Does HIV exist?

[jooxis]

Alright. Now, I am a firm believer in that HIV exists and is the sole cause of AIDS. In fact, until recently I was not even aware that there was such a thing as AIDS denialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).

My best friend told me the other day she saw a documentary film called House of Numbers (imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1311710/), wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers), official trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_N4zgjF0K0)) which questions the existence of HIV and AIDS. After seeing this film, my friend doesn't think HIV is a cause for concern or a real threat anymore, and I think such an attitude is very dangerous.

I have not seen the documentary but it seems to be growing popularity within the AIDS denialist movement.

I doubt there are any AIDS denialists among you (although I'd have hoped there are, for the sake of a debate). But basically, what do you all think about this? Can you give strong arguments for either side?

Various claims by AIDS denialists are:

- HIV does not exist
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- AIDS does not exist
- AIDS treatment (antiretroviral therapy) only kills you, does not help
- AIDS is not a serious condition and a healthy person's immune systems can easily beat it
- HIV and AIDS tests (ELISA/Western blot) are unreliable and results are globally inconsistent
- AIDS is a collection of symptoms which definition varies from country to country and the definition has been changing over time - so it is not clearly defined
- If HIV truly causes AIDS then we would have had a cure by now

[Neerie]

Sounds like a bunch of people without any knowledge of molecular biology, microbiology, and immunology who prefer to close their eyes, plug their ears and chant "LALALA I can't hear youuuu!".

I have studied in these fields, and have a diploma to prove it, even though I ended up not pursuing a career in biology. And while I dislike how officials tend to over-scare people in cases of mild diseases epidemics (like the recent flu scares), I still think that accurate information has to reach the public. And then a HUGE problem arises when you have people like those AIDS denialists, because they will carry on in risky behaviors, being infected, infecting others, and refusing treatments to their born-with-HIV children.

Sounds like people who blame gays and skimpy dressed women for earthquakes and floods, they probably believe that with enough faith they are immune to everything. These people have to learn to consider their sources before accepting information, sheesh!

[fakepeeps7]

- If HIV truly causes AIDS then we would have had a cure by now

Isn't that like saying that we should have a cure for the common cold by now because it's caused by a virus?

There are all kinds of people who will believe things just because someone else says so; they don't bother to check out the facts for themselves. Normally, I'd say it was their own problem... but when you're talking about a deadly communicable disease, that sort of attitude is pretty dangerous to anyone they might come into contact with.

As for the following two points:

- AIDS treatment (antiretroviral therapy) only kills you, does not help
- AIDS is not a serious condition and a healthy person's immune systems can easily beat it

Why did so many people die in the early days of AIDS before they had the drugs they do today? Were they all "unhealthy"?

I've never heard of AIDS denialism before, and I don't really understand it. They might as well be saying the earth is flat...

[mustluvcatz]

Originally, I was going to say along the lines of those denialists better hope they never get HIV or full-blown aids. Then I read that Wiki article and saw this:

Casper Schmidt responded to Gallo's papers with The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS, which was published by the Journal of Psychohistory. Schmidt posited that AIDS was not an actual disease, but rather an example of "epidemic hysteria" in which groups of people are subconsciously acting out social conflicts. Schmidt compared AIDS to documented cases of epidemic hysteria in the past which were mistakenly thought to be infectious. (Schmidt himself would later die of AIDS in 1994.)

Bolding was added by me. Although I don't usually believe everything I read in the Wikipedia, that article strikes me as being pretty true to the facts. All those denialists out there need to read it- if HIV and AIDS don't exist, I'd like "them" to explain to me how 2 "non-existent" diseases are responsible for so many deaths..including deaths of some of those denialists. They need to leave being an ostrich to the ostriches. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something doesn't exist does NOT make it not exist.

I forgot to mention that Casper Schmidt wrote his paper in 1984. He died in 1994- he was most likely HIV-positive when he wrote it. Karma? Coincidence? Think he knew it?

[jooxis]

mustluvcatz - hah, I mentioned the exact same example to my friend - how some of those hardcore denialists themselves died of AIDS. She said something like "Well that's according to the doctors, they ALLEGEDLY died of AIDS, who knows what they really died of..."

So, yeah.

[mustluvcatz]

That kind of attitude ticks me off. It is possible to have AIDS and die of something else. You can have AIDS and die of pneumonia. The problem with anyone trying to blame that death on the pneumonia is that a healthy person can almost always recover from pneumonia. Someone with a severely compromised immune system CAN'T fight off anything. An infected cut could lead to death. That doesn't mean that having AIDS didn't have anything to do with the death. AIDS would be the primary cause of death and the infection a secondary cause..or it is the other way around?

[supersimoholic]

there was an episode of Law & Order: SVU about this - A woman who knew she had AIDs breast fed both her children (knowing full well that they would almost definitely get infected) because her doctor convinced her that AIDs wasn't real and the only reason people who have "AIDs" die is because of the medicine they take for it... It started with the death of her young daughter, then she died and then the older son found out he had AIDs right at the end, just as he realized "Mum was a liar, AIDs is real, and now I'm going to have to live with this and it wan't even my choice." the woman even had unprotected sex and didn't tell they guy until after "hey, I got AIDs"... I know it's only a TV show but that got me SO angry.

I don't understand just how anyone could truly believe that rubbish! I guess some people just can't think for themselves and believe the first thing they've been told just because it "sounds" like it has facts behind it...

[fakepeeps7]

I guess some people just can't think for themselves and believe the first thing they've been told just because it "sounds" like it has facts behind it...

I don't think it has anything to do with facts. It's what they want to believe. It makes them comfortable.

I don't much like the idea of a disease as deadly as AIDS, either... but I'm not going to deny it just because I don't like the idea of it.

[whiterider]

- AIDS is not a serious condition and a healthy person's immune systems can easily beat it
This is a meaningless statement. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Therefore a person with AIDS cannot, by definition, have a healthy immune system. If you're diagnosed with AIDS then that means your immune system has already failed. It's great that falling sixty feet from a six inch platform doesn't hurt, but it's really only useful if you're on acid.

mustluvcatz and jooxis, AIDS itself, it's true, doesn't directly kill people. The trouble is that a person who has AIDS has no way of fighting off any infection, virus, disease, or anything else - anything from pneumonia to food poisoning to the common cold can kill, because the immune system can't do its job. So sure, almost no-one has died of AIDS - but millions of people each year die of illnesses that they would have got over in a matter of weeks, or not have contracted at all, if they hadn't had AIDS.

[frankie]

I know it's only a TV show but that got me SO angry.

How about a real-life event that could sound like fiction? My cousin dated a man who (much later after they had last had unprotected sex) ended up HIV+ and he would intentionally sleep around with tons of people and not tell anyone about it. So, one of the guys who was with him had a friend who also was with him but who became positive. They decided to trick the infecter by scheduling to meet inside his house and they stole the infecter's black book that listed the names, phone numbers, age, location, ethnicity, etc., of all the men whom the infecter had had sexual encounters with. The guy was going to take the book to the police, so I assume the infecter is in jail now. My cousin was lucky that he didn't catch anything. I know this because my cousin had received a phone call from the uninfected guy and they never had met before, but the guy had found his number in the black book and he was calling every number on there to warn these men. Yes, I know, it sounds like a soap opera but it's true, which shows how scary it is. I can't imagine how many of the nearly thousand (yes, that many) of men on that list were infected. I can't stand people who intentionally infect others. That is why I quoted supersimoholic because that SVU summary sounded very upsetting for only fiction.

The point is that these denialists still can go to prison if they have HIV and gave it to others. I was stunned when I read about this. Let's see how far they will go.

[jooxis]

This is a meaningless statement. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Therefore a person with AIDS cannot, by definition, have a healthy immune system. If you're diagnosed with AIDS then that means your immune system has already failed. It's great that falling sixty feet from a six inch platform doesn't hurt, but it's really only useful if you're on acid.

mustluvcatz and jooxis, AIDS itself, it's true, doesn't directly kill people. The trouble is that a person who has AIDS has no way of fighting off any infection, virus, disease, or anything else - anything from pneumonia to food poisoning to the common cold can kill, because the immune system can't do its job. So sure, almost no-one has died of AIDS - but millions of people each year die of illnesses that they would have got over in a matter of weeks, or not have contracted at all, if they hadn't had AIDS.

AIDS never directly killed anyone but AIDS can still be listed as part of the official cause of death (blablabla resulting from AIDS), so we say 'died of AIDS'. Just like you can't simply 'die from old age' - but we say it often enough.

And what I wrote may sound meaningless - but they think people with AIDS can eventually become healthy again - without any treatment. As was "documented" by some cases, where people were diagnosed with AIDS (and were HIV positive) but suddenly became completely healthy... just like that. I would like to look into that, perhaps I may watch the documentary to understand what they want to say. Hmmm.

[el_flel]

^ There was a case recently in the UK of a man who had unprotected sex with women despite knowing he was HIV+. I'm pretty certain he got sent to jail.

I don't get AIDS denialists. Why would millions of scientists and medical professions lie about this? Of course it's real, you only have to see the devestation it can bring to one's body to know that it's real. See the millions of people suffering and dying from it all over the world. Blind morons.

[mustluvcatz]

mustluvcatz and jooxis, AIDS itself, it's true, doesn't directly kill people. The trouble is that a person who has AIDS has no way of fighting off any infection, virus, disease, or anything else - anything from pneumonia to food poisoning to the common cold can kill, because the immune system can't do its job. So sure, almost no-one has died of AIDS - but millions of people each year die of illnesses that they would have got over in a matter of weeks, or not have contracted at all, if they hadn't had AIDS.

Oh, I know that. Maybe what I posted didn't sound like I knew that? My post was mainly "meant" for those who think AIDS doesn't kill anyone. Like you said, it doesn't directly kill people. It's the secondary infections that do it. And I say secondary infections because AIDS is the last stage of HIV and HIV IS an infection.

Now that I say that (and it's true)- why IS is that people say someone died of AIDS, when it's actually HIV? Of course, now that I think about it, a person can be HIV positive their whole life and never get full-blown AIDS.

[Vanito]

I don't think it has anything to do with facts. It's what they want to believe. It makes them comfortable.

People deny AIDS so they do not have to take the responsibilities that having AIDS brings. Or that or preventing HIV takes.

Anyway this comforting yourself into believing goes for many ideas, afterlifes, religion, holocaust deniers, avoiding responsibility by seeking scapegoats, etc etc. It is not a suprise to see another group of self-comforters.

Next thread will be "Do cats exist?". Started by people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of sweet fluffy cats who may pee in their garden.

[fakepeeps7]

Next thread will be "Do cats exist?". Started by people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of sweet fluffy cats who may pee in their garden.

All cats do that... not just the sweet fluffy ones. And they do exist. Otherwise, there's something producing phantom poop around the rosebushes...

I wonder how many of these denialists actually have HIV. Are most of them just sitting on the outside, judging from their comfy (and healthy) vantage point?

[simbalena]

I forgot to mention that Casper Schmidt wrote his paper in 1984. He died in 1994- he was most likely HIV-positive when he wrote it. Karma? Coincidence? Think he knew it?

In fairness to this guy there were all sorts of rumors and confusion about HIV and AIDS in 1984.

Some people thought you wouldn't catch it if you wore cotton gloves during sex!

[whiterider]

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone - well, except the denialists. It's easy, however, for denialists to say that no-one dies of AIDS when it is true that it's always a complication of AIDS - the tuberculosis or whatever it is can be used as a sort of scapegoat to deflect from AIDS being the cause.

Yeah, there have been a few rare cases of people whose immune systems have actually managed to fight off HIV - it's fascinating, and exciting; with luck, such people can help scientists produce ever more effective treatments and, maybe one day, a cure or vaccine. That'd be a medical achievement on a par with penicillin, to my eyes.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Sounds like a bunch of people without any knowledge of molecular biology, microbiology, and immunology who prefer to close their eyes, plug their ears and chant "LALALA I can't hear youuuu!".


i couldnt agree more.
and on that note: i really hate how often i am seeing people nowadays who think its perfectly acceptable to jump to a conclusion half-cocked, without researching it themselves or even just looking at things with skepticism.

seriously.
where the hell has skepticism gone nowadays?
do people honestly just accept anything theyre told when theyre told about it? WHY?!

[Oaktree]

And what I wrote may sound meaningless - but they think people with AIDS can eventually become healthy again - without any treatment. As was "documented" by some cases, where people were diagnosed with AIDS (and were HIV positive) but suddenly became completely healthy... just like that. I would like to look into that, perhaps I may watch the documentary to understand what they want to say. Hmmm.

I haven't heard of people getting it and fighting it off, but there are some people who are missing a certain cellular receptor (I forget the specifics, sorry) who can't get full-blown AIDS. I think those people may still be carriers, however.

[Vanito]

i couldnt agree more.
and on that note: i really hate how often i am seeing people nowadays who think its perfectly acceptable to jump to a conclusion half-cocked, without researching it themselves or even just looking at things with skepticism.

seriously.
where the hell has skepticism gone nowadays?
do people honestly just accept anything theyre told when theyre told about it? WHY?!
It faded away when christianity brainwashed the ancients romans. Religion is a skepticism killer. Eating from the tree of knowlegde.. is forbidden.

[HarlequinnRomance]

I actually saw some news report over something similar to what somebody said about the SVU episode. There was a..I believe French guy who knew he had AIDS and romanced all these women and gave it to...I believe 8,I'm sorry I can't recall all the details. All these women thought he was their boyfriend and didn't know about eachother until one of them found out about another and told her she had gotten AIDS from him.All of it snowballed into all the women knowing about eachother and getting tested. I believe only 1 woman wasn't infected outta all the others. He was arrested and prosecuted for "assault with a deadly weapon". I believe he's serving countless life sentences in jail,having basically killed those poor women.

[jooxis]

i couldnt agree more.
and on that note: i really hate how often i am seeing people nowadays who think its perfectly acceptable to jump to a conclusion half-cocked, without researching it themselves or even just looking at things with skepticism.

seriously.
where the hell has skepticism gone nowadays?
do people honestly just accept anything theyre told when theyre told about it? WHY?!

Wouldn't the AIDS denialists, technically be the skeptics here? We're all told what AIDS and HIV are and we all accept it, a lot of us without fully understanding it. The skeptics are questioning what is commonly accepted as truth. As silly as it is.

I actually saw some news report over something similar to what somebody said about the SVU episode. There was a..I believe French guy who knew he had AIDS and romanced all these women and gave it to...I believe 8,I'm sorry I can't recall all the details. All these women thought he was their boyfriend and didn't know about eachother until one of them found out about another and told her she had gotten AIDS from him.All of it snowballed into all the women knowing about eachother and getting tested. I believe only 1 woman wasn't infected outta all the others. He was arrested and prosecuted for "assault with a deadly weapon". I believe he's serving countless life sentences in jail,having basically killed those poor women.

Someone who knowingly infects other people with HIV is a serial killer and should be treated as such.

Also, there is no justification to EVER not report such a person to the police should you be aware of him. I hate the "it's none of my business" attitude some people have about it.

[Six_by_Nine]

...How the fuck can you say a disease doesn't exist?! That's like saying, "I'm not blind, so that must mean everyone can see." That's some real failogic right there.

[Amtram]

No, they're not skeptics, although they may call themselves that. A skeptic looks at all the evidence, regardless of whether or not it supports his/her point of view, and makes a decision whether to change his/her mind or not based on the preponderance of evidence. A denialist looks only at the evidence (or cherry-picked segments of evidence) that fits his/her confirmation bias, and dismisses anything that does not.

I went to college in the 80s, near NYC. I've lost friends to AIDS and have friends who are living with HIV. It's been studied by scientists, backed by clinical and laboratory research. . .in order to deny its existence, you need to deny a whole bunch of other medical facts as well. Send your friend on a search through Pubmed (although that probably won't work on a true denialist. . .)

[jooxis]

I went to college in the 80s, near NYC. I've lost friends to AIDS and have friends who are living with HIV. It's been studied by scientists, backed by clinical and laboratory research. . .in order to deny its existence, you need to deny a whole bunch of other medical facts as well. Send your friend on a search through Pubmed (although that probably won't work on a true denialist. . .)

I would like for her to realize that she should be informed of what the "other side" - the scientific side has to say on this issue instead of just believing that the film holds all the information. Documentaries are by nature, totally biased. But she told me numerous times "you just have to see the film to understand".
So I plan on seeing it in the following days and I will post the points the documentary puts forth in this thread.

[el_flel]

I'm interested in seeing what you have to say about that documentary, jooxis.

Stephen Fry did a documentary called 'HIV and me' (http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/Stephen+Fry+HIV+%26+Me) which I found very interesting. He looks at the disease and it's impact on people, something which he knows a little of himself having lost friends to it. There's a very shocking section in which he interviews a man who knows that there are some people out there (mainly gay men) with the intention of being given 'the gift' - they have unprotected sex with HIV+ men to purposely become infected. Why? He doesn't know. The thing I liked the most about it is that it makes it very clear that HIV is not just a 'gay' disease - statistics show that now half of new cases arise through heterosexual sex - and he interviews people that don't fit the stereotype: a middle aged woman, a 16 year old girl.

I just don't get how people can honestly think it doesn't exist. Tbh I'm thinking that part of it is ignorance. I don't claim to understand it, but I know the basics, and the points that the denialists put forward just reak of ignorance, especially these points:

- AIDS treatment (antiretroviral therapy) only kills you, does not help.
If the treatment killed those taking it then why is the life expectancy of those taking it so much higher than those who don't?
- AIDS is not a serious condition and a healthy person's immune systems can easily beat it.
Whiterider summed this up perfectly: HIV and AIDS attack the immune system, therefore this point is completely null.
- If HIV truly causes AIDS then we would have had a cure by now.
This doesn't even make sense. Just because we don't have a cure doesn't have anything to do with whether it's real or not. Does this make cancer any less real? We don't have a cure for that either.

[TanyaTurner]

Alright. Now, I am a firm believer in that HIV exists and is the sole cause of AIDS. In fact, until recently I was not even aware that there was such a thing as AIDS denialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).

My best friend told me the other day she saw a documentary film called House of Numbers (imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1311710/), wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers), official trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_N4zgjF0K0)) which questions the existence of HIV and AIDS. After seeing this film, my friend doesn't think HIV is a cause for concern or a real threat anymore, and I think such an attitude is very dangerous.

I have not seen the documentary but it seems to be growing popularity within the AIDS denialist movement.

I doubt there are any AIDS denialists among you (although I'd have hoped there are, for the sake of a debate). But basically, what do you all think about this? Can you give strong arguments for either side?

Various claims by AIDS denialists are:

- HIV does not exist
- HIV does not cause AIDS
- AIDS does not exist
- AIDS treatment (antiretroviral therapy) only kills you, does not help
- AIDS is not a serious condition and a healthy person's immune systems can easily beat it
- HIV and AIDS tests (ELISA/Western blot) are unreliable and results are globally inconsistent
- AIDS is a collection of symptoms which definition varies from country to country and the definition has been changing over time - so it is not clearly defined
- If HIV truly causes AIDS then we would have had a cure by now

The question is more if these people really believe hiv and aids don't exist? :rolleyes:

[longears15]

I actually saw some news report over something similar to what somebody said about the SVU episode. There was a..I believe French guy who knew he had AIDS and romanced all these women and gave it to...I believe 8,I'm sorry I can't recall all the details. All these women thought he was their boyfriend and didn't know about eachother until one of them found out about another and told her she had gotten AIDS from him.All of it snowballed into all the women knowing about eachother and getting tested. I believe only 1 woman wasn't infected outta all the others. He was arrested and prosecuted for "assault with a deadly weapon". I believe he's serving countless life sentences in jail,having basically killed those poor women. Yes, unfortunately there are a few sick individuals who do this. I don't know about overseas, but know that in Australia, intentional transmission of HIV is regarded as a crime. I'm not sure, however, of what sort of penalty the charge carries if one is found guilty.

As Whiterider (I think - apologies if it was someone else) said, there are a few cases now of people with an apparent immunity to the virus itself, which I find beyond exciting. Imagine the potentials for treatment, or even a vaccine, if we could find out why they have that resistance!

It's interesting too - I'm just a little too young to recall the initial HIV/AIDS epidemic, but I was watching a program recently that compared the outbreak here with that in America. The suggestion was that because it was far less stigmatised here, the outbreak was quashed very quickly and we have a far lower overallstatistic than the US, where it more or less swept under the carpet.

[jooxis]

It's interesting too - I'm just a little too young to recall the initial HIV/AIDS epidemic, but I was watching a program recently that compared the outbreak here with that in America. The suggestion was that because it was far less stigmatised here, the outbreak was quashed very quickly and we have a far lower overallstatistic than the US, where it more or less swept under the carpet.

Unfortunately in my country, there is no public campaigns about raising awareness or anything so the overall attitude sucks. It's still very taboo and still considered a disease that only threatens the sexually deviant (or just people in Africa).
Unprotected sex with someone you just met is quite standard here - no one likes using condoms and everyone uses the pull-out method. And since no one really believes HIV is a potential danger, people rarely go and get tested - which means a lot of them don't know they're infected.

When my boyfriend went to get tested, the doctor had pretty much this reaction: "You want to get tested for THAT? Come on, don't waste your time and money, that's silly."

When I asked my general practitioner about getting tested she just gave me a look of disgust and discomfort as if I were some filthy prostitute or something.

[whiterider]

Wow - that's horrendous, jooxis. By now I guess we've come to expect that a lot of people don't take HIV seriously due to ignorance - but doctors go through years of medical training; how can they get that far without learning to take something so serious, well, seriously?

[longears15]

That's dreadful Jooxis, and it's that sort of attitude that allows it to spread unchecked :( Are all STDs regarded in the same manner - i.e., something of a taboo, no need to get oneself checked, etc.? (And, if you don't mind me asking, where are you from?)

[kattenijin]

The suggestion was that because it was far less stigmatised here, the outbreak was quashed very quickly and we have a far lower overallstatistic than the US, where it more or less swept under the carpet.

In the US the original name for AIDS was GRID: Gay-related immune deficiency. The general additude was more of a "Hurrah! Finally something to get rid of all those icky Fags!" than anything else. The fact that the next group to be most affected was racial minorities (Black, Latino, Hispanic, etc.) didn't help much either.

[Doddibot]

I haven't heard of people getting it and fighting it off, but there are some people who are missing a certain cellular receptor (I forget the specifics, sorry) who can't get full-blown AIDS. I think those people may still be carriers, however.
I don't think it's even possible to fight it off once infected. HIV is a retrovirus, which means it inserts viral DNA into your genome. Permanently. Until we can genetically engineer people, AIDS can only be prevented or treated, not cured.

It's worse even that herpes simplex, which is another virus which infects you for life, but at least herpes doesn't actually integrate into your chromosomes.

[Oaktree]

I don't think it's even possible to fight it off once infected. HIV is a retrovirus, which means it inserts viral DNA into your genome. Permanently. Until we can genetically engineer people, AIDS can only be prevented or treated, not cured.

It's worse even that herpes simplex, which is another virus which infects you for life, but at least herpes doesn't actually integrate into your chromosomes.

I was thinking the same thing. We don't have any really reliable methods of fighting off viral infections right now and viral infections do infect you for life. Some of them don't actively affect you for life, like chicken pox, for example, but they do become part of you. I believe there are a few antiviral treatments available that use slicer enzymes suited to a particular virus, but when viruses mutate so often, it's difficult to find one that will work.

[Neerie]

I don't think it's even possible to fight it off once infected. HIV is a retrovirus, which means it inserts viral DNA into your genome. Permanently. Until we can genetically engineer people, AIDS can only be prevented or treated, not cured.

It's worse even that herpes simplex, which is another virus which infects you for life, but at least herpes doesn't actually integrate into your chromosomes.

Just a precision. Yes HIV is a retrovirus and it's genome gets inserted into our genome, but it has to be noted that only infected cells will contain the viral genome, in this case the lymphocyte Ts. The rest of our cells remain HIV-free.

[jooxis]

Wow - that's horrendous, jooxis. By now I guess we've come to expect that a lot of people don't take HIV seriously due to ignorance - but doctors go through years of medical training; how can they get that far without learning to take something so serious, well, seriously?

Yeah, it's horrible. The doctors seem to fit in with the general attitude of "that's not common around here and isn't a danger to anyone".

That's dreadful Jooxis, and it's that sort of attitude that allows it to spread unchecked :( Are all STDs regarded in the same manner - i.e., something of a taboo, no need to get oneself checked, etc.? (And, if you don't mind me asking, where are you from?)

I am from Belgrade, the capital of Serbia (in Eastern Europe). Basically what one might call a 'developing country'. And yeah, from my experience, STDs are pretty taboo (compared to Western countries) and strongly associated with homosexuality, sexual deviance and promiscuity - all things still considered shameful around here. One would get the impression that there are no STDs around here because no one is open about it.

Specifically for HIV, information is simply not available to the public. From my experience, I had to search high and low to find a place that actually provides testing.

Also, to give an example related to this: if you want to donate blood here, one of the questions on the form you fill out is "have you ever had homosexual relations?". If you have, you are automatically deemed not suitable to be a blood donor. So yeah, what the fuck?

[Oaktree]

Also, to give an example related to this: if you want to donate blood here, one of the questions on the form you fill out is "have you ever had homosexual relations?". If you have, you are automatically deemed not suitable to be a blood donor. So yeah, what the fuck?

Actually, this is true of the US and most other places as well. Homosexuals are considered "high risk", so the Red Cross won't even take their blood.

[jooxis]

Actually, this is true of the US and most other places as well. Homosexuals are considered "high risk", so the Red Cross won't even take their blood.

Hmm... that's kind of stupid. Wouldn't a better question be "Do you often engage in unprotected sex with strangers?"

[Nekowolf]

Only if it's gay unprotected sex, apparently.

[Vanito]

Even in Holland they ask if you're gay. Which leads to some gays lying and some very much disliking the red cross. It's quite a retarded rule anyway. A virgin homosexual is considered more risky than the average low IQ teenager who goes on vacation to Salou. But what would one expect from an organisation with a CROSS as a logo?

A more usefull questions would be "are you a virgin/did or do you ever have sex/unprotected sex/anal sex/are you monogamous?".

10% of the active homosexuals never does anal sex, a lot of monogamous, some are virgins but no - gay is high risk.

I wonder if 'gay' includes lesbians.

[whiterider]

The UK government has promised a review of our homophobic blood donation rules - but I'm not sure I believe gay rights will ever be a priority for the ConDemNation (our Conservative government), and people only think of it in those terms - never in the terms of People Who Need Transfusions' Rights.

[fakepeeps7]

But what would one expect from an organisation with a CROSS as a logo?

That's kind of unfair. I doubt the reason they'll accept blood from homosexuals is because of religion. It's overzealous safety based on ignorance... not a Christian agenda. (If the Red Cross turned around and denied blood to homosexuals who needed it, you might have something... but as far as I know, receiving blood is an equal-opportunity activity.)

And until atheists come up with a comparable organization that does the same amount of humanitarian work around the world, they really shouldn't be complaining.

[Vanito]

The UK government has promised a review of our homophobic blood donation rules - but I'm not sure I believe gay rights will ever be a priority for the ConDemNation (our Conservative government), and people only think of it in those terms - never in the terms of People Who Need Transfusions' Rights.
if it were about the rights of People Who Need Transfusions they would promote hard to let nuns and lesbians donate.

[animenut31]

does the cold virus exist? yes, because people get sick. the same could be said about hiv. why dont you ask those dying of that very illness all over the world- about 25 million or so? i also suggest you look at this website: http://www.avert.org/aids.htm

[supersimoholic]

Unfortunately in my country, there is no public campaigns about raising awareness or anything so the overall attitude sucks. It's still very taboo and still considered a disease that only threatens the sexually deviant (or just people in Africa).
Unprotected sex with someone you just met is quite standard here - no one likes using condoms and everyone uses the pull-out method. And since no one really believes HIV is a potential danger, people rarely go and get tested - which means a lot of them don't know they're infected.

When my boyfriend went to get tested, the doctor had pretty much this reaction: "You want to get tested for THAT? Come on, don't waste your time and money, that's silly."

When I asked my general practitioner about getting tested she just gave me a look of disgust and discomfort as if I were some filthy prostitute or something.

The doctors here are quite the opposite where I live (England - Well, at least all my doctors/nurses are) they are constantly "reminding" me that they give free STI tests... I was on the Depo injection for 2 years (once every 11 weeks I'd go for an injection) and EVERY time she'd say the same things, like "you do know that it doesn't protect against STIs" and EVERY time I'd tell her "I'm in a committed relationship, and we have BOTH only became sexually active with each other AND he's not the kind to cheat" EVERY TIME. I wasn't bothered the first couple of times but it became quite offensive, I felt like she thought I was some kind of little whore giving it to every tom, dick and harry!

But yeah, they seem to think that every "teen - young adult" has chlamydia...

[HystericalParoxysm]

supersimoholic - More likely, she was just reminding you because there are plenty of people who don't realize that, or -say- they're in a committed relationship but actually aren't, or maybe started banging a little something on the side who said he was clean and maybe he was, but maybe he wasn't... Considering the STI rates are remarkably high among a lot of segments of the population, she's just looking out for your health. :)

[fakepeeps7]

if it were about the rights of People Who Need Transfusions they would promote hard to let nuns and lesbians donate.

Nuns can't donate?

[mustluvcatz]

Besides what HP said, sex isn't the only way HIV is spread.

[Amtram]

The Red Cross also denies you if you've used intravenous drugs. It's mostly because if they had to test every pint of blood that came in, they'd spend so much money on that that they'd have significantly less to help in other areas. I believe that at least a few chapters of the RC here in the US will also ask if you have had unprotected sex in the last several months, and reject you on that, as well, and that's not qualified by gender or orientation. It's been a while since I've donated, because I pass out before they get their pint every time.

The reason it's high risk is that there's a higher possibility of transmission through anal sex than vaginal, because even the most miniscule tear in the orifice is enough for the virus, and the rectum is more likely to tear than the vagina. Perhaps they should be asking, instead, whether people have had anal sex, but I can picture exactly why they might have thrown that idea out. It's the kind of question that volunteers would feel uncomfortable asking, and one that donors would feel uncomfortable answering - and the last thing they need is to drive away volunteers or donors.

You could argue that the automatic ban on homosexuals drives away donors, of course, but when you look at the number of older people holding those multi-gallon donor cards, you know that you don't want to do anything to discourage repeat donors.

It's kind of a lose-lose situation for the Red Cross, and there's nothing they can do to protect the blood supply without alienating or angering someone. It's certainly an offensive rule, but any rule they made would have repercussions, so I think they chose the least of the evils.

[Nekowolf]

Vanito: Okay, seriously, I'm going to have to call bullshit on you.

You want to know why its a cross? Well this is what is considered to be the original inspirationhttp://cdn.epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/swiss-flag.jpg

That's right. The Swiss flag. Now there has been argument that it was inspired by Christianity, but guess what? In the Middle East, it's not the Red Cross. It's the Red Crescent. There's also the Red Crystal, and the The Red Lion and Sun.

My guess for the anti-homosexualism might be due to international and cultural politics, at least in part.

[el_flel]

In Africa a big part of the problem they have with HIV and AIDS is that the government honestly don't think that it's a problem and so won't do anything about it. I find that appalling considering Africa has the highest number of cases in the world.

[whiterider]

Amtram, here they ask if you've genital or oral sex with another man (if you're male) or a man who may have done the same with another man - and that's with or without protection, if I remember rightly. It's a stance with its roots in the '80's, pure and simple.

[fakepeeps7]

The Red Cross also denies you if you've used intravenous drugs. It's mostly because if they had to test every pint of blood that came in, they'd spend so much money on that that they'd have significantly less to help in other areas.

I thought they already did test every pint of blood that came in... if for no other reason than to determine blood type (which is kind of important).

[mustluvcatz]

I thought they already did test every pint of blood that came in... if for no other reason than to determine blood type (which is kind of important).

That's what I was thinking, too. It's been a very long time since I gave blood but from what I remember, you don't have to PROVE you don't have HIV- just answer the questions. Anyone can lie and say they haven't done this/that or had this/this. It would seem pretty strange to me if they don't test every pint considering the fact they test for iron level before you can even give blood. (Which is why it's been so long for me- low iron and I got refused more than I got accepted.)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Wouldn't the AIDS denialists, technically be the skeptics here? We're all told what AIDS and HIV are and we all accept it, a lot of us without fully understanding it. The skeptics are questioning what is commonly accepted as truth. As silly as it is.

doubt it.
1) scientific evidence that HIV/AIDS exists.
2) VISUAL evidence that HIV/AIDS exists.
3) ...HIV/AIDS exists.

theres a fine, fine line between skepticism and stupidity.
they are called denialists for a reason.

so i wonder, if a denialist is serious about proving the lack of an HIV, how would they go about doing so? despite material proof to the contrary? we can SEE viruses. we can SEE their effects. and we, in turn, can reap them.

[longears15]

As far as testing goes, I've just looked up the Australian Red Cross site (http://www.donateblood.com.au/page.aspx?IDDataTreeMenu=41):

Safety and testing
We recognise that the Australian community has confidence and trust in the Australian Red Cross Blood Service to have one of the safest blood supplies in the world. It is an important driver in our organisation.

Each time you give blood, we test your donation for ABO (blood type), Rh groups (ie. positive or negative) and red cell antibodies.

We also test all donations for five transfusion-transmissible infectious diseases, using eight different tests:

HIV/AIDS
hepatitis B
hepatitis C
Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus- HTLV
syphilis.
Specifically, we test for the hepatitis B surface antigen, antibody to hepatitis C, antibody to both HIV-1 and HIV-2, antibody to HTLV types I and II and antibodies to syphilis.

We also test all donations for HIV-1, hepatitis C and hepatitis B using Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT). This process is different from traditional testing because it looks for the actual presence of viruses, in this case HIV, HCV and HBV. Most other tests detect the presence of antibodies, which are the body's response to an infection and which take time to develop. NAT provides an opportunity to further improve the safety of the blood supply by reducing the 'window period' which is the time between exposure to a virus and the time current tests are able to detect antibodies to the virus.

We also perform a test for malaria on donations from donors who have reported residence in, or travel to, an area with malaria.

[whiterider]

Yeah - they test everything; but no test is 100% accurate (though HIV tests are getting there; traditional HIV tests still can't detect if you've been infected within the last 6 weeks(?)), and after the huge scares about HIV in donor blood they're very careful.

[longears15]

Yeah - they test everything; but no test is 100% accurate (though HIV tests are getting there; traditional HIV tests still can't detect if you've been infected within the last 6 weeks(?)), and after the huge scares about HIV in donor blood they're very careful. I think that's the standard figure given, though (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) the window is potentially 3-6 months.

On accuracy, I believe that HIV testing is one of the best out there - it was used as an example when I had to (briefly) study statistics of epidemiology, and from what I remember each separate test must have a sensitivity of 99% or greater and a specificity of 98% or greater. Obviously though, the Se/Sp of each given test is going to vary with population size, prevalence of HIV in that population and so on.

I'm having trouble finding stats for Se/Sp, but the stats I can find for the US (courtesy of Wikipedia) suggest that for the ELISA, 15 tests in 1000 will give a false positive and 3 in 1000 will give a false negative. Given that that's for a one-off test - no repeats and not combining with any other tests, I guess it's not such a bad figure. The issue of course as you say is the inability to detect before an infected person has seroconverted.

[Amtram]

I thought they already did test every pint of blood that came in... if for no other reason than to determine blood type (which is kind of important).

They don't test the blood from the bag, they test your blood by pricking your finger and testing a drop before you donate. At least that's how they did it the first time I tried to donate.

[Neerie]

They don't test the blood from the bag, they test your blood by pricking your finger and testing a drop before you donate. At least that's how they did it the first time I tried to donate.

The drop they get from your finger before you donate is to test your iron level, to see if you are not anemic.

The tests they do on the blood to test the blood type and if it is contaminated enough is done from the test tubes they fill up in addition to the bag, all getting the same barcode stickers for easy identification.

[Purity4]

The drop they get from your finger before you donate is to test your iron level, to see if you are not anemic.

The tests they do on the blood to test the blood type and if it is contaminated enough is done from the test tubes they fill up in addition to the bag, all getting the same barcode stickers for easy identification.

Yeah, that's how it works when I donate blood/plasma.