World first! vaccine helps prevent AIDS infection

No, we'll praise scientists. Haven't you heard? When you die, nothing happens. :)

It actually probably came from the consumption of animals rather than bestiality.

What do you mean by dirty sex? Buttsex, which, while more effective than other mean of transmission, is still a legitimate form of sexual pleasure? Besides, most of the transmission occurs through heterosexual, vaginal intercourse because that's the most frequent type of sex engaged in.

If "AIDS = population control" are you so lovingly put it, why bother curing/preventing any diseases at all? Should we let small pox and malaria and the flu and cancer and diabetes run rampant?

dirty sex, as in apparently straight "men", having gay lovers on the side, then going to their wife/gf with lovely diseases and spreading shit, then that bitch sleeps with you a year later and YOU get aids from her bf/husband; that dirty double-life sex.

go ahead ASSUME away, i'm just stating a fact, that diseases control the population, and are natural, every species has diseases, but only we HOLY GODLY humans shouldn't have any right? fuck you humans, you're ignorant and arrogant.

i never said not to treat diseases, i don't want anyone to suffer, but some of us bring it on to ourselves. the truth is solidified and clear.

My thoughts exactly.
If it is true, then of course it would be great as long as it was affordable and accessible.

i FULLY agree!

So you two are going to off yourselves right?

I mean if we NEED people too die like you said then you might as well start the effort.

no Aswego, we're not talking about killing people, don't make this something it's not.

what we're saying, is that this planet IS OVERPOPULATED, we're killing off other species, destroying habitat, and warming the planet, we're all fucked in the long run, and I DON'T SEE THE POPULATION GOING DOWN, IT KEEPS GOING UP.

so things like aids, cancer, and war, keep the population down. we obviously need to treat sick people, but when you're having unprotected sex with many people, and you catch aids, it's your fault, should have known the price. reality says hello by the way.

your response is very interesting, it made me think ...what if aids was a disease created by government or some radical sicko trying to end the war against drugs and fornication?? that would be crazy.

I find this comment beautiful.

@Atalanda_Cameron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5-6FxcgG18

Say that to the millions who are born with the risk of acquiring AIDS.

word!

Wow, you're one step away from being one of those people that call it a gay disease, sent by god to kill the heathens.

And what's this about heavy metals and embalming fluids? How many autism conspiracy theory documentaries have you watched, hippie grrrrrrrrl?

aside from improper medical treatment, (contaminated blood transfusions; unsanitary conditions), intravenous drug use, and unprotected sex, how does one contract AIDS? i'm being serious. perhaps i am ignorant to the ways in which AIDS is spread. and i do find it insulting to be equated as a homophobe, but whatever.

thanks for the name calling too, spoken like a true 12 year old. "c-word?" really?

what thousands of babies are born at risk for AIDS? (again, i'm not being jerkish. i would really like to know.)

and lastly, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to learn about what carcinogens are in the vaccines. formaldehyde, aluminum, mercury, squaline. (not to mention aborted fetal tissue.) a simple google search will tell you. so before you start the mudslinging realize that blind faith in needle wielding doctors who are in bed with pharmacuetical companies who are in bed with government does not a smarty pants make.

the point of my response was there are ways to protect yourself from things without the false sense of security from a shot that only works one third of the time. how are people so uptight about preventative action, but so willing to participate in often expirimental preventative medicine?

Wow. How can you get so enraged by peoples reactions when you kick everything off by implying that everyone with HIV is either a drug user or an idiot?

"please provide sources for the millions of babies who are born at risk, (other than babies of infected mothers, for whom the vaccine would be of no use), and what the risk factors are other than the ones aforementioned."

Here, straight from Wikipedia:

"The transmission of the virus from the mother to the child can occur in utero during the last weeks of pregnancy and at childbirth. In the absence of treatment, the transmission rate between a mother and her child during pregnancy, labor and delivery is 25%.

However, when the mother takes antiretroviral therapy and gives birth by caesarean section, the rate of transmission is just 1%.[59] The risk of infection is influenced by the viral load of the mother at birth, with the higher the viral load, the higher the risk. Breastfeeding also increases the risk of transmission by about 4 %.[60]"

And so, you see, being born of an infected mother does not mean that you're ALWAYS born with HIV, it's merely a risk factor. That's what blue_blooded was talking about.

Additionally, Africans are far more susceptible to the HIV virus than Caucasians. This is due to a genetic mutation that more than 90% of Africans have, which was selected for thousands of years ago as it provided higher levels of protection against mosquito-borne malaria. (Visit http://news.softpedia.com/news/Africans-are-More-Susceptible-to-HIV-Infection-90...). This, NOT improper medical treatment, is what most scientists consider to be responsble for Africa's high levels of infection. Your implication that Europe's gotten off so lightly because everyone there is more cautious or better educated on the subject is fallacious.

Now, here's an extract from the Wikipedia page on condoms:
"According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years."

A reduction in 85% is great, but hardly what I'd call a sure thing. And this is with what STD scientists would describe as 'perfect use', with the way most people (including Europeans and Americans) use condoms resulting in as much as a ten percent decrease in effectiveness (So around 75%). You can already see how many people could have become infected even when practicing fully protected sex.

Now add the African genetic handicap, which increases your chance of contracting aids by 40%, and you're on the fifty-fifty line even when it comes to fully protected sex. And you didn't even need to shoot up or get raped.

There's my logic. Enjoy.

There are still cultures that believe having sex with a virgin will cure someone infected with HIV which obviously only serves to further the disease. Some religions don't encourage the use of condoms and thus people have unprotected sex because they believe condoms go against their religion.

Then there are the raped and abused people who become infected because it was forced on them. And of course nurses and others in the medical field who treat the sick and risk infection.

While I agree it would be fantastic if everyone used protection and didn't do drugs that's not the way the world works. So lets encourage research to combat AIDS and other STDs while encouraging protected sex.

You might be able to protect yourself from AIDS but millions of others are not as lucky.

okay obviously the last two responders didn't fully read what i responded with.

firstly- i wasn't "enraged", i'm sorry if you considered my disagreement to be hostile. i tried to specifically mention that i was not being hostile, so as not to offend. i was put-off by being called a cunt and a homophobe though.

i never implied that only drug users and idiots get AIDS. or that europeans were less likely to get AIDS because they are smarter. i said people of Africa are probably more likely to contract AIDS due to the higher instances rape (and the cultural differences regarding rape), and little access to quailty medical care and birth control. i never considered a genetic pre-disposition to the disease, so although your "enjoy" comment was snide, i still appreciate the feedback. i simply stated the obvious: intravenous drug use, unprotected sex, and faulty medical procedures are the leading causes of transmission of AIDS. (never considered mosquitos or other parasites, though it makes sense.) following basic precautions, (even if the condom fails), would still be substantially more effective than the vaccine, and without the dangerous potential side effects of injecting known poisons into your body. which was my original point.

i also never said ALL babies born to infected mothers will have the virus, and i'm not even sure where that comment stemmed from, however i'm not sure the vaccine and the anti-viral treatment for the pregnant mother and her unborn child are one in the same.

getting a vaccine does not make one immune to the disease they are being vaccinated against, and that false sense of security can be more damaging to public safety than not having a vaccination at all. particularly combined with the potential for contracting the virus FROM the vaccine, or contracting a host of other ailments as a direct result of the shot. a needle is no substitute for common sense, and i will stand by that statement. this in no way implies that i think people with AIDS are stupid.

and btw, i could right an article on wikipedia about quantum physics. it doesn't mean it would be accurate.

also, generally people who don't use condoms for religious reasons are also monogamist, (hence less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease), and unlikely to receive vaccines in the first place for the same religious reasons.

Lionessgrrl, don't let the immature here get to you. I noticed that whenever someone has a smart comment, there's always some misinformed child ready to call people enraged or names.

Keep up the comments!!

thank you, KSirys.

You're right I didn't see your second longer post until logged in again.

I agree with a lot of your last comments but still want to point out that just because religious people shouldn't have pre-marital sex or commit adultery it still happens and the do so without condoms.

While this debate is not about this particular point, you cannot dismiss the religious demographic so easily in the AIDS issues.

cali,
i guess i just don't understand the religious context in this debate. i am not religious myself, so my opinion had nothing to do with religious involvement. and so its confusing that you would bring it up as a point i have missed, when you brought it up in the first place and i was just responding to it.

i thought you mentioned that some people do not use condoms (or other birth control), as part of their religious beleifs, and as a result might be more likely to contract the virus as a result. i assumed the point to that statement would be that those people would benefit from the vaccine for that reason.
however, i feel its worth mentioning that the people who don't use birth control for religious reasons, are typically in committed married relationships, and less likely to get AIDS due to that fact. also, many strict religious people do not agree with vaccinations, and i'm not sure if that is because it goes against their religious principles, or if it is because of what the vaccines contain, which is often aborted fetal tissue. but you'll notice if you look into it, that waivers can be obtained for unvaccinated children to enter school on the grounds of medical or religious exemption, which is what i based the vaccine/religion example on.

and people who would commit adultery and have unprotected sex AND WHO ARE DOING SO WITHOUT PROTECTION IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION, (i capitalized for emphasis, not to scream at you), are probably not the people to be used as an example of religious exemption, because their actions in themselves are hypocritical to their cause.

i realize the world is not perfect, which brings me back to my original point that seems to keep getting lost. AIDS SUCKS!! it is unfortunate that people are infected and dying with it. but the answer does not rest soley on getting a shot in the ass. avoidance of the risk factors in the first place is more effective, lest people put too much trust in the vaccine and use it as a safety net for irresponsible actions.

Okay, first off, the editing procedures forced on Wikipedia articles makes them generally accurate, especially when they're on topics as heavily debated as this one - the most neutral, fact-based viewpoint is what tends to get put forward, as the articles are policed by experts on the subject. But point taken.

I won't argue with any of the points you've made. But I think your initial comment,

"know what else works? not being an intravenous drug user, or having unprotected sex! and no one needs to inject embalming fluid and heavy metals into you for that!"

was pretty inflammatory in its tone. Obviously, it came off worse than you intended, and I see that you're not actually overly extreme in your viewpoint on the subject, but the way you phrased it sounded very aloof, patronizing even. The persona it immediately called to mind was of someone who thinks they have all the answers, and that the answers are all simple. Obviously, they're not, and I was reacting to what I perceived to be that implication. If that's not the case, then peace. I have no beef with you.

PS To backtrack a little: when I made reference to mosquito-borne malaria, I didn't mean that mosquitos are spreading HIV. I looked into that a while back, and it seems that this isn't really possible. Rather, the gene that 90% of Africans have protects them against malaria, but has the unfortunate side effect of making them more susceptible to HIV infection.

There's also been some other research to suggest that when the Black Plague swept Europe, the plague killed everyone except a small percentage of people who had a certain gene that protected them from it. Since the only people left to breed all had that gene, virtually all white Europeans now have a copy of that gene, and it's proven to also be protective against HIV. So not only do black people have a vulnerable gene we don't, they also lack a defensive gene we have.

Later,
D.

i can see how the tone could have been misconstrued, though i didn't mean for it to sound hostile. i have been worrying about vaccines, their contents, and their effectiveness for some time now. particularly after heavily politicized emergence of the swine flu vaccine, which i believe with all my heart and soul is more dangerous than the flu itself, and could go on about it forever, but i digress...

i hope they find a CURE for AIDS and that no one has to suffer with it ever again. and i hope this vaccine is SAFE and is promoted without declaring it a miracle cure- all and deceiving people.

(and FWIW, i have two small kids who are up to date on their vaccines--although i'm not sure that was the best decision-- and will not be recieving the flu shots)

and, (hahaha), no beef here either.

worse, it only helps 1/3 of the time. If this was a flu vaccine it would be considered ineffective. it is the best so far though, and a whole lot better than nothing.

only morons don't use condoms.

oh crap. Super Aids. We're DOOMED!!!

That's what I was thinking, let's hope that doesn't happen!

you're really right macdavidpro, you might say it's a little bittersweet if this becomes successful as the cure or even a start to becoming the cure because of all the people that have already passed before this. :(