AIDS "epidemic"

Nolanger

Always knew it was all one big media scare, hardly ever makes the news anymore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health

MooseJam

lol Dr De Cock, don't see the problem with scaring, better safe than sorry no

Nolanger

From the above article:

"The relentless politicisation and moralisation of Aids has not only distorted public understanding of the disease and generated unnecessary fear and angst – it has also potentially cost lives. James Chin estimates that UNAIDS wastes around $1bn a year in activities such as "raising awareness" about Aids and preventing the emergence of the disease in communities that are at little risk. How many lives could that kind of money save, if it were used to develop drugs and deliver them to infected or at-risk communities? It is time people treated Aids as a normal disease, rather than as an opportunity for spreading their own moral agendas."

Cokehead Mother

Jesus wtf is wrong with the UK this week? First it's the whole student-writes-2-word-essay-and-fails story, and now it's "oh btw it turns out everyone didn't die of AIDS".

This better be the eye before the storm of a Gordon Brown sex scandal.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

chopperbyrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Which part? I mean read the article - its evidence is showing in developed countries HIV is generally confined to men having sex with men & other high risk groups. So why is Sub Saharan Africa being hit so hard by the virus?

chopperbyrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Which part? I mean read the article - its evidence is showing in developed countries HIV is generally confined to men having sex with men & other high risk groups. So why is Sub Saharan Africa being hit so hard by the virus?

Mainly backward religious reasons. Not wanting to use condoms for instance.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

Sherifu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

If the stereotypes are to be believed.

Could also be the lack of tayto packets.

brianthebard

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also. Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

ito of prevention,circumcision is a pretty small maybe.I wouldnt start sexing wimmen with aids just cause i got circumcised anyways.

carveone

freaking troll.

Y2k was a waste of money cause nothing happened. Telling people where the boards beers was taking place was a waste of time cause everyone arrived. Blah blah blah.

AIDS deaths in 2007: 2.1 million. Yet we wet ourselves over SARS. We're too well fed over here.

studiorat

More people in Africa are infected to start with (22.5 million). Therefore it would stand to reason it would be easier to actually become infected since it's more common to meet someone who is HIV positive.

Male of circumsision is actually not common in Africa, contrary to the previous post. Christianity is actually more popular in the south than the north.

There's also some speculation that the HIV subtypes in Africa also have an effect on transmission rates.

Other factors would include social instability, gender inequality, sexual violence, other STDs facilitating HIV transmission, rapid urbanisation and plain old lack of information during the initial spread of the disease.

joejoem

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)


Also, havent cases in Ireland gone up significantly?

AckwelFoley

Mmm. Aids.
It wil end naturally in time imo

Joe Cool

A few Lemsip Max Strenghts, a bit of Vicks Vaporub and plenty of bed rest usually clear up a bad dose of the AIDS.


:cool:

Fanny Cradock

carveone wrote: »

freaking troll.

Y2k was a waste of money cause nothing happened.

Possibly because preventative measures were taken.

studiorat

Aids?
Oh yeah! We feed them After Eights and Easi Singles.

Because they're the only thing we can fit under the door!! :cool:

Worse again... Guinness and Prunes, cure them? No but it'll teach the fwckers what their arse is for!!!!

MooseJam

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)


Also, havent cases in Ireland gone up significantly?

it's cause it's anal, it's very easy to enter the blood stream in the colon.

Hellm0

Yet another example of a seemingly noble cause being hijacked by the worst kind of Trolls(Christians, politicians, Media sensationalists, "Population control" advocates and general ponces).

Aids was and never has been a major concern for westerners who dont indulge in societies "high risk" activities(though even then quite a low chance of contracting it). Fear mongering at its best.

gixerfixer

snyper wrote: »

Mmm. Aids.
It wil end naturally in time imo

Like the common cold

studiorat

Hellm0 wrote: »

Yet another example of a seemingly noble cause being hijacked by the worst kind of Trolls(Christians, politicians, Media sensationalists, "Population control" advocates and general ponces).

Aids was and never has been a major concern for westerners who dont indulge in societies "high risk" activities(though even then quite a low chance of contracting it). Fear mongering at its best.

Funny that. 'Cause the only person I ever knew who contracted HIV and then Aids then died was a hetro male in a steady relationship who happened to be a haemophiliac. That was the 80's though...

Hellm0

studiorat wrote: »

Funny that. 'Cause the only person I ever knew who contracted HIV and then Aids then died was a hetro male in a steady relationship who happened to be a haemophiliac. That was the 80's though...

Not insinuating that no one has ever died of Aids, I'm sure your friend was a good person and is most likely still sorely missed by those he left behind. My point was that SOME people advocate issues such as "the war against aids" for entirely the wrong reasons, seeing a genuinely horrible disease as an excuse to pressure others into unwittingly accepting their version of the truth and their version of morality.

War on terror anybody? There are terrorists out there who want to kill YOU. Lets kill them first and spread democracy to their greiving families while we're at it!

T.G Catter

Cue Peep show Chlamydia episode quote...

"Oh God Jez is it aids ? No Suz, this is not the 80's!!"

projectmayhem

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)

as was already said, anal is more "high risk" because of the bloodstream etc., but also... gay men having sex are a lot less likely to wear a condom. y'know... because they're not exactly worried about children coming from their activities

EamonnKeane

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

It's because it's socially more acceptable to have many partners at once. Muslim countries have the lowest rates in the world (or so their govts say)

SimpleSam06

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Studies indicate that among certain groups in Africa, its common practise to use herbs to dry out the vagina, apparently leading to a more intense sexual experience. This also has the side effect that its much easier to tear the vaginal wall, introducing infected fluids directly to the bloodstream. As for the utter nonsense of circumcision being any protection againt aids, that primitive barbaric tradition has no bearing on infection rates.

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal?

Blood is the best vector for disease transmission, and unprotected anal sex stands a greater chance of tearing the rectum, putting fluids into direct contact with the bloodstream. Simple as.

seamus

The HIV "scares" were an attempt by the Catholic Church to scare young people into remaining abstinent until marriage and to try convince people to stay clear of homosexuality.

Of course, being an institution of socially maladjusted celibates, the RC Church completely didn't understand the issues and made a complete balls of it.

Now they're doing the same in Africa by telling people to remain abstinent and not use condoms. They seem to think that they can somehow override one of our primary instincts and scare/guilt people into not having sex.

tallaght01

The fundamental peoblem here is that.....the author of the article is a pillock.

He's twisted the words of the WHO. The WHO said that there's not a huge threat of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic now. This is probably true. But it doesn't mean that the public health schemes of the last 20 odd years have been a waste of money. It means they have worked.

It's really arrogant of the journalist to assume that because HIV/AIDS rates in the UK are relatively low, that it's not a problem. There are about 50 million people affected worldwide, and most of them don't have access to treatment.
Add to this the numbers of resultant AIDS orphans, who are then subsequantly at higher risk of catching the disease because of the resultant poverty.

When i worked in africa, 70% of our patients locally were HIV positive. Most of them will have died within 10 years.

HIV is still an ENORMOUS problem. It's one of the biggest health problems facing the planet.

To say that UNAIDS wastes money because they've spent huge amounts on "awareness" is bizarre. Lack of education is one of the biggest risk factors for HIV. So is poverty, gender inequality, social inequality and the presence of other STDs. That is why the UK has lower rates. If anything UNAIDS need to spend more money on awareness. The lack of knowledge about AIDS amongst a lot of people in developing coutries really shocked me.

I've re-read that article and I still don't know what point the author is making. HIV is wiping out the most productive and economically active age groups in poorer countries that really need their young to be working, and he seems to think that we're "scaremongering" about HIV.

He seems to think that there was never going to be a problem in the UK. He obviously wasn't in london in the 80s. He obviously wasn't in Dublin or new York in the 80s.

If anyone could tell me what point he's actually making, I'd be very grateful

Gone West

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

Actually, its the fact that people with AIDS don't use condoms and have lots of kids. They have kids as a sort of old age pension. The more children you have, the better chance that someone will look after you in your old age. This phenomenon has been documented.

They don't use condoms because of a hash up of selfishness regarding their own old age, the church, price, and lack of education.

tallaght01

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Actually, its the fact that people with AIDS don't use condoms and have lots of kids. They have kids as a sort of old age pension. The more children you have, the better chance that someone will look after you in your old age. This phenomenon has been documented.

They don't use condoms because of a hash up of selfishness regarding their own old age, the church, price, and lack of education.

Substitute "fact" with gross generalisation.

Lack of condoms is also very much to do with gender inequality.

Gone West

tallaght01 wrote: »

Substitute "fact" with gross generalisation.

Lack of condoms is also very much to do with gender inequality.

Apologies, I should have included "vast vast majority, or else was born with it because their parents didn't" after fact.

I wasn't aware that AH was so pedantic nowadays!

Anyways o/ toodles

Although yeah gender inequality is a good reason too

Earthhorse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly because preventative measures were taken.

Yes. No shit. I believe that's the point he's making.

tallaght01 wrote: »

If anyone could tell me what point he's actually making, I'd be very grateful

I doubt that even the author could.

AckwelFoley

gixerfixer wrote: »

Like the common cold

Aids is aids.

The common cold or flue are actually different strains.

Unless one gets aids or.. SUPER AIDS.

studiorat

Sure while we're at it...

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

Conspiracy theory anyone?

seamus

snyper wrote: »

Aids is aids.

The common cold or flue are actually different strains.

Unless one gets aids or.. SUPER AIDS.

Actually, AIDS isn't a virus at all, AIDS is the symptom of HIV.

</pedantic>

AARRRGH

Throughout history, powerful groups (e.g. the Catholic Church) have tried to associate sex with guilt. As people became more liberated, they needed a new tactic, so they changed it to if you have sex you'll die.

AIDS is a very complicated subject. There is a combination of lies, politics (over estimating AIDS victims to get more funding), inaccuracy and arrogance.

Why would health workers admit AIDS isn't really a threat when all that'll do is reduce the amount of funding they get?

Btw, most people don't use condoms in Europe. Yes, I know a lot of boards.ie users probably do, but I'm sorry, the average person is not a computer literate nerd. If we're not using condoms, why can't AIDS cross the Mediterreanean? It makes no sense.

Never forget AIDS is a massive industry.

tallaght01

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for the utter nonsense of circumcision being any protection againt aids, that primitive barbaric tradition has no bearing on infection rates.

Circumcision reduces infection rates by between 50-60% according to the big trials conducted in this area. Though we have done this topic to death in the Ladies Lounge (??!!??) before

dublindude wrote: »

There is a combination of lies, politics (over estimating AIDS victims to get more funding), inaccuracy and arrogance.

.

Sadly, one of the biggest problems with HIV rates has been UNDER-reporting by governments.

Earthhorse

studiorat wrote: »

Sure while we're at it...

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

Conspiracy theory anyone?

Next you'll be getting us all to buy Foo Fighters CDs.

dublindude wrote: »

If we're not using condoms, why can't AIDS cross the Mediterreanean?

It can?

AARRRGH

It annoys me that it takes a newspaper to write about this topic before people take it seriously. There have been many thousands of people pointing out this **** for years and they were dismissed as crazy.

I guess it goes to show how much power the media have.

AARRRGH

Earthhorse wrote: »

It can?

Not really. Why isn't there an epidemic in Europe?

Earthhorse

How is the epidemic in Africa spreading then?

AARRRGH

Earthhorse wrote: »

How is the epidemic in Africa spreading then?

That's my point.

Why don't we have one in Europe?

My answer is there is a lot more to AIDS than condomless sex.

Earthhorse

dublindude wrote: »

That's my point.

Why don't we have one in Europe?

My answer is there is a lot more to AIDS than condomless sex.

Elaborate.

AARRRGH

Earthhorse wrote: »

Elaborate.

There is a huge AIDS problem in Africa. It is assumed this is because they are promiscious and don't use condoms.

In Europe we're just as promiscious, and most people do not use condoms with every new partner (people who force their partner to get a HIV test before having condomless sex would very much be in the minority.)

So if the majority are not practicing strict safe sex, why are there very few heterosexual infections in Europe?

It makes absolutely no sense. Therefore I believe there is a lot more to this AIDS thing than condoms.

meditraitor

Here is a different slant on the reduction in HIV deaths in the west
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701165100.htm

Since Introduction Of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, HIV Death Rate Has Decreased
ScienceDaily (July 3, 2008) — In industrialized countries, persons infected sexually with HIV now appear to experience mortality rates similar to those of the general population in the first 5 years following infection, though a higher risk of death remains as the duration of HIV infection lengthens, according to a new study.

A number of studies have reported the dramatic decreases in mortality among individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since the widespread introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in industrialized countries. "It is important to provide up-to-date and robust estimates of expected mortality as anti-HIV drugs and strategies continue to improve. Such estimates help policy makers and those planning health care to monitor the effectiveness of treatments at a population level and provide an indicator of the ongoing and likely future impact of HIV disease on health care needs," the authors write.

Krishnan Bhaskaran, M.Sc., of the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, and colleagues evaluated changes in the excess mortality of HIV-infected individuals compared with expected mortality in the general uninfected population, adjusting for duration of HIV infection. Mortality following HIV seroconversion (development of antibodies in blood serum as a result of infection) in a large multinational collaboration of HIV seroconverter cohorts (CASCADE) was compared with expected mortality, calculated by applying general population death rates matched on demographic factors. A model was created, adjusted for duration of infection, to assess changes over calendar time in the excess mortality among HIV-infected individuals. Data pooled in September 2007 were analyzed in March 2008, covering years at risk 1981-2006.

Of 16,534 individuals with median (midpoint) duration of follow-up of 6.3 years, a total of 2,571 individuals had died as of December 2006, compared with an estimated 235 deaths that would have been expected in a matched general population cohort. The excess mortality rate per 1,000 person-years (the number of individuals in the study times the number of years of follow-up per person) was 40.8 pre-1996, decreasing in each subsequent calendar period to 6.1 in 2004-2006.

By 2004-2006, there was no evidence of any excess mortality to 5 years from seroconversion among those infected sexually. However, in the longer term, some excess mortality was still evident, with the cumulative excess probability of death in the first 10 years from seroconversion estimated to be 4.8 percent in those 15 to 24 years old, and 4.3 percent in those 45 years or older at seroconversion.

"Considering the first years following the widespread introduction of HAART, we have estimated an 88 percent reduction in excess mortality in 2000-2001 compared with pre-1996, corresponding closely to the 87 percent reduction in the standardized mortality ratio in 1997-2001 compared with pre-1996, as reported by the Swiss HIV cohort. Our more recent data show that reductions have continued to 2004-2006, with excess mortality in this period 94 percent lower than pre-1996 levels.

Corresponding to these reductions, the uptake of HAART increased, and though this leveled off after 2001, there followed an increasing use of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HAART as the first-line treatment regimen and a substantial increase in the boosting of protease inhibitor-based regimens," the authors write.

Older age at seroconversion was associated with a higher risk of excess mortality (for age 45 years or older compared with age 15-24 years), as was a reported exposure category of injection drug use (compared with sex between males). Females appeared to be at lower risk than males.

"Our results show the progress in reducing mortality among HIV-infected individuals toward the levels experienced by the general uninfected population. However, there is continuing excess mortality, particularly evident in those infected for 10 years or more. Ongoing monitoring of excess mortality will be important as new treatment advances are implemented in an attempt to further reduce mortality rates among HIV-infected individuals," the researchers conclude.

tallaght01

Earthhorse wrote: »

Elaborate.

There are several reasons for this, earthhorse. One big problem is lack of education: people don't know how AIDS is transmitted, or that there's no cure etc. They think there's all kinds of ways to prevent it. Much like the oul "if we do it standing up, she won't get pregnant" type myths that were doing the rounds when you were a teenager.

Plus with lower educational level comes poverty. Poverty might mean that you have to work in the sex industry, where you're at high risk. It means you're malnourished, which increases your risks. it means you live in crappy housing, and you're more liely to get TB, which makes you more likely to become ill if you get HIV. It also makes you more likely to be an intravenous drug user. but in Ireland/the UK etc we have clean needle programmes. in Africa, you keep your needle as long as you can, and you share it with your mates.

There's also a problem with gender inequality in many countries. In places where women aren't respected, it becomes acceptable to be polygymous. The women also aren't respected enough to be part of the problems about contraception. If the man doesn't want to wera a condom, he doesn't. end of story. This is a big problem in Africa

Conflict is also endemic in africa. I'm alsways rabbiting on about this, but you wouldn't believe how many females (of LITERALLY all ages) get raped during pregnancy. rape carries a much higher transmission rate for HIV than does consensual sex, due to the forces involved.

Because of the above factors, STDs other than HIV are much more common. If you have another STD, you're more likely to have sores on your genitalia, and are therefore more at risk of contracting HIV.

There's other reasons, but these are some of the main reasons why they have an epidemic, and we don't.

EDIT: meditraitor, you're absoloutely right that antiretrovirals have revolutionised HIV/AIDS care in developed countries. But even before we had them available, we never had the HIV problem that poorer countries have.

tallaght01

dublindude wrote: »

In Europe we're just as promiscious, and most people do not use condoms with every new partner

is that true, btw? i don't know either way, but would be interested if you had stats for that statement.

Earthhorse

tallaght01 wrote: »

There are several reasons for this, earthhorse.

Thanks for that tallaght01, it was more dublindude I was looking to hear from.

I'm aware that AIDs isn't spread exclusively via unsafe sex but also through unclean needles etc. but it's precisely, or partly, why Europe doesn't have the AIDs epidemic Africa has. That and the other reasons you mentioned. Given that the poverty, gender inequality and other problems Africa faces, and which are fairly intractable in some areas, it makes sense to promote safe sex as part of the solution (yes, even if the gender inequality exists it does).

AARRRGH

tallaght01 wrote: »

is that true, btw? i don't know either way, but would be interested if you had stats for that statement.

It's all anecdotal I'm afraid, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know poor people aren't safe sex nazis.

Btw I don't know anyone (and I know a lot of people!) who force their partners to have HIV tests before a single instance of (planned or unplanned) unsafe sex.

tallaght01

Earthhorse wrote: »

, it makes sense to promote safe sex as part of the solution (yes, even if the gender inequality exists it does).

Dead right it does. Absoloutely. But as part of a wider strategy for rate reduction.