New Strain: Full-Blown AIDS in 3 Months

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

The Ring of Compassion?

 

>>> Maybe he'll be a drain on society for less time that he

>>> thought he would be.

 

??

[VaHawk]

>This person intentionally

>infected himself.

 

Where did you glean that piece of information?

 

>What's more, he seems to be spreading death

>intentionally as well. He isn't gunning people down, but he's

>killing many people nevertheless.

 

Just a little hysterical aren't you? All those accusations with nothing of substance to back up your allegations. What next? Your opinion seems as ill-informed, hysterical, prejudiced and ugly as the original one from 1983 that aids was the wrath of God visited upon those sinful homosexuals!

 

>You can argue that he's

>mostly killing the willing, Jim Jones style, but that doesn't

>make it right.

 

What a ridiculous idiotic statement! Did you have to think a LONG time to come up with this shit?

 

>To add insult to injury, society is paying for

>his treatment. I find it totally repulsive. One can have

>compassion for a person yet be repulsed by his behavior.

>Society does that all of the time.

 

You have compassion for this "victim"? I sure don't see any evidence of such.

 

I think opinions such as yours, towards gays and their behaviors, and its accompanying hysteria is the REAL insult! I can only conclude that you have never been a young gay man, as if so, you would know that this behavior is nothing new, and it has always been that way and always will be that way. So keep sitting on your throne of righteousness up in your little ivory tower, hiring your escorts, hustlers and prosititues, behavior that most people in American society find disgusting, while sneering at all the "lower" gay life forms!

 

You're a doctor???? I sincerely doubt that, but if you indeed are, then you must follow the ideology of Dr. Mengele!

[TotallyOz]

VA Hawk:

 

I am sorry as I know this is a very serious topic, but your posting just made me pee in my pants! What a wonderful way to end the night. Where do you come up with this?

[poiuyt]

I remember back in '82 when AIDS first appeared, the feeling in SF was that it was just a few guys out of the many thousands here, and it seemed mostly to hit the druggies and hard partyers. We felt that if you were responsible, and just stayed away from the baths you should be OK.

 

I left for Europe about that time and when I came back a couple of years later, almost everyone I used to know here was either dead or dying.

 

We know better now. Be careful.

[Guest]

>>This person intentionally

>>infected himself.

>

>Where did you glean that piece of information?

 

The only way he didn't infect himself is if he were the most stupid person on the planet. Every adult on earth, unless he's a demented whack-o, knows that barebacking with lots of men is a sure-fire way to get HIV. What a massive load of crap it is to pretend that he didn't know what he was doing. And I don't have a doubt that over 90% of the US public in general and doctors in particular would agree with me. Yes, we provide compassionate and competent care even to assholes, murderers, and what have you. You must be very naive about the conversations which go on in the doctors' lounges, however. Believe me, I'm far, far less judgmental than most doctors out there. I guess you'd be surprised at the number of doctors who have great bedside manner in front of the patient and family, but will use a very different tone when talking with their colleagues.

[Guest]

>Unicorn: I hope that much of what you are writing is just

>rhetoric because you are unhappy with the actions of this

>original patient... and not that in your actual practice of

>medicine you decide who should receive treatment, or how

>vigorously you treat patients, because of how their condition

>was contracted.

>

Don't worry. I have an indigent practice. My caseload is full of murderers, rapists, drug addicts, people who've had strokes due to cocaine, heart failiure due to meth, STD's due to whoring for their heroin habit, and so forth. I give them all great care, although I certainly shed more tears for the old Afghani refugee who dies of a heart attack than for the drug-dealing murderer who strokes dead on cocaine.

[stlbtmboi]

>>

>Don't worry. I have an indigent practice. My caseload is

>full of murderers, rapists, drug addicts, people who've had

>strokes due to cocaine, heart failiure due to meth, STD's due

>to whoring for their heroin habit, and so forth. I give them

>all great care, although I certainly shed more tears for the

>old Afghani refugee who dies of a heart attack than for the

>drug-dealing murderer who strokes dead on cocaine.

 

You may work in a medical setting, bit your'e not fooling some of us. You are no Dr.

 

I've been without sex for 2 yrs now & was considering going BB.

I'm not into drugs, & my fantasy will remain just that - a fantasy.

 

I wonder what it is about condomless sex that would make some of us take a deadly risk like that.

 

I find the thought of it erotic..

Any thoughts?

 

And by the way what about the one top who infectied this guy with the "nasty" strain. As Dr. Gallant said he has to know his condition, why all the attention on the other guy?

Thanks

:( :(

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I guess you'd be surprised at the number

>of doctors who have great bedside manner in front of the

>patient and family, but will use a very different tone when

>talking with their colleagues.

 

Probably not. I have read the same thing posted about some escorts and about I have also heard it about some attorneys too. I guess in the end people are just people whether they are doctors, attorneys, escorts, clients, or cab drivers. Interesting how the same human elements underlay all walks of life no matter what station.

[Doug69]

>Wow, your logic doesn't often fail as rapidly as it does here.

>There is NEVER "one infection".

>

>One individual is infected. He was infected by SOMEONE. He

>admits to having promiscuous unprotected sex, so presumably

>SOMEONE else is having promiscuous unprotected sex too.

 

I think you're missing the point. Of course it is the case that if this individual is infected with a particular strain of HIV, then it must mean that others are infected with this strain as well. That is not the issue.

 

The issue is whether it is REALLY the case that this particular strain of HIV is fundamentally different than others in that it causes extremely rapid progression from HIV to AIDS and is also drug-resistant, or whether it is something unique about this patient that has caused these attributes to be found.

 

That is the point which Robert Gallo, the world's preeminent retrovirologist, was making in the original NY Times article. After generating baseless hysteria, the NY Times now seems to realize this basic point as well, as it included this excerpt in its article this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/health/14aids.html?hp&ex=1108443600&en=097a3aa47299fe33&ei=5059&partner=AOL):

 

_____________________________

 

"Many more tests need to be conducted to determine if the strains from the three people are the same, said the scientist, Dr. David Ho. He directs the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan, which is conducting some of the studies in collaboration with the New York City health department. While some findings may be available in a week, others will take longer, Dr. Ho said in an interview.

 

Even if the strains prove to be the same, that would not necessarily mean that a supervirus is on the loose, since there could be genetic factors in the first man that would make his infection progress faster.

 

"What we can't prove is that this is a supervirus" and that it caused the rapid progression from infection to AIDS in the New York City man, Dr. Ho said.

 

Laboratory tests in Dr. Ho's laboratory and elsewhere have shown that the strain from the man whose case started the investigation is resistant to 19 of the 20 licensed anti-retroviral drugs. AIDS experts said that the strain might have led to the rapid onset of AIDS in the man or that his immune defenses might have been weakened by drug use or genetics."

____________________________

 

Some people have defective immune systems genetically. Take someone like that, and then pump them up with crystal meth every day for a few months, and it is hardly surprising that weird, fucked-up reactions would occur if you then introduce HIV into their system (such as rapid progression to AIDS and drug-resistance).

 

That was Dr. Gallo's point, and it seems to me to be an obvious one: the fact that this strain caused these effects in this one individual is miles and miles away, scientifically, from provig or even suggesting that there is some new superstrain of HIV that causes death in months and is resistant to drugs.

 

But the storyline is catching on because it's sensationalistic and, admittedly, scary. But it is so far from being a fact that I actually think it's questioanble whether the NY Times should have published it at all, particularly given the malignant ways in which it is sure to be used by anti-gay crusaders and even (if this thread is any indication) gay people who want to stigmatize those with HIV as a way of protecting themselves.

[Doug69]

>This is a bit of sophistry. Although one will not, of course,

>get thrown off of a horse if one doesn't ride a horse, clearly

>the overwhelming majority of horse riders do not get

>paralyzed.

 

No - Christopher Reeve wasn't just "riding a horse." He was riding extremely large horses and using them to jump over very high hurdles. The danger that you can be thrown from the horse is obvious; it's the REASON people do it.

 

People engage in activities like that for one reason and one reason only: the DANGER and RISK of the activity provides a rush, an andreline-driven shot of pleasure, that is no different than why people ride roller coasters or sky dive or race cars or snort cocaine or take cum in their ass. All the time, people are injured and killed becasue they knowingly engage in risky behavior in order to give themselves pleasure. For some reason, the "he-deserved-it" hatred arises only when the disease in question is HIV.

 

In the case of someone who has unprotected anal

>sex with lots of guys, however, the result will almost

>certainly be HIV infection.

 

I generally assume that when someone is on the Internet looking specifically for BB sex, it means that they already have HIV. Sure, there is some marginal risk that they could harm themselves further by contracting different strains (although this is by no means proven), but that risk is small compared to all other kinds of much greater risks that are perfectly socially acceptable for people to take.

 

Most injuries and deaths that occur can be attributed in some ways to something the person did. Why do fat people not have the same exact hatred and blame directed at them as barebackers? What can be worse for your health than to walk around with enormous amounts of extra fat because you're too selfish to stop eating and to exercise?

 

And yet, not only would it be considered disgusting and outrageous to say things like "he deserved it" and "I hope he dies more quickly" about fat people (even though people like you say things like that all the time about people with HIV), I'd be willing to bet lots and lots of money that many of the people who talk about barebackers like they're some Satanically-spawned Hitlers are themselves quite fat and therefore putting themselves and their own health at great risk becasue of their own destructive, pleasure-driven behavior.

 

Lots of people feel quite guilty about their own sexual activities. That's particularly true of gay men, and, I'd bet, even more true of gay men - like those here - who regularly hire prostitutes. People who feel guilty and ashamed about their own activities always need someone else to attack and look down upon in order to make themselves feel better ("I may be a promiscuous faggot who pays prostitutes to have sex with me, but at least I don't bareback like THOSE DIRTY FAGGOTS OVER THERE").

 

I think it is this sad little psychological problem, and really nothing else, that explains why people are so willing to attack and stigmatize those who bareback even while overlooking, or even engaging in, beahvior that is (at least) equally risky and destrucive.

[guptasa1]

Gonna post this link again:

http://www.aidsmeds.com/Fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=18079

 

Tim and Andy are both experts, and this is a great resource for learning about HIV. Basically saying the same thing Doug69 is saying - don't jump to conclusions about this "new strain" like the majority of articles seem to have done; it might not be what the media's making it out to me.

[Doug69]

>Gonna post this link again:

>http://www.aidsmeds.com/Fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=18079

 

That is an excellent discussion, Guptasa. Thanks for posting it.

 

The real scientific community is now reacting to that shrill, hysterical piece of dog shit which the New York Times - now barely distinguishable from the New York Post - smeared all over their front page on Sunday in order to generate controversy.

 

From today's Guardian:

__________________

 

"However a number of specialists warned against jumping to conclusions. Robert Gallo, a co-discoverer of the Aids virus, told the NYT the combination may be just chance.

 

"It can be the patient, not the virus that is rare," he said.

 

Roger Pomerantz, of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, suggested: "Every medical centre in a major metropolitan area will have cases like this. You've got to really prove something before you go on CNN and scream about a super-strain."

 

In Britain, Barry Evans a consultant epidemiologist for the government's Health Protection Agency, said: "At the moment, it is only a single case. There is enormous variation in people's progress to Aids. We know of some people, only a small number of cases historically, who have progressed very quickly."

 

He said he preferred to wait until there was more evidence in scientific literature about the detailed structure and molecular basis of the virus in this case before being able to consider whether it was more virulent. Other questions that need investigating, he said, included seeing whether substance abuse increased a person's susceptibility to disease.

 

He also said that even if a patient showed resistance to a specific class of drug, it did not necessarily mean that he or she would be resistant to every drug in the class. "Having said all that, it is a bit of a wake-up call, saying there is virus being transmitted that is resistant to a significant number of drugs."

 

Jo Robinson, a senior specialist in health promotion for the Terrence Higgins Trust, also urged caution, saying it was a ... storm in a teacup".

 

Some people did show Aids symptoms temporarily after HIV diagnosis because their immune system seemed to go haywire. "That can happen no matter what strain of HIV you pick up and the fact this has happened with multi-resistant HIV is mere chance."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1412235,00.html

[menrus]

You guys here get into some serious posting.

[OneFinger]

An unidentified San Diego resident may be infected with the same rare, aggressive and highly drug-resistant strain of HIV found last week in a New York City man who has rapidly become ill with AIDS, health officials said yesterday.

 

Read the full story at:

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050215-9999-1n15aids.html

[Guest]

>I think it is this sad little psychological problem, and

>really nothing else, that explains why people are so willing

>to attack and stigmatize those who bareback even while

>overlooking, or even engaging in, beahvior that is (at least)

>equally risky and destrucive.

 

Actually, it's not the sexual thing at all. I have disdain for anyone who acts with wanton disregard for the lives of themselves and others. I'm sorry, but horseback riding stunts don't count. Several months ago, I read in the paper that a drunk 19 year-old driving 90 miles an hour on the freeway had her car spin out of control and was killed instantly. My thoughts were:

(1) Thank God no one else was hurt.

(2) I hope she was an organ donor.

and

(3) I hope she died before she could pass on any of her stupid-genes.