are in sub-Saharan Africa where hemophiliacs generally die young because they can't get access to treatment in the first place. There's just no correlation between where infected Factor 8 was distributed and infection rates in the general population.
Note that those are averages. What that means is that if you contracted HIV, you'll PROBABLY be able to find out within a few weeks after infection using one of these advanced tests. But to be sure you're HIV-, you'll need to test HIV- on an antibody test 6 months after your last possible exposure.
Gallo and Montagnier don't question that HIV causes AIDS. From their joint letter to Harper's: "The position of us both is that HIV is the essential and sufficient agent that causes AIDS. One of us (Luc Montagnier) has emphasized that there may be .... other factors that can favour HIV transmission .... and also promote faster progression toward the clinical stages of AIDS in untreated HIV infected people ... but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the cause of AIDS." (aidstruth)
Since there's typically a long delay between infection and HIV disease progression to symptoms of chronic illness, the fact that many HIV positive people are asymptomatic after five or ten years proves nothing. Good nutrition is good for health whether your HIV+ or HIV-, and poor nutrition can harm immune function whether you're HIV+ or HIV-, so yes, good nutrition might prolong the health of an HIV+ person, but it's no cure and no substitute for appropriate CD4 count monitoring & treatment.
It's certainly true that if a substance is not patentable, the market incentive for profit making entities (such as publicly traded companies) to conduct controlled clinical studies, which are expensive, is essentially eliminated. In that case, public and/or not-for-profit financing is a possible (albeit difficult) answer for unpatentable but promising substances. An academic researcher could apply to the National Institute for Health for a research grant, for example.
Glad you brought up South Africa. A key reason HIV spread so widely there was Thabo Mbeki's years of HIV denialism and opposition to ARVs. "According to demographic modelling, if during the Mbeki presidency South Africa had rolled out ARVs for pregnant women with HIV and for treating those sick with Aids at the same rate as happened in the Western Cape, then at least 170 000 HIV infections could have been prevented and more than 340 000 deaths averted." [Nicoli Nattrass 23 July 07]
The median time in the developed world between contracting HIV and developing clinical AIDS is 10 years without treatment. With monitoring, treatment, and good nutrition, sleep, and general health, you may be able to live a normal lifespan with HIV. So it's not surprising that wealth athletes who contract HIV can still look healthy today. Also, worldwide, the majority of people who contracted HIV did so through heterosexual sex.
(3) Peter Duesberg has been claiming for years that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but he has failed to publish any studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing evidence to support his claims. There's no reason to believe one person just because they say so when there are thousands of published studies contradicting his claims.
HIV is believed to be transmissible through oral sex to either partner (giving or receiving) whether or not they have sores or cuts. We've got a new video coming up about the relative risks of different sexual practices.
Basically, an HIV positive subject with severe gum-disease (and therefore traces blood in their saliva) engaged in a period of "wet-kissing" with his partner who also had severe gum disease (and therefore open-wounds in her mouth) and infected her with the virus. This is the only documented case of HIV spread through kissing and the HIV was still spread by blood and not saliva, however, it is still the exception that disproves the rule
Also, the statement that no research has ever seen HIV is incorrect. Just go to Google, click "Images," and search for "HIV electron micrograph" to see hundreds of online images alone. As noted by the researchers at AIDStruth, the virus is easily photographed using electron microscopes and this has been done many times.
That was a term used briefly in the early 1980s before AIDS was understood and HIV had been identified as the cause. The term has been out of use for over 20 years because it's inaccurate. AIDS is not a result of being gay: infants born HIV+, hemophiliacs, health care workers stuck with needles, etc. all get AIDS due to HIV. What they have in common is being HIV+.
Who has stated there have been no known cases of HIV contracted through oral sex, and what official Australian medical organization statements are you referring to? Provide full citations. From CDC dot gov article "Can I get HIV from oral sex?": "Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex." In particular, you need to consider the risks posed by other STD sores on either partner, cuts, oral ulcers, etc.
I assume you're referring to comments people have posted rather than the videos themselves, but to be clear, our videos don't say that people with HIV/AIDS are "sick and suffering." Some with untreated or resistant clinical AIDS certainly are, but our hope is that with treatment and rigorous compliance, HIV+ people can have a normal length and quality of life.
No, same concept, different name. "Safer sex" is the preferred term because it emphasizes that you are practicing risk REDUCTION ("safer") rather than creating a misconception that it is risk ELIMINATION ("safe").
I would agree, if you mean that "It is a myth that being HIV+ is the same has having clinical AIDS." Being HIV+ means you've been infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Having clinical AIDS means that you're HIV+ and either (a) have a CD4 count under 200, or (b) have one or more opportunistic infections whose presence indicates the immune system has been weakened.
I don't dispute your concern and motivation. I'm simply debating you on one comment you made earlier. I believe you are doing a wonderful job and wish you all the luck in your efforts. I also know that through the efforts of caring individuals like yourself, this terrible disease will be shown to the door.
How much of a factor is exercise in keeping the immune system strong... that is, along with taking meds? I work out really hard, especially mountain biking, and I wonder if I work out 'too hard' if that is bad or the same as it would be for someone who is not HIV+
Great video, keep up the good fight!
AIDS in Africa isn't unfixable, it's just a hard problem. If we reduce stigma so people are willing to get tested, provide ARVs so they have a reason to get tested and their infectiousness is reduced, provide nutritional support so the ARVs work, keep parents alive so the children don't become orphans, educate to reduce further spread, and provide free condoms to all people at risk, we could drastically slow spread. Uganda has already shown that the ABC model can work. There's hope!
See AIDStruth dot org. Also watch our videos "The Top 10 Myths About HIV/AIDS" and "Ten More Myths About HIV/AIDS."
Paul: You took a quote out of context and are misusing it. It's true that doctors sometimes choose not to prescribe ARVs to people who are HIV+ but healthy. That doesn't mean that ARVs don't prolong life when they ARE used. Controlled clinical studies prove that ARVs are life-extending when prescribed! It's similar to diabetes treatment. If a person can control it with diet, the doctors may not prescribe insulin. That doesn't mean insulin doesn't save lives when prescribed!
HIV can be transmitted by performing or receiving oral sex. See wikipedia article on "HIV" for a table of relative risks. See a doctor, discuss your risk factors, get tested, and follow their instructions for any follow-up testing. Good luck!
From AIDStruth site: A meta-analysis of 54 ARV clinical trials showed that using one ARV reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% compared to a placebo, using two ARVs reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. one ARV, and using three ARVS reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. two ARVs. [Jordan et al, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy." BMJ 2002;324:757.]
The U.S. National Intelligence Council published a report in September '02 called "The Next Wave of HIV/AIDS: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, India, and China" highlighting the risk of possible "breakout" of HIV and rapid spread in those countries.
There's nothing unusual about using a test for antibodies to HIV to determine whether a person has been exposed; with a few specific exceptions (e.g. infants who initially have antibodies to HIV from their mothers), a person only has antibodies to HIV if they have contracted HIV. Therefore testing for antibodies to HIV is a perfectly logical way to determine whether a person has contracted HIV. This approach is used in tests for other diseases as well such as measles.
NIAID "Evidence:" "transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both .... The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886)."
It is believed possible for a man or a woman to contract HIV by receiving oral sex. For a table showing estimated risks of different sexual practices, see the "HIV" article on wikipedia.
"2007 AIDS Epidemic Update" from UNAIDS shows that "Since 2001 .... the number of people living with HIV in Eastern Europe and Central Asia has increased by more than 150% from 630 000 [490 000 -- 1.1 million] to 1.6 million [1.2 -- 2.1 million] in 2007. In Asia, the estimated number of people living with HIV in Viet Nam has more than doubled between 2000 and 2005 and Indonesia has the fastest growing epidemic." (WHO press release, "Global HIV prevalence has levelled off," 20 Nov 07)
Vaccine trials are made available to high risk groups. This is not limited to people in developing countries or poor white communities. Unfortunately, educating people about safer sex doesn't guarantee they will comply. Even among those educated, enough will do unsafe things that it becomes possible to determine if the vaccine is effective. Also, don't call them "guinea pigs." They are "volunteers" or "human subjects."
Some critical caveats: (1) It's being debated whether the genes in question were selected for (and preserved to the modern day) by plague or by other illnesses. (2) Researchers don't believe that the genes provide complete immunity for those who have them due to some cases where people with the genes have nonetheless contracted HIV. [See "Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered," Wired 01.07.05.] (3) We have no way to give this kind of genetic resistance to someone who wasn't born with it.
Nowhere does the FDA say "you can only be cured by a pill." FDA also licenses medical devices, for example. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that the FDA's mandate doesn't include the review of supplements? That's true, but it's a limitation of their scope of responsibility, not an assertion that only pills can cure.
If you have bleeding gums every time you brush your teeth, you should see a dentist. It may be a sign of gum disease which, if left untreated, could lead to tooth loss and even increase your risk of heart disease. A dentist can advise you on oral hygiene.
This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. So long as your skin was intact (i.e. no open wounds where that person's blood could touch your blood or exposed raw subcutaneous tissue) you should have nothing to worry about.
It is possible to contract HIV by performing or receiving oral sex. See wikipedia article on "HIV" for a table with relative risks for different practices. You're doing the right thing; see a doctor and follow their instructions for whatever tests (on whatever schedule) they recommend.
For the record, I think that as soon as Bayer developed heat-treated Factor 8, it should have immediately recalled the untreated Factor 8 worldwide (at the same time as it stopped selling it in the U.S.) and not waited for per-country approval of the new product via normal procedures to do this. All that said, I see no evidence this was a deliberate conspiracy to spread HIV to create demand for AIDS drugs. Nearly all HIV transmission is via sex, needle sharing, & MTCT, not Factor 8.
There is no evidence that HIV can be transmitted from person to person by being in the same pool together and many reasons to believe a pool would not transmit HIV. HIV+ person wouldn't shed significant HIV into the pool unless they were bleeding; chlorine should kill it; the HIV- person is still protected by their skin; the pool would dilute HIV below an infectious dose. Since light kissing doesn't transmit HIV, neither should swimming in a pool.
I agree that we should trust the scientific method more than we trust individuals (doctors, individual scientists, or anyone else for that matter). Everything in this video has been determined via the scientific method, not by relying on individual opinions or claims.
Leaving privacy issues aside for a moment, the rate of HIV among American elementary school students is so low that mandatory testing for all likely wouldn't be cost effective. We should simply test all pregnant women by "opt out" programs and test all infants born to HIV+ mothers. Likewise, I suspect mandatory testing of high school/college students wouldn't be cost effective. Rather, we should invest in educating them about risk reduction and continuing to provide free testing.
Studies of diverse groups have shown that being HIV+ multiplies your risk of death compared to HIV- people. Examples of the increased death rates: 16x for Ugandans [Nunn BMJ 1997;315:767], 9.5x for Malawian children who survive the first year [Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689], 22.5x for Thai female sex workers [Kilmarx Lancet 2000; 356:770], 11x for hemophiliacs [Goedert. Lancet 1995;346:1425], 60% vs. 2.3% for "homosexual and bisexual men." [A. Munoz, MACS, personal communication]
More importantly, when you say that "HIV+ positive people aren't allowed to have sex, even with willing fully informed partners," you are turning HIV+ people into a stigmatized group with fewer human rights than HIV- people. When you stigmatize HIV+ people, people who don't know their status (but are HIV+) choose not to be tested due to fear of stigma, don't get treatment or change their behavior, and the virus spreads. To stop the spread of HIV, we must eliminate stigma, not increase it.
I am a HIV/AIDS negative person considering doing outreach with people who do have HIV/AIDS. I am concerned about what risks I may face, and I want ot be informed to eliminate any ignorance I may have about this. I know touching, huggin etc does not spread the disease, where can I find out more info about the risks of coming in contact with someone who may be hurt and bleeding, someone sneezes, vomits, etc...Thanks for helping me find more info.
If your partner has not been exposed to HIV, there's no way you can contract HIV from them. (You *can* contract HIV from someone who has contracted HIV but is in the "window period" and doesn't test HIV+ yet.) See our video "Some Ways You Can Contract HIV and the Risk of Each" and wikipedia article on HIV for estimates of risk of contracting HIV via unprotected oral sex.
Note that many other factors can influence the risk of transmission such as having other STDs, etc. But the fact remains that there's no scientific justification for stating that gay men must stop having sex for the HIV epidemic to be stopped. Rather, like heterosexuals, they need to stop having UNPROTECTED sex. If we could just get everyone (gay, heterosexual, whoever) to ALWAYS use safer sex techniques correctly, sexual transmission would fall to such a low level that the epidemic would stop.
Remarkable that a person who apparently considers himself a Christian would see a possible conflict between "helping people" and "serving God." Last time I checked: "Heal the sick" (Matthew 10:8) "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:31) Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40) In Christianity, helping others *is* serving God.
Different approaches have been tried over time in terms of when a person who is HIV+ is started on ARVs (originally AZT monotherapy, today "triple cocktail"). Current practice is to prescribe ARVs when patient's CD4 count drops below 350 or they develop symptoms. [Hammer et al, "Treatment for Adult HIV Infection," JAMA 2006;296:827-843.] Studies clearly show that patients treated this way live longer than those left untreated. Also, even AZT monotherapy saved lives. (Cite follows.)
It is true that some cancer treatments (such as radiation) carry a small risk of creating a secondary cancer in the future. But published, peer-reviewed controlled clinical studies have shown that they do more good than harm for the patient and are therefore effective treatments. We're off topic; please confine comments on this video to HIV/AIDS.
Nancy Padian writes: "the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) .... in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public." (aidstruth)
No, you're full of offensive language however. We never said that it would be impossible for HIV to be transmitted if two people with mouth cuts kissed and one was newly infected with HIV. We've articulated no position on that specific scenario. We simply stated that light kissing is not believed to carry a risk of HIV transmission. re: oral sex risk, see documents at CDC dot gov, especially their "Basic Information" page on HIV and AIDS.
This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. I don't know if there are specific studies quantifying whether there's an increased risk of HIV transmission when one partner has bleeding gums or not and if so how much. Speaking as a layperson, more contact with blood generally increases risk and is a source of concern. Whether or not this increases risk of HIV transmission (or creates a risk of oral transmission when deep kissing) you want to get bleeding gums treated for their own sake as I noted previously.
The spread of HIV is indeed a serious problem in Russia, but it's driven primarily by intravenous drug use (and by sexual contact with drug users). There have been a few notorious incidents where large numbers of children in Russia were infected due to the reuse of needles at hospitals, but I very much doubt that 85% of children under 12 (or anything close to that) are HIV+. I don't know what the precise percentage would be however.
HIV+ people early in the infection often need no medication at all, just monitoring. Later, as CD4 count falls or they develop opportunistic infections, they will typically need a "cocktail" of three ARVs in combination. Which ARV combo a person needs depends on the strain(s) of HIV they're infected with. ARV costs vary by drug and by country. Developing countries often get discounted medications through negotiated deals and aid programs. HIV can cause AIDS in children as in adults.
Make an appointment with a medical doctor, discuss your symptoms, concerns, and risk factors, and get tested. Only a doctor can diagnose you one way or the other. Follow all their instructions including any instructions for follow-up testing and treatment.
This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. Anyone who is HIV+ should see a doctor and follow their instructions. People can often make miraculous comebacks from advanced HIV disease / severe clinical AIDS through the use of ARVs. This includes making frail people look healthy again. There's no reason to assume it's "too late." Doctors can try different combination therapies to find one that works for the particular patient.
Even if that sequence of events occurred in your friend's case, a single anecdote proves nothing. You need to look at peer-reviewed, controlled studies published in scientific journals. Only by studying groups of patients receiving different treatments can you draw meaningful conclusions about the relative safety and effectiveness of different treatment approaches.
Jay - Your statements are all disproven by scientific research findings. HIV has been isolated and imaged. AZT and other ARVs have been proven safe and effective in controlled clinical trials for treating HIV infection and clinical AIDS. Like most medications, they have side effects, but that doesn't make them "poisons." Studies have proven that the proper use of ARVs extends, not shortens, the patient's lifespan on average. The fact that poverty and starvation kills doesn't mean HIV doesn't.