here's an interesting story from the la times. it's only two pages long, so you can read it.
and now a few of my thoughts:
"diagnosed 21 years ago and has been healthy ever since, despite never having taken anti-HIV medications. Antibody tests demonstrate conclusively that he harbors the virus. But his immune system has controlled it so effectively that repeated blood assays have never shown a detectable level of the invader, even though Traywick still occasionally uses speed and engages in unprotected sex."
wow. it's amazing to see stuff about people who are surviving the aids virus. like, i always wonder how magic johnson is doing, but he took aggressive treatment options. this guy never has, and has never been sick. although, the last part of that quote is a bit frightening.
"To examine every controller for defective virus would be prohibitively expensive"
so? $ shouldn't be the thing that stops us from finding cures to deadly diseases, especially global pandemics like hiv/aids.
let's all hope that these individuals can lead to a cure.
32 comments:
Two things:
1) It's good that we are making progress toward understanding AIDS. Whether it's a defective form of the virus or a possible immunity inherent in certain people, it's promising.
2) This guy Traywick sounds like an awful awful person. "I'd never put someone else at risk." Unreal.
i wouldn't go as far as to say that he's an awful person. mainly because that makes most people terrible people. i mean, you look @ std rates and they're off the charts. what is it now, 1 in 4 have herpes? that means a lot of unprotected action.
of course, most of these diseases aren't as deadly as hiv/aids, but still, the fact that anyone is having unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship opens themselves up to being an awful person.
and, yes, that guy knows he is infected, which puts him further along the awful line.
but, i think his mentality is what keeps disease spreading. "i know i've got it, but i won't stop my risky behavior. but i won't put anyone else at risk because i tell them i have it." just because you're partner is willing to ignore the risk doesn't mean you aren't putting them at it. at least he discloses. then again, do i trust the recollections of a meth user?
To be fair, the article does mention that some of the researchers are inclined to state, on the record, that they believe controllers can't spread the virus. Whether that's true or not remains to be found out.
As far as disclosure, if his partners are crazy enough to have unprotected sex after being told their prospective partner has HIV, well, that doesn't make this guy and awful man. He's not raping people, geez.
And the money..."prohibitively expensive" means that money is the thing that stops us. If you don't have it, you don't have it. We live in a country where it's much more appropriate to spend money on things like bridges in Alaska to unpopulated islands than stem cell research or AIDs research or protecting abortion. There is a very large segment of the U.S. population that sees stem cell research and abortion as against God and AIDs as just punishment for engaging in sinful, sinful sodomy. If our country emerges from the fundamentalism catalyzed dark ages it currently travels through, then these things will see advancement and public support on a larger scale.
The recent out cry from the uber-conservative-relagious-right anst the HPV vacine HPV makes me worry about their response to a vacine possible vacine for AIDS or even lung cancer.
I'm also so royally peeved about the response to the morning after pill. No not the R846 pill but the double dose of your regular birth control. This pill prevents fertilization and may prevent an abortion in some cases. But people just won't get over wanting people to "pay for there mistakes" or giving them a "liscene to misbehave"
There is such a commitment to vengence for since that it makes me wonder if these people are only reading or preaching from 1/2 the bible. God is a God of vengance yes but also mercy. This can be seen in Jesus' response to heal leepers and the woman with uncontrolled bleeding (both of these conditions were considered unclean and as a result of some sinful behavior). I could go on but I'll stop.
Oh PS: The guy is a real sleeze for exposing others to HIV
"There is a very large segment of the U.S. population that sees stem cell research and abortion as against God and AIDs as just punishment for engaging in sinful, sinful sodomy."
can you document those numbers? what exactly is a very large segment? and you're going to have to do much more than document the number of evangelicals and catholics that voted for bush.
and, i challenge you to find one evanelical leader that says "AIDs as just punishment for engaging in sinful, sinful sodomy." pat robertson may be your best hope, but being that the evangelical community shuns him at most every comment i'm not sure that he counts as a leader any more.
maybe people made foolish claims like that in the early 80's when hiv/aids first showed up on the scene. but, 20 years into a pandemic, i think you're going to have trouble supporting that assertion.
in fact, leading evangelical voices like rick warren are leading huge campaigns for aids awareness and treatment.
Heather,
I agree with some of what you said, especially pointing to the "pay for their mistakes" and "license to misbehave" thoughts.
Ed,
I'm not pointing at evangelicals or even specifically, their leaders, though I believe that a portion of that group contains the fundamental leanings I refer to. If you want to tell me I'm setting up a straw-man argument, that's fine. But just because I can't point to statistics that are very clear, doesn't mean people don't believe it. If you want me to guide you to people who are decrying homosexuality and pointing at AIDs as punishment (in more coded language I'm sure), they are there, but I don't keep a list of them.
maybe people made foolish claims like that in the early 80's when hiv/aids first showed up on the scene. but, 20 years into a pandemic, i think you're going to have trouble supporting that assertion.
And yes, racism is dead, sexism is dead, nazism is dead, anti-semitism is dead, yada, yada. People obviously don't behave atypically to what has generally been decried as inappropriate.
You can't deny there are fundamentalist leanings in our country these days: The Exodus movement, Bible-based homophobia and bigotry, anti-flag burning hysteria, xenophobia. And I will argue that many of those things are being pushed for by avowed Christians who no, do not say explicitly that they are racist or bigoted or sexist, but their behavior and voting records and implications show this.
i don't disagree that there are fundamentalists in every group, whether it is religious, social, philosophical, or political. and they're all just as annoying and perhaps dangerous. i also think it's easy to call things we disagree with fundamentalist and dismiss them. however, i'm not saying that you are doing this.
(in fact, i saw a quote from warren saying that he saw fundamentalism as the biggest challenge and even included xian fundamentalism. funny, i've never really cared for warren but i'm beginning to appreciate his work.)
i don't think you're creating a straw man. i am asking you to back up a claim that i find questionable and somewhat inflammatory.
"both of these conditions were considered unclean and as a result of some sinful behavior"
huh? i've never heard anyone attach sinful behavior to leprosy or the bleeding condition described in the gospels. that is, i've never heard anyone describe those people having those conditions because of their own sinful behaviors. people of the time may have assumed that their parent or ancestor may have been sinful and the current person is living with that result, but Jesus denies that explicitly.
but, i do think your point about the outcry by some about hpv vacine might provide similar discussion were there to be a vacine for hiv/aids. but, i don't know if any are against the vaccine per se. they seem to be against mandatory shots. i disagree with their position. but, you could make a strong argument by looking at the sociological history of std's and cures. the presence of cures to things like gonorhea (that's got to be misspelled), syphillis, etc coincide with the change in sexual attitudes and an increase in the behaviors that lead to the spread of these same diseases. i am in no way saying that this caused a spread of the disease. but, data can be used to back up the argument that "giving girls this shot can be encouraging them to have sex".
finally, on the hpv question, i think every parent should get that vaccine for their daughter. i don't know if the government should mandate it for a noncontagious disease.
Wow, talk about thread drift, but on the issue of HPV shots, don't tell them what the shot is for. What 6 year old girl has polio, or any of the other infectious diseases they are inoculated for, explained to them before they get the shot. You take the kid to the doctor, they get a battery of shots for various things, done and done. Or why not tell the kid that you are protecting them from the chance of getting cervical cancer. If the idiots who are touting this "permission slip" ideology hadn't ever said a damn thing, the very idea wouldn't even be floating around. It's the very people who are against permiscuous sex who are planting the idea.
Wow guys, good discussion. In regards to the leprosy discussion, I was just wondering what actually causes it. I was under the same impression as Heather. I need to reread Matthew, which I was working on this morning, but I got the same sense about the views on the leper, and I was confused as to why that would be. So, back to my original question: What causes leprosy?
one, two, wikiwikiwiki three:
Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, is an infectious disease caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium leprae which causes disfiguration of the body or skin.
From wikiwikiwiki pedia
Oh, then there's this one for Tzaraath, "the leprosy found in the Bible":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath
I am too retarded to make links.
Wow the discussion is getting good. I guess I didn't take engough time to explain my point. I ment to say that the Jewish people believed many of these conditions were the result of sin (not their sin per say but the sin of their parents or others) still these people were punished for these sins in the form of exclusion from the whole Jewish society including temple worship.
My point in using this example of Jesus healing these outcast was to say that Jesus did not feel this affliction was the result of sin and that these people needed healing.
Jesus also healed people of affliction caused by their own sinful behavior such as his offering of salvation to the woman at the well, which also gave healing to her emotional pain.
I don't think the issue of a "license to sin" should be a issue in the christian community with regards to healing human suffering. We've all been given a license to sin when God created us with a choice to do good or evil. I feel Christian's should be more concernd with healing the broken or caring for the suffering and offering transformation of the spirit to curb sinful behavior not the fear of catching a disease.
Oh and in regards to Adam's comments I think you have some good points. People talk the talk about not being racists or homophobic but you see a whole other side of them when their daughter wants to marry someone of another race or their son is gay. I also think we see a whole other side of people who want cures for their common ailments (ie breast cancer or diabetes) but would have a problem with a vacine for AIDS or providing funding for the research needed.
Thanks Jay, and I reread the section I was referring to, and he asked for Jesus to make him clean. I guess I was reading into it a bit. Heather, your re-explanation cleared things up.
but should the government require a vaccination, and i'm assuming also fund these shots, when it's non-communicable? i'm fine with it, but should we then require vaccines for everything that's out there? should we also wash everyone's hands with antibacterial soap when they leave the restroom?
Wouldn't it just be required by schools, those with insurance would have it paid for and those without would be paid for by the government? If this is the case, as I think it would be, I wonder if it would cost less to vaccinate or treat the HPV/cervical cancer.
Whoa.
Ed,
An interesting supposition comes from your questions. Viruses will evolve, we've seen it already with influenza and HIV. They become hardened to vaccines and newer ones are not as effective. So, do we cut down on vaccinations and suffer more illness, or do we increase vaccinations, thereby causing viruses to evolve stronger strains that we don't necessarily have vaccinations for?
Kendall,
I'm with Ed, at least ideologically when it comes to this particular issue. If it's not cost-prohibitive, why should we even consider not vaccinating for HPV? To save a few bucks we should let women get HPV/cervical cancer and treat that knowing full well that we had a way to prevent it? Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?
good adam, i was hoping you'd pick up a hint of our recent conversation about germs and such (that was with you right?).
and really, something like this hpv vacine or even an aids vacine, shoot, i think every one probably should get. or at least have it available to them.
Yeah, that was me.
If you want to see another current posting about the HPV thing, something with a bit more vitriol, a bit more upsetness, check out here:
The ghouls on the right clamor to protect cervical cancer from the doctors who'd snatch it from them
No, once again I wasn't clear. I was attempting to respond to Ed's comment about making the vaccine mandatory and it's cost to the government. My point was, if you are only going to see it through economic terms, I just question which is more cost effective. I would imagine that treating HPV and cancer would cost a lot more than a vaccination. Obviously not to say that all those that get vaccinated would have contracted HPV or cervical cancer. Still, being proactive would likely have many cost-benefits.
Personally I am all for the usage of the vaccine, even if it does cost our government some money. And I think it should be mandatory along with the other list of vaccines given.
That's what I meant to say.
Ok, that's much more clear, thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure making it mandatory would be a good idea. (HPV vaccine) And not because of the financial burden it would put on our government. I worry a lot about different vaccines that are given to children already. There were a series of congressional hearings that began in 1999 regarding the safety of child vaccinations with the majority of both liberals and conservatives agreeing they were concerned. I think that this probably stemmed from the fear linking vaccinations to autism or downs syndome, which I don't know if I believe. But... there could be some very dangerous repercussions to vaccines.
Also, this may sound very republican of me, maybe it is my father talking, but I don't like the idea of the government telling me that my child can't attend public school if she doesn't have this vaccination. It's not like my child could pass this along in kindergarten like the other vaccinated diseases. It should a parent's right to research themselves, and then make a decision.
And also before I shut up, I question whether or not all vaccines are totally effective. I just watched a program on discovery health where a man was vaccinated, but still contracted polio. (rare, I know) And this year in kindergarten all children were vaccinated for chicken pocks, yet giving them the vaccine was determined at our school to be the very way it spread to thirty-two full blown cases in our school.
Don't worry, Emily is fully up to date on her vaccines, but I did a lot of research before she had them. I think that a parent should be able to decide what is the bigger risk for their child: vaccine or no vaccine.
Oh I am so glad I found my error before Adam or Ed.
Pox NOT pocks.
Sorry
Good point. I just fear that not using this particular vaccination for "moral" reasons will inhbit the protection of many future women, when it isn't necessarily a moral issue. Still you make a good point that there should be the option of choice for lots of good reasons. On the flip-side, if I had had the opportunity to receive this vaccination and my parents had opted out because they didn't want to encourage permiscuous behavior, I would be personally annoyed. But that would still be an issue for the family to worry about I suppose.
Ok, on a more practical note on parental choice. If it is left for the family to decide, and it is not made mandatory, would the government support lower income families without insurance choosing to use the vaccine? How would that work? If it's mandatory, then it MUST be provided. If not, then only the insured have access to protection from cervical cancer?
well, to be fair, those who abstain from intercourse and those using protection would also be protected from cervical cancer.
Well hpv doesn't magically go away when you get married. You can control your own behavior, but if your partner/spouse did not abstain or use protection, even once, the risk is still there. I just think it should be accessible to everyone. And being cautious isn't a sure fire guarantee.
Malisa, how was that determined, the 32 cases of chicken pox that is?
Kendall, since no one is answering your questions, I'll give my response. I don't know. If it's mandatory, then yes, everyone gets it, much to the chagrin of parents who find exceptions to the rule in order to say they're kids ought not to get vaccinated. If it isn't mandatory, then some sort of classism will come into play where rich people will be able to get it but poor people may not, much like the rest of our health care already is.
Adam- The center for disease control was called by our district. The records were re-checked for those children who had the vaccine, and other than that, I don't know what steps the CDC took in determining it. Emily was in a day care that held an after school program for students attending my elementary school. The parents of all the infants were informed of the actual cases because of the concern that children from the elementary school could possibly infect others before they show any symptoms. (babies aren't vaccinated until they are 12 -18 months)
Oh, what I left out was that we were told (school staff) that a child was vaccinated only days before attending kindergarten, and since they actually inject the virus as part of the vaccine, the child's immune system wasn't strong enough to fight it off, and he infected others before anybody knew that he had it.
In response to vaccinations for attendance of public schools. You can always get a wavier. Believe me their are plenty of children in public schools who have not had any vaccinations including TB because their parents have a wavier in place. This was mainly done due to concerns with vaccinations and autism or religious convictions (orthodox judaism)
Just for public information in Israel where most parents due not vaccinate their children due to religous convictions the previlance of Autism is the same as countries where the majority of children are vaccinated.
Post a Comment