HIV breakthrough
Godfather.
Posts: 12,504
Researchers from the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) have reported a major breakthrough in the field of HIV research, claiming they have created a vaccine that completely eradicates the virus that causes AIDS in some monkeys, Discovery News reported.
And the next step? Testing the vaccine in humans.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/1 ... z2eoIvbgOL
And the next step? Testing the vaccine in humans.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/1 ... z2eoIvbgOL
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
that is the great shame about aids, we could have researched the shit out of it under reagan and maybe had a cure back then, but since the people who contracted this disease were so stigmatized, i do not feel like the funding or the urgency was there.
hopefully i am not too much of a cynic, and hopefully this will lead to a cure.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Stigmas are attached to many diagnoses - hell, look at the mental health side of it. But medications and therapy are covered by insurance, aren't they?
This is a wonderful step! I hope it's one that reaches its end goal, and soon.
this drug, will have cost millions to research, millions to develop, millions to test, millions to advertise, and there will be no generic for 20 years. that is why this drug will be expensive.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
R.I.P., M.K, my good friend and one of the first victims of AIDS.
Where ARE the stigmas? There are commercials all over the place for antidepressants and the like. For virtually anything and everything.
And I believe after what, 30 something years, HIV isn't unaccepted (not a big fan of that term but it'll have to do for now) - and certainly no more or less than any other ailment or illness or word du jour.
It's a crying shame that insurance companies - what they do and what they don't - have taken the spotlight in what should be an occasion for joy.
C'mon...finally, something good!
Fuckit, I'm gonna be happy for this. I am
Fuck yeah! We can use some good news! :thumbup:
By 1995, I lost count of how many funerals I'd been to. I'd lost so many friends that I honestly can't remember them all.
And since the late 80s, every three or four months some scientist, medical researcher or drug company comes rushing in the door, shouting "EUREKA!!! WE HAVE FOUND IT!!!" and telling us they just need a bit more money to finish their research or testing on their wonder drug that will cure us all and rid us of "THIS HORRIBLE PLAGUE."
They're always full of shit. Always.
in the mid 90s, protease inhibitors ended the fast slide to death and now living with HIV is common up into people's 70s.
But I'll say what I've said for over 20 years.... "I'll believe it when I see it."
Gay men and doctors understand the concept of things like undetectable viral loads, but the general public doesn't really understand any of that.
As far as the stigma... trust me... it's there. It's horrible. People are still fired for having HIV, children with HIV are still treated like lepers. It's not as bad as it was, certainly... but it's still there.
Straight people have sex with no condoms at a MUCH higher rate than gay men, but nobody calls their unwanted, accidental children "risky lifestyle choices."
And those things cost us all a lot more than HIV meds. They're also a lot more annoying on airplanes and public transit.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
either way.. yeah... I hope this one is real but I've lost count of how many times I've said THAT, too.
Treatments have improved and in some ways HIV can be regarded as a disease like diabetes, life-threatening but manageable. But it's still a pretty horrible disease. And the public often overlooks the fact that despite the knowledge about prevention, a lot of people are still being infected. That's what happens when facts and prevention education aren't widely available. I continue to be amazed at the misinformation that out's there.
Lest you think I'm a total cynic, I will say that I expect the stigma to lessen. In the early 20th century, there was a similar stigma toward tuberculosis. People kept it secret because they could lose their jobs or be evicted if others found out. Cancer also had a severe stigma until around the 1930s. People considered it contagious and avoided anyone with any kind of cancer. That's where the old-fashioned term "the C-word" came from.
Most of the laws that protect people with HIV from discrimination were based on the similar laws protecting people with TB. Laws are great but they don't change people's prejudices, as we know from civil rights legislation. At least they are a start.
Right now, the only absolute cure that has been documented for HIV is bone marrow transplant. This is an expensive and complicated procedure that isn't practical. I'll keep hoping for a cure, but nothing will bring my friends back. I'm just glad for the treatments that have extended the lives of many people, including a lot of those I care about.
um, where exactly did gimme even come close to implying that? I'm pretty sure he knows as well as you do that he wasn't talking about gay men having sex.
everybody with a brain knows the main problem with this disease is not gay people at all. don't perpetuate your own stigma.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's not like gay men or ANY sexually active people have cornered the market on "risky lifestyle choices." Smokers can get quadruple bypass surgery and it's covered by their insurance. Obese people, who may or may not be that way because of lifestyle choices, can have gastric bypass to lose weight. But these situations aren't regarded as the result of risky lifestyle choices by most people when it happens to someone they know.
There's still a perception that all gay men are having rampant unprotected sex and minorities are the only ones shooting drugs. Not a problem in suburbia and "not something I have to worry about my insurance covering because I'll never have that problem." The stigma may not be as overt but it's still there.
Ok well... you're probably right. He's never said anything that would make me think he feels that way before.
Sorry.. the term "risky lifestyle choices" is one of my hair triggers.
I question the term just based on the concept of "lifestyle" alone. I think we are who we are and even more so when any individual is self-aware to the point of simply being who they are.
Does that make sense?
I think. But I'm pretty drunk.
I'm a little lit up myself, so I wasn't sure either.
Godfather.
I'd like add that if you have an STD it's your moral obligation to disclose to any potential partner that you have an STD. I have no problem with jail time for those that do not disclose their status and choose to put others at risk.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
One of the Greatest Exchanges EVER!!! EPIC!!!
Oh good, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
The weird thing is, what I was asking about was whether or not what I said made sense, "I think we are who we are and even more so when any individual is self-aware to the point of simply being who they are," but now I'm only vaguely sure of WTF I meant.
Warning: This article addresses graphic subject matter that may not be appropriate for all readers.
With news cameras flashing, adult film performer Cameron Bay told reporters that in her last porn shoot before testing positive for HIV, her partner's penis was bleeding -- and he wasn't wearing a condom. After stopping momentarily, the cameras continued rolling, she said.
Bay, whose positive HIV test sparked the first of two porn moratoriums in the last month, spoke Wednesday at a Hollywood press conference with other adult film performers, including two who said they also contracted HIV this year. The press conference was coordinated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which advocates for mandatory condom use in porn.
Five current and former porn performers spoke about the dangers and uncertainty of life in the adult film industry. While the performers said they can't be sure when and where they contracted HIV, they agreed the industry is not adequately protecting its performers.
Choking back tears, Bay continued to describe her last shoot, filmed at a public bar in San Francisco for Kink.com.
"There were up to 50 people in the room with us. And we were laying on top of them. And they were touching inappropriately," Bay said. "It all happened so fast. I didn’t realize how unsafe it was until I saw the pictures ... You're on a whole other level when you're doing something so extreme."
Bay told HuffPost last week that condoms were available, but not required at the shoot. She said she didn't think she needed to use a condom because her male costar had recently tested negative for sexually transmitted diseases, and she left the choice up to him. Kink.com confirmed to HuffPost that Bay was offered a condom, but it was not used.
Porn performer Patrick Stone told reporters he was asked to perform in a shoot even after he tested positive for HIV. He said he was told he was HIV-positive in an email on Sept. 10 from Performer Availability Screening Services, which handles STD testing for the industry. Stone said he never got a follow-up call or email from PASS, or from his employer Kink.com, to discuss the results or schedule follow-up testing. Instead, he got an email from Kink.com two days later inquiring about scheduling a shoot this week, he said.
Since then, Stone has taken two additional tests that he said show him as HIV-negative. He said he's awaiting results from a fourth and final test.
"It's been kind of a whirlwind week for me emotionally," Stone said. "I feel that the testing process for PASS is not working. If I was allowed to fall through the cracks like I did, who else is out there?
"I mean, they had me scheduled for a shoot tomorrow and as far as they knew, I was HIV-positive," Stone said.
Kink.com said that it did not know about Stone's positive HIV test when it scheduled him for the shoot.
"He had tested negative for us previously. Because of the moratorium, tests were not updated on the PASS system for producers (because no one was cleared for work)," Mike Stabile, spokesman for Kink.com, said in an email to HuffPost. "He would have been required [to take] a new test regardless before shooting."
Another man who identified himself as a porn performer joined the press conference by phone, saying he wanted to remain anonymous. He claimed to have contracted HIV working in the industry and tested positive in the last six months. That would make him the third performer to test positive for the virus this year.
About two weeks after a shoot, he said he developed acute symptoms and tested positive. He said he had tested negative for HIV two weeks earlier.
A fourth performer, Rod Daily, said he learned he was HIV-positive earlier this month. Daily, who has been in a romantic relationship with Cameron Bay for about two years, has performed in gay porn since 2005 and said he always used condoms.
"That's 12 years that I've shot with HIV-positive people, used condoms and never been HIV-positive," Daily said. "If anything, I know that condoms do work. I was a guinea pig for that.
"I just don’t know how an industry stands here and says they care so much about their performers and, a week after someone tests positive, they're out there shooting without condoms," Daily said. "Ultimately, it’s a business, and their main concern is money and not their performers."
Daily thanked the AIDS Healthcare Foundation "for everything they've done," including helping him and Bay get medication.
Former performer Derrick Burts said he became infected with HIV in 2010 working as a porn performer. Burts said that, like Bay, he had only worked in the industry for a few months before contracting HIV. In his four-month porn career, he said, he contracted chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes as well.
"To me this is one huge flashback," Burts said. "What's the acceptable number of cases of HIV or herpes or HPV or syphilis or any other dangerous STD before people step up and do something about this?"
Another former performer, Darren James, who said he became infected with HIV in 2004 working as a porn performer, said he "almost lost it" listening to Bay tell her story.
"I didn’t want to see a whole army of people sitting at this table," said James, who now works for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "This industry has failed and continues to fail. We all need to wake up."
if my bosses OFFERED me said gloves, and I refused them, it doesn't matter if you got burned, you're still playing with fire.
I didn't read one instance in GF's article where the "industry" is at all at fault. You don't like what's going on at work? Speak up and don't do it. Pretty simple.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So I'll break it down for you.
1. Neither of those people were infected on set.
2. None of their scene partners have tested positive for HIV after MANY tests. They were not infected on set.
3. They were infected in their personal lives, not on set.
Porn has nothing to do with the HIV infections of either of these people.
When proper testing protocols have been followed, there has NEVER been an HIV infection on the set of a porn film.
But it's easier for scared people (sorry, but usually straight) to hand out the big scarlet A and say "that slut deserved it." They can then breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't infected because they're not sluts like the porn stars.
Truth be known, you're less likely to catch an STD from a porn star because they get tested regularly and so do all of their sex partners.
no one said anyone deserved anything.
detection does not equal safety. can you substantiate your last statement with any factual stats, or are you just saying that because the evil straight people are all homophobes in your eyes? I don't personally know anything about how regulated your industry is, so I'm relying on your knowledge.
is there a regulatory body, an external auditor of sorts, that does spot checks on sets? who's responsible for the testing? the studio? the talent themselves? does it only take one negative test to move forward with a production, or does there have to be a battery of tests before it goes through? why don't all male talent wear protection? I see some in hetero movies that do, but most don't. who decides that, and what the factors deciding it?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
agreed, my thought is that those STD test are only as good as the next sexual encounter and the people that still go to work(porn actors) knowing they are HIV positive, comdom or not I would not have sex with someone that was HIV positine or any STD then there are the people that test positive but don't say anything, that's a risky life style !
Godfather.
Godfather.
don't be silly. HIV phobia isn't necessarily homophobia based, it's usually just hysteria on a lack of real information. It's just reality for the gay community but I don't know many straight people who even USE condoms regularly and they generally don't understand the concepts of Viral Load or what PEP is.
I can back it up that while the AHF sure has caused a lot of hysteria (which is odd for a group that calls itself a "healthcare foundation"), aside from a few performers who were infected years ago when proper protocols were followed, they're unable to find a single performer who claims to have been infected on set. Not a single one.
Even the two in this story flatly say that they weren't infected on set, it was from their personal life (my guess is possibly a shared needle from using HGH, but that's just a guess based on personal familiarity with one of the performers).
There used to be an agency called The AIM Clinic that did the testing themselves and held all the records. A performer would get tested there or through one of their agencies, ID had to be presented and the studio would then call the AIM Clinic and print out their negative tests and share them with each scene partner, IDs were compared to the ones on file with the Clinic and tests had to be done either every 30 days or every 2 weeks depending on the studio. And no studio that followed these protocols ever had a case of on-set transmission.
See above.
The tests they use are not the low-end "free" tests that you can get at the local Gay and Lesbian center. They're the mega high-end tests used by law enforcement that cost about $250 each. They're extremely accurate and the "12-week window" that you'd get with the lower-cost tests is closer to two-three days. So you only need one, although they were tested for many STDs, not just HIV.
They do in the movies I make. That's a decision made by the studio. And I guess ultimately the consumer.