HIV/AIDS - A disgusting article I found

[Ymir]

Taken from: http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2003/...227elin011.html (http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2003/02/27/eline/links/20030227elin011.html)

Girls born with HIV surviving to become moms

Last Updated: 2003-02-27 16:21:02 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Thanks to relatively new and powerful HIV medications, women who became infected with HIV before birth are now living long enough to become pregnant themselves, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Thursday.

The agency describes the cases of eight women living in Puerto Rico who acquired HIV from their mothers in the womb--known as perinatal infection--and reported 10 pregnancies between August 1998 and May 2002.

As of this week, none of the seven babies born to these mothers had developed HIV, the authors report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. All of the babies received preventive drug treatment after delivery, and four of the women consistently took anti-HIV drugs during their pregnancies.

Two of the 10 pregnancies ended in abortion, while the third ended in miscarriage.

These findings, the first to report pregnancies among women born HIV-positive, represent a "landmark" in the HIV epidemic, study author Dr. Michelle McConnell of the CDC told Reuters Health.

"They were born with HIV, and now they are not only alive, but healthy enough to have their own children," McConnell said.

And a large number of perinatally infected children are likely not far behind, she added.

"I think this is going to happen more and more," McConnell said.

During the study, the CDC researchers compared eight perinatally infected women to eight perinatally infected women who had never conceived. Women who had conceived had first done so between 13 and 19 years of age.

Relative to other perinatally infected women who had not become pregnant, those who conceived tended to learn about their HIV status at a later age and were less likely to consistently use condoms when having sex.

Half of the women who conceived were first told of their infection at age 13 or older, while half of those who had not become pregnant were told at age 12 or younger.

In terms of condom use, only two of the women who had not conceived said they were sexually active, and both reported using condoms consistently. In contrast, among the eight women who became pregnant, only two said they used condoms consistently.

Although the report is based on information from only a handful of young girls, the authors note that the findings suggest that parents of HIV-positive kids should inform their children about their health at an early age.

Teens and young adults with perinatal infection also need to discuss sexual health before they begin to have sex, the authors add.

As more perinatally infected women become pregnant, McConnell said there will be a greater need for health services tailored to meet their specific needs. These services include reproductive information, and medication during pregnancy and for the newborn, she noted.

SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;28:149-151.

[Ymir]

If you read the article then you are aware, they are breeding these HIV infected women and letting them have children. Does anyone else see something horribly wrong with this?

[RedFW]

I disagree with both parts of your comment.

First that they are breeding these women: The article said the women were carried by their mothers who were HIV postive and were infected in the womb. They were not infected by the people conducting the study whilst in the womb, they contracted it in the womb because their mothers were HIV positive.

As for letting them have children, I don't think it is anyone's business whether they do or not. Of course, I can see the same conservatives fighting for abortions to be banned except in cases where the woman is HIV positive.

If I were HIV positive and knew I could not infect a fetus I was carrying, I probably would still choose to not have children, but that is me.

[Ymir]

I didnt say the doctors infected anyone, just that it is irresponsible letting women have children that are going to suffer with AIDS.

[RedPirate]

Why did they have kids in the first place? I iknow its a "right" for some, but that's still shows how bored some people are.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Kindly inform us who is worthy of being allowed to breed, Mr. Eugenics, or should I call you Adolf? ;)

--- G.

[RedFW]

I didnt say the doctors infected anyone

I was responding to this:


they are breeding these HIV infected women and letting them have children.

I am uncomfortable with the "letting women have children" phrase that is being thrown around. Who do you expect to stop it and why should it be stopped and how can it be?

[Mazdak]

I agree with Ymir. People who have AIDS should be monitored. They should be isolated from the general population. And don't take it I mean isolation as in a solitary confinement - like isolation. I mean, people with AIDS living in a sort of nursing home like system. They should also immediatly be sterilized.

Don't tell me that is horrible or inhumane. allowing AIDS to infect more people in horrible and inhumane.

[Ymir]

Why it should be stopped:

Medication is expensive, and keeping people with HIV/AIDS alive would be very costly, especially since their condition would keep them from being productive.
The medication will keep them alive, but it does not keep the disease from spreading. And then of course these people will breed, and begin a whole new generation that is doomed from the beginning. Do you want to be born with HIV?
These people are tools to kill others. Whether they intend to or not (of course not!) they are still a danger to everyone around them.


Who Will stop it:

This is a problem of mankind, and as such the whole of mankind should make a concious effort to sterilize iteslf of this type of epidemic. I am sure the governments have a great potential to stop the spread of this.


How to stop it: The EASY way

The solution to this is simple and can be accomplished in areas without medical facilities. Quarantine all the infected people in certain areas, then burn those areas. I'm sure some people might want to kill them first, but it'd have to be very close to the time of burning, or else you would have rotting diseased bodies everywhere.

Stopping HIV/AIDS: The HUMANE way
See Mazdak's post.

[Mazdak]

Umm . . .. . .. Ymir, i didn't think anyone could get more extreme then me, but you just somehow managed it. Now, i may not obsess over individual human rights, but, that is taking it a slight bit too far if you ask me.

[Moskitto]

I think all newly pregnant women should be tested for hiv if their status is not known to be positive and if they have tested positive before or do test positive this time they should be given anti-retrovirals (for free) to stop them passing the transmission onto the baby (as well as caesarian births and banned from breast feeding.) Also, women (and men) who are raped should be encouraged to go to a clinic to get anti-retrovirals (for free) to stop them catching hiv, and people deliberately spreading aids should be locked in jail and the key thrown away. Anti-retovirals are not expensive, they make them in Brazil and Thailand for $10 a dose for crying out loud!!!

note that none of these mothers actually passed their infection onto their children, thanks to anti-retrovirals.

[Moskitto]

HIV cases are going to reach a peak sometime in the next century, then cases will suddenly drop because people will become so careful to avoid catching it new cases will become extremely rare and all those currently infected will die out. of course, government policy should immitate this by making up statistics about HIV/AIDS, eg. 95% of people are infected when really only 0.1 something % are.

[Moskitto]

HIV doesn't make people unproductive, many succesful people in sport and industry are HIV positive, many don't realise they have it for 13 years until they get AIDS then yeah they become basically crippled.

[smith196]

Quote: from Mazdak on 6:28 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
I agree with Ymir. People who have AIDS should be monitored. They should be isolated from the general population. And don't take it I mean isolation as in a solitary confinement - like isolation. I mean, people with AIDS living in a sort of nursing home like system. They should also immediatly be sterilized.

Don't tell me that is horrible or inhumane. allowing AIDS to infect more people in horrible and inhumane.


I agree with you Mazdak. It is horrible for people to spread this to their children and if we isolated people with AIDS we could stop other people being infected from it. But there are downsides to it suck as loss of liberty and sexual freedom.

Dhul the healthy and intelligent would preferably be the only ones who are allowed to breed to insure the upbreeding of the race which actually happens naturally in all other species except man. It's called Survival of the fittest. Hitler was also not the first to pratice eugenics as it was put into pratice in 20's America. Criminals and Mentally unfit people were sterilized.

[Mazdak]

. . . . . Freedoms? Once again this poisonous thought prevents us from thinking clearly. Whats more important, stopping AIDS from spreading, or keeping your precious freedoms.

We should allow these carriers a few moments of pleasure which ultimatly result in the infection of more people. NO.

Freedom is second. Security and stability are first.

[Anonymous]

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
- Benjamin Franklin

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Freedom is more important.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 4:45 am on Mar. 3, 2003)

[Ymir]

You have the freedom to be isolated or burnt to death. What is your choice, DC?

[honest intellectual]

um, did anyone actually read this?
Quote: from Ymir on 1:28 am on Mar. 2, 2003
As of this week, none of the seven babies born to these mothers had developed HIV

[Ymir]

er OOPS, I still support my previous positions though.

Can we say those drugs have no negative side effects? Pain killers arent used on babies during circumcision because the drugs could be too much, but they give the mothers large doses of medication during pregnancy and also babies recieve medication. That can't be good.

[Xvall]

That's interesting Dark Capitalist. Just curious. Do you support the Patriot Act? As I know many leftists who have used those quotes in opposition to it.

[Hampton]

Err, painkiller are usally used during circumcision in the form of a cream or a shot. Babies are also given sucrose, a sweetener, by mouth, which changes pain pathways to the brain and helps the infant be more comfortable.

[RedFW]

Medication is expensive, and keeping people with HIV/AIDS alive would be very costly, especially since their condition would keep them from being productive.

I disagree with this. I think keeping people aliive infected with HIV/AIDS is more important than any potential cost and that the drugs can now keep them well for much longer than in the 80s and early 90s, which means they can carry out their daily lives in a very normal way, though I don't want to minimise how difficult it must be for people to deal with living with it everyday.

The medication will keep them alive, but it does not keep the disease from spreading. And then of course these people will breed, and begin a whole new generation that is doomed from the beginning. Do you want to be born with HIV?

The whole point of the article was that the children of HIV infected parents are being born free of the virus, so I don't understand why you are posting this. As for the virus spreading, education is very important. I read recently, I think from an article posted at Politics Online that a new body of research has discovered that many people in Africa who have become infected have been so in hospital or seeking medical care/treatment, which to me would indicate that the resources are not available for proper training and education regarding safe practices and procedures. Also, there has been much in the news recently about the myth that men who have sex with virgin girls can cure their HIV, which also suggests that not enough is being done on the prevention and educational side.


These people are tools to kill others. Whether they intend to or not (of course not!) they are still a danger to everyone around them.

They are only a danger if they have unprotected sex. Of course there are cases in which a person infected intentionally infects others, and I am disgusted by this. I don't think any harm is done by locking these people up, but I think most infected people do not and would not want to infect someone else and take precautions not to.

This is a problem of mankind, and as such the whole of mankind should make a concious effort to sterilize iteslf of this type of epidemic. I am sure the governments have a great potential to stop the spread of this.


So what are you advocating here? Forced abortion?


The solution to this is simple and can be accomplished in areas without medical facilities. Quarantine all the infected people in certain areas, then burn those areas. I'm sure some people might want to kill them first, but it'd have to be very close to the time of burning, or else you would have rotting diseased bodies everywhere.

So, if you do this, what about their families and friends who are smart enough to realise that there is no danger of getting it unless they share needles or have unprotected sex with a relative?

I just don't understand why you would post this after posting the article yourself which says that the children in this study were born without infection. Why ostracise them if their children can be born HIV free? It isn't spreading it. Also, when programs that provide clean needles and designated places for disposal of needles for drug addicts are in place, the risk of spreading the disease through needles and needle sharing is greatly reduced.

I mean, people with AIDS living in a sort of nursing home like system. They should also immediatly be sterilized.

Why nursing homes if they are not sick and why sterilisation if they are not spreading the disease?

Don't tell me that is horrible or inhumane. allowing AIDS to infect more people in horrible and inhumane.

Why post if you don't want to hear this?

I agree it is inhumane to allow more people to be infected with AIDS, but I don't agree with your method of stopping it.

I think all newly pregnant women should be tested for hiv if their status is not known to be positive and if they have tested positive before or do test positive this time they should be given anti-retrovirals (for free) to stop them passing the transmission onto the baby (as well as caesarian births and banned from breast feeding.)

I completely disagree. I think law needs to stay out of women's bodies. They should be offered free as well as the drugs, but I am against mandatory testing.

Also, women (and men) who are raped should be encouraged to go to a clinic to get anti-retrovirals (for free) to stop them catching hiv, and people deliberately spreading aids should be locked in jail and the key thrown away. Anti-retovirals are not expensive, they make them in Brazil and Thailand for $10 a dose for crying out loud!!!

I don't have a problem with this.

Dhul the healthy and intelligent would preferably be the only ones who are allowed to breed to insure the upbreeding of the race which actually happens naturally in all other species except man.

So are you saying that people infected with HIV/AIDS are not healthy (if they are able to prevent infection to their offspring) and intelligent?

We should allow these carriers a few moments of pleasure which ultimatly result in the infection of more people. NO.

If they are not infecting anyone then why should they not be allowed it?

Of course stopping AIDS is important, but you are discursive in your reaching your conclusion that your way of stopping it the only way and that freedom must be lost to stop it.

You have the freedom to be isolated or burnt to death. What is your choice, DC?

Charming. If this topic is not going to receive the seriousness and respect it deserves, I personally will not contribute futher.

[Moskitto]

if you stop anyone, including babies, getting hiv, with no severe side effects, it is worth it.

[Moskitto]

Also, there has been much in the news recently about the myth that men who have sex with virgin girls can cure their HIV, which also suggests that not enough is being done on the prevention and educational side.

it's because it is known by most people that if you stick to one partner and they stick to one partner you are unlikely to catch hiv, but education is not good enough in some areas and there are views held about women which make people think sex with virgins will actually cure them.

[RedFW]

it's because it is known by most people that if you stick to one partner and they stick to one partner you are unlikely to catch hiv, but education is not good enough in some areas and there are views held about women which make people think sex with virgins will actually cure them.
I think this is overstating the case. I am surprised by people I talk to who are adults who don't know all the ways one can contract it. In some places there is a complete denial, which one could argue stems from government denial about dealing with it and/or even acknowledging its existence.

Moskitto, are their views about sex with virgins immutable? That seems to be what you are suggesting. If it is, I completely disagree, and I think this is just an excuse to not do anything about it. What makes their understanding of HIV less prone to change than anyone else's? I don't really understand what the point you are making in the last part of your post.

[Moskitto]

it's not that their views are less prone to changing than others views, it's the traditional culture of the areas they live in sometimes. For example, if a man has sex with a prostitute and catches hiv, then infects his wife, when he discovers they are both positive, he will decide his wife is a whore and it is her fault, it has been the tradition to blame the woman for all problems in many places.
Uganda has worked at solving the problem that this traditional "blame the woman" culture has caused, Uganda used to be worst place for hiv in the world, until the Ugandan government began public education programs to educate people about how they can catch the virus, and that condoms, and staying faithful are the best ways to avoid infection, and dispel myths about cures, now Uganda's hiv infection rates have plummeted. other countries need to do this as well.

[RedFW]

Moskitto, I don't really see how what you have posted is any different from what I have posted.*shrug*

[Felicia]

Hmm, I don't know if this has already been said here (I haven't read through everything), but I heard that they've "discovered" a reasonably successful vaccine for aids/hiv, but so far it's only shown to work on blacks and asians (decent), and not for hispanics or whites. I find that interesting, perhaps this could be a new hope for the AIDS epidemic in Africa?

(Edited by felicia at 10:43 am on Mar. 5, 2003)

[RedFW]

I think this may be the study you were referring to, Felicia:

Aids vaccine only limited success (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2793017.stm)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from RedFW on 11:31 am on Mar. 5, 2003
Moskitto, I don't really see how what you have posted is any different from what I have posted.*shrug*


maybe it isn't maybe we misunderstood each other.

[RedFW]

There is always the possibility of that happening on BBs ;)

[Mazdak]

Of course someone with AIDS should be forced to have an abortion REDFW!!! Let someone doomed be born into the world, for no reason other than to risk further spreading of the disease.

[Moskitto]

no need for abortions, if your treated it can stop transmission. But i remember a couple of years ago a couple with a positive woman and a negative husband had a child and they were into so weird new age medicine and they first refused to take medication to stop the infection transmitting, then insisted on breast feeding, then they violated a court injunction ordering them to have a test, the child tested positive.

annother thing you could do is to make it a criminal offense to have unprotected sex if you are a male who has tested positive for HIV and place less extreme restrictions on women. And make adultery illegal.

[Mazdak]

Sterilization. Immediate sterilization. Anything else would be a crime. A few moments pleasure for two is not worth the cost. Once again, you people need to stop thinking on an individual basis and more on a collective one. What is better for the whole? Utilitarianism(spelling?) is the most ideal philosophy in this case.

[CruelVerdad]

Well it´s a bad thing that they are having a baby if they are going to die in a long term, but it´s a difficult thing to talk about, you have the human rights, for ex. the right of these women to have a baby. With no matter what circunstance....
If i was a woman, i wouldn´t have the baby, couldn´t live knowing that one of these days i won´t see my baby any more, that i don´t know who will he be in the future, if he will be ok.

[RedComrade]

At first glance i thought monitoring AIDS victims, and stopping them from having sex or getting pregnant seemed unfair. The more i think though the more i see how pathetic this "pro civil liberties" position is. If people stop having sex and stop having HIV kids the disease will stop also. Whats more cruel not let some infected phrat guy have sex and infect others perpetrating a disease that will kill millions or just not letting him have sex. I say if he has to live out the rest of his days with only his right hand to comfort him so be it!.. much better than million more infected and dead....

[RedFW]

Of course someone with AIDS should be forced to have an abortion REDFW!!! Let someone doomed be born into the world, for no reason other than to risk further spreading of the disease.

Did you even read the article, Mazdak? The children in the study were born without infection, which means they will not spread the disease. And I don't think forced abortion would stop the spread of disease because more people become infected from having sexual contact without protection or sharing needles with an infected person than transmission from mother to baby either in utero or through breast feeding.

But i remember a couple of years ago a couple with a positive woman and a negative husband had a child and they were into so weird new age medicine and they first refused to take medication to stop the infection transmitting, then insisted on breast feeding, then they violated a court injunction ordering them to have a test, the child tested positive.

I know the case you are talking about (if you are talking about one from Britain. I know the doctor who testified to get the injunction. The couple were living in Britain, but were originally from an African country (I cannot remember which) and the existence (this may have changed now) of HIV and AIDS was denied by the government there.

annother thing you could do is to make it a criminal offense to have unprotected sex if you are a male who has tested positive for HIV and place less extreme restrictions on women. And make adultery illegal.

I think the point is will these arbitrary laws eliminate new infections? No, I don't think they will considering, though intentional infection of another person has happened, most people who infect others don't know they are infected themselves.

If you are going to make adultery illegal, would you make adultery illegal only in cases of marriage? That still is not going to eliminate the disease or the new infections. Why not ban divorce while you are at it? Then people can be stuck in unhealthy relationships and kill each other.

Sterilization. Immediate sterilization. Anything else would be a crime. A few moments pleasure for two is not worth the cost. Once again, you people need to stop thinking on an individual basis and more on a collective one. What is better for the whole? Utilitarianism(spelling?) is the most ideal philosophy in this case.

Mazdak, I don't tell you what to think, please extend me the same courtesy. In fact, you didn't even address the points I made in response to your first post.

You have not yet explained why immediate sterlisation is neccessary if infection will not be passed onto children? And what good would sterlisation do if a woman is already pregnant when she finds out she is HIV postive, which is very common in states (IIRC California is one of those) that require all women who are pregnant to have an HIV test?

As for everything being better for the whole, I don't think you have yet said anything that could remotely support a case for sterilisation/forced abortion being beneficent to the whole.

Well it´s a bad thing that they are having a baby if they are going to die in a long term, but it´s a difficult thing to talk about, you have the human rights, for ex. the right of these women to have a baby. With no matter what circunstance....
If i was a woman, i wouldn´t have the baby, couldn´t live knowing that one of these days i won´t see my baby any more, that i don´t know who will he be in the future, if he will be ok.

I think this is a very good point, and I agree that I wouldn't carry the pregnancy to term either. However, I don't think any of the previous posts were even considering this.

I don't understand why anyone would want to either, but then again there is the stigma of abortion and just because I have no problem with the idea of abortion doesn't mean some other woman, HIV postive or not, will be able to make the same decision I would, for whatever reasons i.e. religious/personal beliefs.

The problem for me is what has been argued: that forced abortion/sterilisation and arbitrary laws making those who are postive unable to have sex and initiating a ban on adultery will eliminate the disease. I don't think anything that has yet been proposed, other than intensive education and availability of family planning resources (something the Bush administration has either severely cut or has decided to avoid with abstinence only education, and something that is gaining more popularity in Britain) is the only thing I can see working to reduce new infections, and of course what was mentioned in the article about preventing these infections being passed to children.

If people stop having sex and stop having HIV kids the disease will stop also. Whats more cruel not let some infected phrat guy have sex and infect others perpetrating a disease that will kill millions or just not letting him have sex. I say if he has to live out the rest of his days with only his right hand to comfort him so be it!.. much better than million more infected and dead....

I think my point about most people infecting others not knowing they are themselves infected has already addressed this. Unless one were to stop all people from having sex, I don't think this will have much effect on eliminating the disease. And what if an infected person has sex with another infected person, will that be allowed. Also, what if one partner is postive and the other is negative, they both know and choose to have safe sex, is that going to be banned as well?




(Edited by RedFW at 8:58 am on Mar. 7, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'd like to see some of your reactions if Sterilization was proposed for groups which include YOU. This is eugenics, if you really want to go down this route we need to sterilize anyone with genetic predisposition to any disease, and then why not just neuter anyone that's not attractive and anyone of below average intelligence?

After all, that's the only way to make sure future generations will be pure and free of disease, right?

Oh, that's right, we can't do that. Because that would mean most of you Stalinists and fascists would have to give up THEIR balls ;)

Honestly, try for ONCE to put yourself in other people's shoes Mazdak and co.

It's called EMPATHY, and it's where socialism starts.

--- G.

[RedFW]

Brilliant post, Dhul. :)

I completely agree.

[Felicia]

Quote: from RedFW on 12:19 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
I think this may be the study you were referring to, Felicia:

Aids vaccine only limited success (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2793017.stm)


yes, that's it.


Dhul, you could strap him to a chair and yell it in his face and he still wouldn't get it. The shit he spews out makes me sick. :angry:

[RedFW]

Dhul, you could strap him to a chair and yell it in his face and he still wouldn't get it. The shit he spews out makes me sick.

Actually, felicia, I disagree. His act is to pretend he doesn't get it so that, when he posts something even with a minimal amount of shock value and someone responds in horror and disgust, he satisfies some immature fantasy. It is all rather simple and predictable, not to mention tedious, when Mazdak's name is to the left of a post. ;)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:29 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
Sterilization. Immediate sterilization. Anything else would be a crime. A few moments pleasure for two is not worth the cost. Once again, you people need to stop thinking on an individual basis and more on a collective one. What is better for the whole? Utilitarianism(spelling?) is the most ideal philosophy in this case.


sterilisating doesn't stop aids spreading, it only stops aids spreading to the new generation, which most western countries are trying to do with drugs anyway, you need a way to stop sex (or at least, unprotected sex) between infected individuals and uninfected individuals (and no, unlike the catholic church, i don't think telling people not to have sex works), not just procreation, unless your talking castration/placing a piece of skin over it? But if you make policies too draconian people would be afraid to be tested and there are problems with accuracy in mass testing programs.

(Edited by Moskitto at 5:04 pm on Mar. 7, 2003)

[Mazdak]

The idea is to stop it from spreading to a new generation. i am aware it doesnt stop it from spreading through sexual contact, but it prevents impregnation.

[Anonymous]

I think I read somewhere that almost 70% of all men who are forcefully castrated eventually commit suicide.

[RedFW]

The idea is to stop it from spreading to a new generation. i am aware it doesnt stop it from spreading through sexual contact, but it prevents impregnation.

Why do you want to prevent impregnation if the fetus will not be infected, which means it will not spreading be to a new generation?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Exactly, there are drugs currenlty on the market and in use that prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child. I totally agree that Mazdak's post was made for pure shock value and to live up to his image as an authoritarian asshole with no regard for other people.

Honestly, I don't understand how people with such blatant disregard for basic human rights and that are totally lacking the important quality of empathy, would even be attracted to anything socialistic in nature! Go join the local Nazi Party if that's what you're into, I'm sure they'll bend the rules and let you have Stalin and other big bad Russians as your heroes if that's what you're worried about.
In any case, this whole forum (OI, not che-lives) is just an exercise in political masturbation. No one is changing their minds, no one is looking inward to see what heartless fools they have let themselves become.

I can't wait 'till they re-open chit chat, maybe then I'll stop clicking on this infernal part of the forums ;)

--- G.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:12 pm on Mar. 7, 2003
The idea is to stop it from spreading to a new generation. i am aware it doesnt stop it from spreading through sexual contact, but it prevents impregnation.


but if you're goal is to stop it spreading to the next generation, how would you know who is infected? Many of those who are infected do not know it. Unless you advocate compulsory testing for all pregnant mothers (which is what i suggested), but then you'd be spreading the wrong messages that HIV is ok, as long as you don't want to have children, then it's a no-no. But you need a way of making spreading HIV a no-no amoungst the same generation, unless you just want to stop people having children because of the danger of a virus which we can stop spreading with drugs anyway.

[Ymir]

"Honestly, I don't understand how people with such blatant disregard for basic human rights and that are totally lacking the important quality of empathy, would even be attracted to anything socialistic in nature!"

I can empathize with the majority of the people on the planet that do not want to get AIDS or some horrible disease. If sterilizing the several million who have HIV will stop this, then I am in favor of it...If destroying the carriers of this would also stop it, I am also supportive.

On the Topic of drugs:
Some links about antiviral HIV drugs:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/health/1778364
HIV drugs raise heart attack risk.

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/newdrugs.html
Do new HIV drugs affect HIV prevention?

"the new HIV treatments, which can cost up to $15,000 a year"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Seco...opinion_73.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion_73.html)
The Drawbacks of Anti-HIV Drugs

"A name more worthy of the toxic effects listed on the drug labels would be “medical poisons.”

"They have strokes, heart attacks and suffer liver and kidney damage. They develop dangerously high cholesterol and diabetes. Some of them have suffered gross deformities. "

"Also alarming is that many of those who develop these afflictions are symptom-free at the start. "


The selling of 'medicinal' drugs is only a business like any other, and doctors are the salespeople. Drugs will be pumped into people for a 700% profit rate while causing harmful side effects. Does anyone really want to expose children to these chemicals?

I think Moskitto was making this point, that if we keep hoping for a cure in a drug, then cautiousness about HIV will decrease and there will actually be an increase of HIV.

Just say no to drugs!

[RedFW]

If sterilizing the several million who have HIV will stop this, then I am in favor of it...If destroying the carriers of this would also stop it, I am also supportive.

I am sure lots of people would support sterilisation if there were any evidence to suggest that it would actually prevent HIV infection; however, there is no such evidence, and I think the logic that it would prevent infection is faulty. As people will still infect others, they just wouldn't reproduce.

Do you realise how condescending and unempathetic your statement is? Destroy the carriers? The carriers happen to be people's mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters and sons. HIV is not airborne, lets not treat it as if it is. If people were truly committed to stopping the disease, there would not be so much prejudice regarding who has it and how they got it and a hell of a lot more money funding prevention programs and programs that will develop drugs that either will enable people to "live" with the disease or programs to develop a cure.

Oh, and I am sure all of the people living with HIV/AIDS will really appreciate being told "Just say no to drugs" when the other alternative is to slowly emaciate into a human skeleton.

The selling of 'medicinal' drugs is only a business like any other, and doctors are the salespeople. Drugs will be pumped into people for a 700% profit rate while causing harmful side effects.

Lets not conflate the issue here. It doesn't have to be sold at a profit, in fact, the drugs don't even have to be sold, they can be given. And if the richest countries in the world foot the bill, than so be it. The pain and symptoms caused by the disease are hard for anyone with HIV to endure. The drugs should be available, and it should be up to the patient to decide whether to endure the side effects of the drugs and extend their lives, not you.

Does anyone really want to expose children to these chemicals?

What is worse, being exposed to a disease that will cause one's body to emaciate and die sooner or being exposed to and suffering from side effects that will enable them to extend their lives?
It really isn't anyone's choice except the person infected or the parents of an infected child.


(Edited by RedFW at 8:32 pm on Mar. 8, 2003)


(Edited by RedFW at 8:34 pm on Mar. 8, 2003)

[Moskitto]

damn I was going to reply this earlier, but internet died.

basically, I advocate the following.

1) compulsory HIV testing for pregnant mothers to stop stop transmission to child, and ban on breast feeding.
2) adultary to be illegal with punishment for the married partner(s)
3) Greater access to injection needles, or use of hyperspray type syringes (yes, these have been invented)
4) Greater access to condoms amoungst the general public
5) It becomes a criminal offense for men who have tested HIV positive to have sex without a condom
6) people engaging in practices such as "bug chasing" should be commited to mental asylums for treatment

[Moskitto]

and speaking of drug prices, do any of you know how much pharmacological researchers get paid?

£40,000 a year!!!!! but i'm thinking more of toxicology, which is in the same field, just different.

what you need is a drug which either irreversibly inhibits reverse transcriptase or adds an A somewhere in the RNA code so it cannot be reverse transcribed properly.

There was a case near where I live of a man who raped someone and caught HIV then when it was announced there was a possibly HIV positive rapist on the loose, he went to be tested and tested positive and raped (and infected) 5 other women before he was arrested, he was sent to prison for life.


(Edited by Moskitto at 8:58 pm on Mar. 8, 2003)

[socialist2000]

nice bloke

[Dhul Fiqar]

There is really only one thing to say here: STERILIZATION WILL NOT DECREASE INFECTION RATES!

At least 99% of all infections are from unsafe sex or sharing needles, the other methods are such a drop in the bucket that you would see no statistically valid change in numbers of infected people by elminating them all together.

Remember that HIV spreads fastest in poor places like Africa, where most infected people cannot afford to even get tested. A campaign to wipe out that rare 1% of infections caused by pregnancy would be a gross injustice to those people who need the limited resource available to fight the ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF THE DISEASE!

End of debate. If you want to discuss other issues, start a new thread, but this bullshit has gone on for enough pages.

--- G.

[Moskitto]

I think people are trying to use HIV as a general excuse for a population cut in the world (especially Africa) even though many areas in Africa are turning into desert precisely because people are leaving them to go to the cities where more housing is available and stop cultivating the land so it's turning into desert, because people are being sterilised against their will and there are no children to buy the new houses.