the world is bigger than the west, and the RCC's biggest influence is outside the west
Indubitably, but that doesn't mean the RCC is not to blame either.
Ask an HIV/AIDS volunteer.
- Thread starter emzie
- Start date
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Gee, what a surprise. Yet another absurd attempt to "put words into my mouth".Now wait a second...are you implying that homosexual men dont use condoms during high risk sex because of......the Catholic Church?
I cant wait to here this one.
What seems to be basic common sense to us is somehow lost on Mobboss.
Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
I have never expected someone to change how they believe the world ought to be, and I don't have a problem with the RCC having the goal of encouraging faithful monogamy and rending condoms pointless (I don't get it but whatever). The group I work with is very pragmatic. The only thing we care about is reducing new HIV cases and supporting HIV patients. If we're to choose between something morally sketchy and people dying, we go with saving lives. We have needle exchanges for IV drug users: we're not saying, "hey go shoot up now it's totally fine!" but rather, "this is going to happen, let's reduce the amount of harm that is involved."
Again, I'm going to reference that chastity until marriage is only an effective strategy if both partners are faithful. What we see a lot of is husbands who work as migrant workers sleeping with sex workers in large cities, and bringing home HIV infections. Their wives have no power in this situation. They are, in how you've decided to categorize the world, true, 100% blameless victims.
@everyone here: There's not more I can say within the bounds I'd like to keep for this thread. If you wish to continue this conversation, I encourage you to open a new thread where I'm sure I'll join in. If we could keep this question and answer focused though, I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
How big is the organization that you volunteer for? How many hours a week/month do you dedicate to it?
Do you find volunteering, in itself, to be a worthwhile experience? Do you find the work you do rewarding - have you any indication that it's having a beneficial effect on the problem? Do you find it rewarding interacting with your fellow volunteers?
Do you find volunteering, in itself, to be a worthwhile experience? Do you find the work you do rewarding - have you any indication that it's having a beneficial effect on the problem? Do you find it rewarding interacting with your fellow volunteers?
I work in theatre in New York City. I know a few people who are HIV+, and I'm sure I know a lot more who haven't told me their status. But thankfully it seems like it's no longer a ground-shaking thing to learn about someone. It's amazing how much progress has been made in such a short time.
AIDS still haunts the lives of a lot of the older people I work with. They had been to more funerals by the time they were 30 than most people will go to in their entire lives. When they talk about what the city and the industry was like back then it's chilling. They lived through a sort of pandemic dystopia that most of us only (hopefully!) see in movies.
These days we hear rumors of bug parties - people (mostly men) who get together anonymously and play a sort of russian roulette. They have bizarre fantasies about breeding a super-bug in the their blood. I have no idea if these things are real, have you heard of them?
AIDS still haunts the lives of a lot of the older people I work with. They had been to more funerals by the time they were 30 than most people will go to in their entire lives. When they talk about what the city and the industry was like back then it's chilling. They lived through a sort of pandemic dystopia that most of us only (hopefully!) see in movies.
These days we hear rumors of bug parties - people (mostly men) who get together anonymously and play a sort of russian roulette. They have bizarre fantasies about breeding a super-bug in the their blood. I have no idea if these things are real, have you heard of them?
~20 people on direct payroll, a board of directors, a lot of volunteers. I've averaged probably 1 presentation / week. It takes about an hour, though my time involved is closer to 4.
Well, I continue to do it, even when it's very difficult so I'm getting something from it. I see a lot of our work as indirect, where we're not just handing out clean needles and condoms, or educating people on risk, but changing perceptions of HIV. A number of times, one of the guys I'll be working with will tell the room he's HIV positive and some of the people will noticeably change: oh god, I shook his hand! -- by the end of it, there's less of that and more understanding. You're not going to get HIV from sharing the guy's fries.
There is a somewhat frustrating aspect where our HIV problem is no where near as bad as it is on reservations. I would really like to be doing work outside the city.
We've never really addressed bugchassing, and I think it's viewed with horror by most of the gay community here. It seems to exist, as a form of self-harm (like people who cut/burn themselves) but I'm not sure just how big a problem it is, if it's one at all in this city. If it is, I'm more interested in protecting others from them than changing their minds. Though I'm all for extending them mental health services.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Well what if he had cuts in their mouth I didn't know about?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
World still includes the west, and we've had our own issues with HIV/AIDs and continue to. And as you said here, its simply not the RCC.
Again, how is the church responisble? Is it now the Church's fault people perform unsafe sex? No.
In fact, in looking it up, the absolute worst of the African AIDs epidemic is in extreme Southern Africa where the RCC isnt as prevalent. That small fact would work against the premise that the RCC is at fault wouldnt it?
I think the AIDs situation in Africa is a horrible and terrible thing. But to lay it at the feet of the RCC is a pretty tall order actually.
I also think the Popes comment from Forms 4 year old article is certainly arguable. I mean why do people think condoms are indeed the answer to everything? Case in point, in the USA condoms are readily available, and yet we continue to have one of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the world. Simply adding condoms to the mix isnt the answer, if you take the above into account.
While there's a conversation to be held about the RCC and HIV in Africa, this is not the thread for it.
Still very unlikely. There's no documented transmission of HIV through salvia and HIV just isn't present in it in enough quantity to spread.
Now, if someone just had oral surgery, I would avoid having oral sex with them. But that would be a very very odd person, I just had my wisdom teeth out, commere!
Still very unlikely. There's no documented transmission of HIV through salvia and HIV just isn't present in it in enough quantity to spread.
Now, if someone just had oral surgery, I would avoid having oral sex with them. But that would be a very very odd person, I just had my wisdom teeth out, commere!
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
It becomes a numbers game. Being exposed to a single HIV virus is just extremely unlikely to lead to an infection. You need a bunch of them to have a good change of many coming into contact with T-Cells. The only bodily fluids that have high enough concentrations of HIV to infect another are blood, semen, vaginal fluids, the mucus lining of the rectum and breast milk.
While HIV can be found in trace amounts in urine and salvia and sweat, it's simply not high enough in concentration. Further, saliva acts as a pretty good barrier for HIV.
Who makes out with someone after oral surgery? If you also had an open cut in your mouth, I'd think it possible, though saliva still acts as a good barrier.
There's never been a documented case of someone contracting HIV through kissing, to my knowledge.
Oh, I was wrong. CDC:
There are extremely rare cases of HIV being transmitted via deep French kissing but in each case, infected blood was exchanged due to bleeding gums or sores in the mouth. Because of this remote risk, it is recommended that individuals who are HIV-infected avoid deep, open-mouth French kissing with a non-infected partner, as there is a potential risk of transferring infected blood.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Actually, I wanted to know why there is a low concentration in saliva and urine. Is it because HIV can only penetrate CD4-expressing cells? That epithelial barriers keep out instances of HIV from the bloodstream?
As shorthand, we'll often say T-cells, but more correctly specified, yeah, CD-4 expressing cells which includes more than just T / B-cells. HIV's main impact though is on T-cells, and those just generally aren't found in saliva itself unless there's also blood present. There are DC cells in epithelial tissue, and DCs express CD4 too. That's how most people end up infected in the first place, but there has to be enough HIV in a fluid coming into contact with epithelial tissue to have a good shot at infecting the DC cells.
I'm not really too sure about HIV in urine. I know it's there in levels similar to saliva, but I've never really encountered the question because there's not a lot of people who are getting another person's urine into their body.
Updated first post to reflect, but if you have questions you don't wish to air publicly, you may PM me. If you have questions and you would like to remain anonymous, you may email me. I will, however, respond to the questions themselves in this thread, so avoid obvious identifiers.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Oh right, dendritic cells. Forgot about those guys.
That part of the question's for curiosity's sake alone, seeing as the answer has almost no practical worth.
Anonymous question:
This is really a question I could write a paper on.
For starters, yeah, any male who has had sex with another male may never give blood here, even if 30 years have elapsed and the man has never tested positive for HIV. More or less by definition, if you effed a guy in 1982 and you're still alive today, you did not contract HIV from him. The life-long prohibition is holdover from earlier days, where it was a sensible restriction.
It is no longer a sensible restriction. The American Red Cross (and some other blood collection agencies whose names escape me) supports replacing the life-long ban with a ban for any MSM contact within the last year. They estimate this change would result in less than 1 additional HIV transmission per 30 years. It would be more in line with the ban that currently exists for female partners of MSM: 1 year from last time they had sex with the guy in question.
I do think there needs to be some level of prohibition when dealing with high risk populations, since an HIV infection can take up to 3 months to show up in blood work, but where the individual is able to pass an infection. Thus if you are actually HIV+ you may have no way of knowing, and a blood test that the Red Cross preforms will have no way of showing, that it's possible for you to transmit HIV to another person. Since we need some wiggle room, extending the waiting period to 1 year, as is done in many countries (UK, Sweden, Australia) ensures that an HIV+ donor can't slip through the screening. This brings it inline with the female partners of MSM. After all, a female partner of a MSM has been exposed to the same risks as MSM.
As to the blood transfusion you mentioned. Well, the child of an HIV+ mother will not come into contact with HIV until either birth (where the woman's vagina may undergo some ripping) or breastfeeding (HIV is present in breast milk). For the sake of this question, hypothetically let's say the mother had sex with an actively MSM within the last year. She could be HIV+ and her child would NOT be, thus they will not use her blood for the transfusion.
This is really a question I could write a paper on.
For starters, yeah, any male who has had sex with another male may never give blood here, even if 30 years have elapsed and the man has never tested positive for HIV. More or less by definition, if you effed a guy in 1982 and you're still alive today, you did not contract HIV from him. The life-long prohibition is holdover from earlier days, where it was a sensible restriction.
It is no longer a sensible restriction. The American Red Cross (and some other blood collection agencies whose names escape me) supports replacing the life-long ban with a ban for any MSM contact within the last year. They estimate this change would result in less than 1 additional HIV transmission per 30 years. It would be more in line with the ban that currently exists for female partners of MSM: 1 year from last time they had sex with the guy in question.
I do think there needs to be some level of prohibition when dealing with high risk populations, since an HIV infection can take up to 3 months to show up in blood work, but where the individual is able to pass an infection. Thus if you are actually HIV+ you may have no way of knowing, and a blood test that the Red Cross preforms will have no way of showing, that it's possible for you to transmit HIV to another person. Since we need some wiggle room, extending the waiting period to 1 year, as is done in many countries (UK, Sweden, Australia) ensures that an HIV+ donor can't slip through the screening. This brings it inline with the female partners of MSM. After all, a female partner of a MSM has been exposed to the same risks as MSM.
As to the blood transfusion you mentioned. Well, the child of an HIV+ mother will not come into contact with HIV until either birth (where the woman's vagina may undergo some ripping) or breastfeeding (HIV is present in breast milk). For the sake of this question, hypothetically let's say the mother had sex with an actively MSM within the last year. She could be HIV+ and her child would NOT be, thus they will not use her blood for the transfusion.
Question received anonymously VIA email:
There's been news recently of HIV cures, but when I tested positive, I was told it was incurable. Could you explain more?
Of course, though let me start off by saying I hope you consider coming forward with your real identity and perhaps starting an "ask a" thread. I also caution that this information is not a substitute for discussing your health care with your doctor. Questions that are intended to help you make life choices are not my purview and my summary here is not medical advice.
There are two ways people have been 'cured' of HIV in the last decade though both are limited to very specific circumstances. The one that has been especially touted in the last month is the case of a newborn infant in Mississippi and a collection of adults. What these cases share in common is the extremely unusual early intervention: all were treated with high doses of ART within the first 10 weeks of infection, a time period that the vast majority of patients don't even know they've been exposed. What seems to happen is the flood of ART drugs before HIV becomes really established is enough, sometimes, to prevent HIV from remaining in one's system as a transmittable or infectious agent. This is referred to as 'functionally cured' because the person still has HIV genetic material in their tissues, though it's dead in the same way that a flu shot introduces non-replicating flu strains.
The second way is extremely dangerous and would never normally be attempted. It seems that an HIV patient who undergoes a bone marrow transplantation can shed themselves of the disease. There was a famous case a few years back where the patient sought out a bone marrow donor who had a genetic resistance to HIV in the first place, though it's unclear if that's the reason he was able to shed HIV or if any bone marrow donation might be a treatment against HIV.
At any rate, being a bone marrow transplantation is a very risky procedure. More than 10% of patients receiving bone marrow die, so it's almost always a last resort for someone who will have a higher chance dying if they don't receive a transplant. Put another way, HIV might knock 2 years off your life on average, but bone marrow transplants knock a lot more time off.
There's been news recently of HIV cures, but when I tested positive, I was told it was incurable. Could you explain more?
Of course, though let me start off by saying I hope you consider coming forward with your real identity and perhaps starting an "ask a" thread. I also caution that this information is not a substitute for discussing your health care with your doctor. Questions that are intended to help you make life choices are not my purview and my summary here is not medical advice.
There are two ways people have been 'cured' of HIV in the last decade though both are limited to very specific circumstances. The one that has been especially touted in the last month is the case of a newborn infant in Mississippi and a collection of adults. What these cases share in common is the extremely unusual early intervention: all were treated with high doses of ART within the first 10 weeks of infection, a time period that the vast majority of patients don't even know they've been exposed. What seems to happen is the flood of ART drugs before HIV becomes really established is enough, sometimes, to prevent HIV from remaining in one's system as a transmittable or infectious agent. This is referred to as 'functionally cured' because the person still has HIV genetic material in their tissues, though it's dead in the same way that a flu shot introduces non-replicating flu strains.
The second way is extremely dangerous and would never normally be attempted. It seems that an HIV patient who undergoes a bone marrow transplantation can shed themselves of the disease. There was a famous case a few years back where the patient sought out a bone marrow donor who had a genetic resistance to HIV in the first place, though it's unclear if that's the reason he was able to shed HIV or if any bone marrow donation might be a treatment against HIV.
At any rate, being a bone marrow transplantation is a very risky procedure. More than 10% of patients receiving bone marrow die, so it's almost always a last resort for someone who will have a higher chance dying if they don't receive a transplant. Put another way, HIV might knock 2 years off your life on average, but bone marrow transplants knock a lot more time off.
