AIDS-Is the end in sight?

[Guest Merlin]

There is a link on Drudge report .com to a UK article suggesting that some scientists now suggest that if ainti-retroviral drugs were made widely available to infected people, aids could eventually be irradicated. Since the drugs reduce the viral load, and make the person less infectuous, they may be able to halt the spread of the disease without curing it, and without the development of a vacine. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/aids-is-the-end-in-sight-1906467.html

They are probably being too optimistic, based on the example of syphilis, which has been curable for 60 years with a shot of penicillin--but it continues to exist. The two diseases are similar in that an infected person can go for many years without being sick, and infect many people in the meantime.

[Guest greatness]

good point

 

 

There is a link on Drudge report .com to a UK article suggesting that some scientists now suggest that if ainti-retroviral drugs were made widely available to infected people, aids could eventually be irradicated. Since the drugs reduce the viral load, and make the person less infectuous, they may be able to halt the spread of the disease without curing it, and without the development of a vacine. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/aids-is-the-end-in-sight-1906467.html

They are probably being too optimistic, based on the example of syphilis, which has been curable for 60 years with a shot of penicillin--but it continues to exist. The two diseases are similar in that an infected person can go for many years without being sick, and infect many people in the meantime.

[Guest OCBeachbody]

Goodness when people keep talking about Anti-retrovirus just make me think of the novel... "The Omega Man" or its most horrendous iteration "I AM LEGEND".

 

Scares me to think that the cure might kill or mutate the disease? I have always read that the virus itself mutates and that why it has been so long and hard to pinpoint and effective way to combat it.

[KMEM]

The WHO declared smallpox eradicated some time ago but it isn't and it is a much more stable disease than HIV. Science will never overcome the frailties of the human race, although they will make inroads towards limiting them.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Guest Merlin]

This does confirm what seemed likely but unspoken, that when the cocktail brings the viral load down to an undetectable level the person is much less infectuous. Not a reason for abandoning safer sex, however.

[JoeyBryant]

I would advise anyone who is really concerned about HIV/Aids to read this website Alive and Well

 

Once you read that, your whole outlook on the 'cure' may change. It took me about 3 night to go over the entire site...but its definently an eye-opener.

[+ nycman]

We are far form the end of AIDS.

 

I think that article is irresponsible at best.

 

We're all hopeful, but come on. Like Merlin2 said, there's been a cheap,

inexpensive cure for Syphilis for decades, but there's no end in sight for

that STD either.

 

The website that Joey references is even worse. The HIV/AIDS deniers are

frightening in their twisted ignorance of basic science. All little knowledge is

indeed a dangerous thing. Unfortunately most peoples' education about

their own bodies ended somewhere around 8th grade biology class.

 

Facts:

 

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

 

Anti-virals are the only things to date that help at all.

 

Condoms save lives.

 

Number of HIV/AIDS infections cured to date: ZERO.

 

Start the discussion based on those facts, and I'm open to debate.....

otherwise you're just tilting aimlessly at windmills.

[MsGuy]

Whenever I read something like Alive and Well I'm reminded of a chiropractor who used to leaflet my home town with claims he could cure syphilis and cancer. Didn't believe him, don't believe this guy either and am generally skeptical of people who assure me that they and they alone have discovered the one true path to salvation.

----

Something about the reasoning on Alive & Well reminds me of that found in the texts on those Creation Science sites.

[JoeyBryant]

I'm not up to debate about the topic, as people can believe what they believe in. I was just giving a different perspective of it. You can take it or leave it. I rather do my own research on these things instead of believe everything that is told to us by media and pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, neither 2 of you have read the entire website. But thats your choice.

 

The people who wrote that article have actually researched and gathered information from various sources. You on the other hand, have just read news articles and reports on the topic.

 

Nevertheless, I still carry a sac of condoms, as my health is my livelihood.

[+ nycman]

You on the other hand, have just read news articles and reports on the topic.

 

You do realize this is an asinine comment, right?

 

The fact is, you have now idea what I've read, how much, or how often.

 

Nevertheless, I still carry a sac of condoms, as my health is my livelihood.

 

Just goes to prove, "there are no atheists in foxholes."

 

Good for you!

[Luv2play]

They are probably being too optimistic, based on the example of syphilis, which has been curable for 60 years with a shot of penicillin--but it continues to exist. The two diseases are similar in that an infected person can go for many years without being sick, and infect many people in the meantime.

 

I'm no expert on medical matters but I disagree with your comparison between syphilis and HIV. The former is caused by a bacterium and the latter is a viral disease. Two completely different causes of disease. Bacteria survive outside the human body a long time. The HIV virus only seconds.

 

Syphilis is highly infectious initially and then goes dormant for many years. The carrier is not infectious when the disease is dormant. HIV, left untreated, is highly infectious because the viral loads are high. The viral loads in treated individuals are extremely low so as to be undetectable.

 

Antibiotics do not suppress syphilis, they eliminate it if taken correctly. Antiretroviral drugs only suppress HIV replication, they do not eliminate the virus.

 

Syphilis used to kill. Now it does not except where no treatment is available or is not taken properly. HIV still kills but not the way it did before antiretrovirals came on the scene.

 

I read the article and the point made by the researcher was that if HIV is treated universally and if everyone took the drugs correctly, the transmission of the disease would dramatically decline. It would not die out in the sense that once infected, persons would continue to carry the virus all their lives. But if they took the drugs and controlled the level of virus in their bodies, they would not be as infectious and consequently the spread of HIV would diminish.

 

One point not made in the article is that HIV drugs are very expensive. Their costs would need to be reduced to those of antibiotics to be used universally. This would take government action as the pharmaceutical companies would never willingly give up the billions of dollars they make from these drugs.

[MsGuy]

Joey, my initial post was snotty and for that you have my apology.

----

"Due to the serious conditions for which transfusions are necessary and the deleterious effects they have on the immune system, half of all HIV negative transfusion recipients die within a year of receiving a transfusion."

 

The above quote is how Alive and Well explains the holocaust among hemophiliacs in the 80's.

 

>It displays complete ignorance about how blood products were actually used in the treatment of hemophilia.

>It makes a ridiculously false assertion about the death rate of transfused patients.

 

The site is littered with many other equally obvious falsehoods. When I said the site reminded me of the Creation Science sites, I was making an observation. The type of argumentation used, the disregard for easily verified facts and the emphasis on the misstatement of opposing opinion is much the same.

[MsGuy]

Luv2play, Merlin was mistaken on the infectious period for sysphilis but that only makes his argument that much stronger. I take his main point to be that if we haven't been able to eliminate a STD as destructive as sysphilis, which can be cleared with a short course of treatment, we're not likely to be any more successful with an intractable disease like AIDS.

 

Widespread availability of affordable versions of the AIDS cocktails may help to reduce the infection rate but, as for as eradication goes, it's chasing a moonbeam.

[KMEM]

No one seems to want to take the ultra conservative viewpoint that abstinence not only makes the heart grow fonder but ultimately eliminates communicable diseases. I didn't think so and I am not fond of that idea either but there it is.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ deej]

Luv2play, Merlin was mistaken on the infectious period for sysphilis but that only makes his argument that much stronger. I take his main point to be that if we haven't been able to eliminate a STD as destructive as sysphilis, which can be cleared with a short course of treatment, we're not likely to be any more successful with an intractable disease like AIDS.

 

And the irony of course is that the condom, our primary preventive tool for HIV, was invented to stem the spread of syphilis.

[+ nycman]

No one seems to want to take the ultra conservative viewpoint that abstinence not only makes the heart grow fonder but ultimately eliminates communicable diseases.

 

You are correct.

 

But even the greatest "treatment" or "course of action" is meaningless

if the patient compliance rate is ZERO. Hence, the epic failure of the

"abstinence" plan of attack.

 

Is it true? Yes.

Good basic scientific fact? Yes.

Completely unrealistic? Unfortunately, also yes.

 

The very educated breakdown of the differences between syphilis and HIV

was impressive and true. However, the basic principle is still true. It is much

easier and cheaper to cure, and we STILL can't eradicate it.

 

I think the researchers are correct and clearheaded in the science behind

the article. It's the media that ran with the wrong message "AIDS, is the

end in sight?"....the honest answer is NO, not even close.

 

It's irresponsible to imply otherwise.

[+ sniper]

Abstinence is unrealistic, but partner reduction isn't. And I'm not talking about one partner for life, just not hooking up with a different person every other night. When a substantial fraction of a population is racking up those kinds of numbers, it's hard to keep infection rates down simply due to the failure rate of condoms.