Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"HIV-positive man a 'real and present danger,' court hear

Public Health AIDS 2007

  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 06:58 PM

BRAVA!
Posted Image

#122 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 07:14 PM

^Thanks. :blush:

Edited by Rhea, 01 January 2008 - 07:14 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#123 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 08:58 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 1 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Almost across the board, we can track a palpable desire to punish the infected (i.e., this law; Senator Frist--a medical doctor--refusing to stipulate that the tears of an HIV+ person can't hurt you; Governor Huckabee continuing to advocate quarantining HIV+ people) rather than adopt policies that will truly limit the spread of the disease (i.e., needle exchanges; free condoms everywhere -- includigs high schools; gay-inclusive sex ed, et al.)

I disagree; this isn't about punishing someone who is infected; it's about punishing someone who is trying to infect others.

#124 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 09:04 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 1 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

No one said HIV can't kill you, but you alleged that HIV is 100% fatal, Hambil, and that's flat-out false.  In fact, young people who have access to HAART therapy (and conscientiously adhere to it) can now expect to live an average of 35 years post infection.  Which means that, on average, they will enjoy a normal lifespan.

That's still nonsense. This guy isn't telling the women that he's HIV positive. They may not know for quite awhile that they're HIV positive and it might be too late for them to do anything about it. And living 35 years post infection is nothing if they're still dying earlier than they should have.

Quote

So can we all agreet to dispense with this plague era, fearmongering

It's guys like this who are fueling the fear! He's infecting women without their knowledge. He's giving them a disease and not giving them the knowledge of it that would help them to fight it.

Quote

There is also at least one confirmed case of an HIV+ person spontaneously ridding his body of the disease.

Actually, that article states that nothing's really confirmed. They have 2 tests; one positive and one negative. That's certainly not conclusive.

#125 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 01 January 2008 - 09:55 PM

View PostBroph, on Jan 1 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

Actually, that article states that nothing's really confirmed.

Actually, "confirmed" is exactly what it says:  

Quote

...an extensive investigation, including DNA testing on his blood samples, has confirmed all the results

Bolding mine.  So they know for sure that he rid his body of HIV.  

If this is what you were referring to...

Quote

However, those working with AIDS patients urged caution. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it really is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."

...nobody claimed otherwise.  Unfortunatley, it appears as though this guy has refused to cooperate with the experts' understandable desire to figure out how his body accomplished this... but that doesn't change the fact that his body DID rid itself of HIV.

Edited by ScottEVill, 01 January 2008 - 10:22 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#126 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 06:19 AM

While I know that optimism is important, I worry that it can lead to complacency--and a spike in infection rates.

According to an article in today's New York Times, that seems to be happening, at least among men under 30:

http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

Quote

The number of new H.I.V. infections in men under 30 who have sex with men has increased sharply in New York City in the last five years, particularly among blacks and Hispanics, even as AIDS deaths and overall H.I.V. infection rates in the city have steadily declined.

New figures from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene show that the annual number of new infections among black and Hispanic men who have sex with men rose 34 percent between 2001 and 2006, and rose for all men under 30 who have sex with men by 32 percent.

At a time when the number of new cases among older gay men is dropping — by 22 percent in New York City during the same period — AIDS experts are bearing down on what they say is a worrisome and perplexing growth of H.I.V. infection among young men like Mr. Arriola.

So far, they say, the significant factors feeding the trend appear to be higher rates of drug use among younger men, which can fuel dangerous sex practices, optimism among them that AIDS can be readily treated, and a growing stigma about H.I.V. among gays that keeps some men from revealing that they are infected. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of new infection cases among young white men who have sex with men, but still that group had fewer new cases in 2006: 100, compared with 228 among blacks and 165 among Hispanics.

Quote

Mr. Edmonds and other gay men say the stigma of being infected with H.I.V. is growing, and may be greater now than it was in the 1990s, when the AIDS epidemic became a unifying cause, a shared tragedy for gay men.

“I call it, ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Mr. Edmonds said. “People are not asking — it’s like it’s an offensive question.”

Kyle, who found out that he had the virus two years ago, at the age of 23, said he had grown weary of what he called “pity dates,” men who agreed to go out with him after he revealed he was infected, but had no intention of pursuing a relationship. He said that out of about 10 men he had dated in the last two years, only one — who was, at 40, the oldest — was willing to go beyond pity dates.

“They blame you and want nothing to do with you; they put you at the end of the line,” said Kyle, who spoke on the condition that his last name not be used because he said he believed his condition would hurt him professionally. “The older generation sees AIDS as a tragedy, the younger generation sees it as self-destructive behavior.”

He said he was infected by someone who did not reveal that he had the virus until after they had unprotected sex.

Quote

Dr. Frieden also said that another likely explanation was “treatment optimism,” and the many messages gay men receive through AIDS drug advertisements that people like Mr. Arriola can live long and normal lives.

“People who grew up watching their friends die of AIDS are a lot more careful than those who didn’t,” said Dr. Frieden, who said he cared for large numbers of AIDS patients in his earlier medical practice.

He said the department was planning to begin a new H.I.V. prevention campaign aimed at younger men, and a new marketing strategy for their condom campaign later this year. “When’s the last time we saw someone with lesions walking through Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen?” said Victoria Sharp, director of the Center for Comprehensive Care, which is currently providing medical care and other services to 3,000 H.I.V. patients at Roosevelt Hospital and in Harlem. “You don’t see it, and we haven’t seen it since the mid-1990s, so there is a whole generation or two who have grown up without seeing the physical manifestations.”

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#127 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:02 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 2 2008, 02:55 AM, said:

View PostBroph, on Jan 1 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

Actually, that article states that nothing's really confirmed.

Actually, "confirmed" is exactly what it says:  

Quote

...an extensive investigation, including DNA testing on his blood samples, has confirmed all the results

Bolding mine.  So they know for sure that he rid his body of HIV.  

All they've confirmed is that there was a positive and negative test and that it really was his blood. For all we know, the second sample of blood could have been a sample taken from him earlier than the infection.

Quote

If this is what you were referring to...

Quote

However, those working with AIDS patients urged caution. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it really is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."

...nobody claimed otherwise.

Actually, you just claimed otherwise; you said that the tests were confirmed. One positive and one negative test is not confirmation of anything.

Quote

Unfortunatley, it appears as though this guy has refused to cooperate with the experts' understandable desire to figure out how his body accomplished this... but that doesn't change the fact that his body DID rid itself of HIV.

Actually, my point is that it is not, actually, a fact. Without further tests, it can't be stated as a fact. The first test sample may have been tainted - he might not have ever been HIV + in the first place!

Edited by Broph, 02 January 2008 - 08:07 AM.


#128 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:16 AM

View PostBroph, on Jan 2 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 2 2008, 02:55 AM, said:

View PostBroph, on Jan 1 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

Actually, that article states that nothing's really confirmed.

Actually, "confirmed" is exactly what it says:  

Quote

...an extensive investigation, including DNA testing on his blood samples, has confirmed all the results

Bolding mine.  So they know for sure that he rid his body of HIV.  

All they've confirmed is that there was a positive and negative test and that it really was his blood. For all we know, the second sample of blood could have been a sample taken from him earlier than the infection.

And the first sample could've been taken *after* the second one... Oh, wait, no, that would be a predestination paradox.  

Quote

Quote

If this is what you were referring to...

Quote

However, those working with AIDS patients urged caution. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "This appears to be a highly unusual case and without further tests it really is impossible to draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."

...nobody claimed otherwise.

Actually, you just claimed otherwise;

No, I never claimed it was possible to use this case to "draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."  

Quote

you said that the tests were confirmed.

Because they have been.  As the article said.  

Quote

One positive and one negative test is not confirmation of anything.

It's confirmation that the man rid HIV from his body.  

Quote

Actually, my point is that it is not, actually, a fact. Without further tests, it can't be stated as a fact. The first test sample may have been tainted - he might not have ever been HIV + in the first place!

Whatever.  Not worth fighting over.  If you don't want to believe it, you don't have to.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#129 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:24 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 2 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

And the first sample could've been taken *after* the second one... Oh, wait, no, that would be a predestination paradox.

You've heard of people donating blood, right? Blood is taken out of the body and put into a bag. Even though we know that it's his blood because of DNA testing, we don't know if the first sample was taken first! He could have had some of his own blood in storage for some reason.

Quote

No, I never claimed it was possible to use this case to "draw any conclusions for people living with HIV."

Sure you did. You said that it was a fact that one man rid his own body of the disease. You drew a conclusion.

Quote

Because they have been.  As the article said.

But that's not confirmation that the man is no longer HIV +, that he ever was HIV +, or that he rid his body of the disease. All that it means is that there were 2 tests that contradict each other.

Quote

It's confirmation that the man rid HIV from his body.

No! As I stated earlier, there are many reasons why each of the tests could have been doctored to give any number of results! When one test is positive and one is negative, nothing is confirmed. You only get confirmation when you run multiple test that give consistent results.

Quote

Whatever.  Not worth fighting over.  If you don't want to believe it, you don't have to.

Scott, it's not about belief. It's about facts. And in this example, there are none. One can't state that these are facts because they want it to be true. There have to be consistent test results, and we have none.

#130 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:28 AM

Easy folks. This isn't worth having any sort of epic fight over.

For the record, if this fellow was genuinely and HIV sufferer, and had legitimately managed to cure himself, I would think he would be willing to have several more follow up tests done, as well as being willing to explain in detail how he did it to the medical establishment. His refusal to cooperate with HIV researchers does, I must admit, set off my hoax-meter.

This may be controversial, but I find it morally indefensible that someone who has legitimately managed to cure himself of a disease that is affecting millions of people would intentionally withold his aid to relieve fellow sufferers. Either this man is as callous as it gets, or again represents a hoax.

It does happen after all, and sometimes in very high profile cases.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#131 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 10:10 AM

View PostGodeskian, on Jan 2 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Easy folks. This isn't worth having any sort of epic fight over.

As I've said in other threads; when I bold something, I'm emphasizing something that's important. I'm not engaging in a heated debate; I'm clarifying what is and isn't a fact.

Quote

For the record, if this fellow was genuinely and HIV sufferer, and had legitimately managed to cure himself, I would think he would be willing to have several more follow up tests done, as well as being willing to explain in detail how he did it to the medical establishment. His refusal to cooperate with HIV researchers does, I must admit, set off my hoax-meter.

Exactly!

#132 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 10:16 AM

View PostBroph, on Jan 2 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

View PostGodeskian, on Jan 2 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Easy folks. This isn't worth having any sort of epic fight over.

As I've said in other threads; when I bold something, I'm emphasizing something that's important. I'm not engaging in a heated debate; I'm clarifying what is and isn't a fact.

Fair enough, but I'd rather be pre-emptive than sorry.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#133 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,326 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 04:43 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 1 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

Why?  Because disclosure tells you NOTHING.  No one should ever trust anyone who says, "I'm negative."  

Even if he isn't lying, all disclosure tells you is what he thinks his status is.  He could have been infected 2 months ago, but tested negative yesterday.  Does everybody get that?  Even the newest, most sensitive HIV tests can sometimes take months post-infection to return a positive result.  

So you could have a newly-infected (aka, hyper-contagious) person who is absolutely telling the truth when he tells you he tested negative yesterday.  

This law places such importance on the HIV+ person disclosing their status that when no disclosure is made, or when a person claims to be negative, it's a strong incentive to believe that no further action is needed to protect oneself.

Quote

Talk about unreasonable.  First of all, that's not a fact, it's an opinion, and it's an opinion that flies in the face of reality.  

No surgeon general has ever said "HIV+ people shouldn't be having sex," casual or otherwise.  What makes you think you know better?  Your extensive experience in the area of public health or infectious disease control?  

Or is it fear talking?  'cause that's how it seems to me whenever people say, "HIV+ people shouldn't be having sex."  I always hear the addendum, "so I don't have to worry about getting infected."  

And, I'm sorry, but absent celibacy, HIV- people do have to worry about getting infected.  There's no way around that (even for married people--spouses cheat all the time).  There are, however, ways to make infection very, very unlikely.  And that's what we need to focus on.

I only wanted to reply to these two points, in reverse order.

I never said anything about HIV+ people not having sex.  I think it is quite possible for one to have sex without having casual sex.  I think it is better for EVERYONE to have committed sex, rather than casual sex.  You seem to be reading something into my opinion that just isn't there.

I also will retract my statement that it is "FACT" that someone who is HIV+ shouldn't be having casual sex.  That's my opinion. But I think that my opinion is not unreasonable.  Casual sex is risky behavior - condoms aren't foolproof, and an HIV+ person having casual sex has a higher statistical chance of spreading the disease than an HIV+ person having committed sex - unless, of course, s/he is having casual sex with other HIV+ people.

On the other point, I think we are arguing two different points.  They don't negate each other, so we need to separate them.

No one should ever trust the word of someone claiming to be HIV- (or any other disease).  They should still use condoms.  We agree.  It is a public health issue for people to relax the use of condoms just on false trust.

That is a totally separate issue from someone knowingly and willfully withholding their status as a communicable disease carrier.  That behavior is criminal - maybe even sociopathic.  One person's stupidity doesn't negate another person's criminality.  

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#134 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 07:07 PM

And once again I get to say "What QT said," particularly this:

Quote

No one should ever trust the word of someone claiming to be HIV- (or any other disease). They should still use condoms. We agree. It is a public health issue for people to relax the use of condoms just on false trust.

That is a totally separate issue from someone knowingly and willfully withholding their status as a communicable disease carrier. That behavior is criminal - maybe even sociopathic. One person's stupidity doesn't negate another person's criminality.

And to amplify, casual sex is more risky because there are more partners involved. That's not a moral judgement, it's just a fact. If you're sleeping with multiple people and you have an STD that's just more people to potentially infect.

Edited by Rhea, 03 January 2008 - 07:08 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#135 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 06:40 AM

I haven't been to this thread for a while and dang it is long, just can't read it all. So my comments may or may not be relevant.

Ladies, how many of us have been lied to by men wanting sex? For me a multitude of times. Lies about wives, about cheating, about leaving wives, that they love us, had a vasectomy etc. ect. ect.  the list goes on. (not all men mind you but a great majority)

What we really need to do for our young women in regards to sex education is to teach them how to deal with men who lie.  How to read the signs because they are there. It would save countless broken hearts, broken marriages, unwanted pregnancies and disease. How do we do this? I am unsure, but to start some healthy doses of self esteem would be the first thing I can think of.

Look, the guy is the lowest form of scum to act out in this way, but I also know women who refuse to have sex with a guy unless an AIDS test is placed in their hands.

At this point what is done is done and with or without woodchippers this guy will die sooner than later.  I do like the idea of using him for experimenting with AIDs drugs so he can pay his debt to society.  All anyone can do is to learn from this story and be careful with intimacy, use protection unless you know without a doubt that a partner is disease free.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#136 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:04 AM

Do you feel the same way about women who lie to men? Obviously i'm biased because of my gender, but I have never lied to anyone to get sex (which is probably why I spend most of my time single) but I have been lied to more than a few times.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#137 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:42 AM

I don't think it's reasonable from a moral or a legal standpoint that I should have to go through life assuming everyone's lying.  That would be an incredibly cynical way to live and I don't think it's right.  Does this mean I leave my brain at the door when it comes to sex?  Of course not.  But it doesn't change this guy's culpability, morally or legally, for his conduct.

Lil
Posted Image

#138 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 08:55 AM

View PostGiGi, on Jan 4 2008, 06:40 AM, said:

I do like the idea of using him for experimenting with AIDs drugs so he can pay his debt to society.  All anyone can do is to learn from this story and be careful with intimacy, use protection unless you know without a doubt that a partner is disease free.

I also think that unless the medication given to him is a instant cure that he not be put on any regualr therapy after it passes to human trials.  I would like him to be that stage after animal trials then computer then him and lastly human trials.

I know it will not happen that way. He will be given the regular medications and as his body fails will be taken off any labors he might be given in prison. In short he will be given a license to goldbrick. As well as his three meals a day time to work out and watch TV.  That is if his lawyers can not get him that sweetheart deal that was being discussed where he will be smacked on the wrist.

Since the state is not going to send him off to meet God or the Devil he is already getting treated better than he deserves.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#139 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 03:27 PM

View PostBroph, on Jan 2 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

View PostGodeskian, on Jan 2 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Easy folks. This isn't worth having any sort of epic fight over.

As I've said in other threads; when I bold something, I'm emphasizing something that's important. I'm not engaging in a heated debate; I'm clarifying what is and isn't a fact.

Quote

For the record, if this fellow was genuinely and HIV sufferer, and had legitimately managed to cure himself, I would think he would be willing to have several more follow up tests done, as well as being willing to explain in detail how he did it to the medical establishment. His refusal to cooperate with HIV researchers does, I must admit, set off my hoax-meter.

Exactly!

The man in question is not the only person to have spontaneous regression of HIV that resulted him becoming HIV(-).  I don't have time right now to look up the other cases, but basically it's a genetic thing.  It's not something you can replicate with medication.  If the doctors talked to him about it, he might know that basically what they're trying to do is get further proof of which specific gene it is and simply didn't want yet another blood draw to give them more evidence.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#140 RobL

RobL

  • Dead account
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:38 PM

View PostNikcara, on Jan 4 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Jan 2 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

View PostGodeskian, on Jan 2 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Easy folks. This isn't worth having any sort of epic fight over.

As I've said in other threads; when I bold something, I'm emphasizing something that's important. I'm not engaging in a heated debate; I'm clarifying what is and isn't a fact.

Quote

For the record, if this fellow was genuinely and HIV sufferer, and had legitimately managed to cure himself, I would think he would be willing to have several more follow up tests done, as well as being willing to explain in detail how he did it to the medical establishment. His refusal to cooperate with HIV researchers does, I must admit, set off my hoax-meter.

Exactly!

The man in question is not the only person to have spontaneous regression of HIV that resulted him becoming HIV(-).  I don't have time right now to look up the other cases, but basically it's a genetic thing.  It's not something you can replicate with medication.  If the doctors talked to him about it, he might know that basically what they're trying to do is get further proof of which specific gene it is and simply didn't want yet another blood draw to give them more evidence.

Dude, if my blood/genes/entrails cured Aids, I'd be selling that sh*t on EBay.

Bring back Darthsikle!




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Public Health, AIDS, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users