US close to eliminating AIDS in infants

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-31 10:47am

frigidmagi wrote:What about the blood transfusion victums? Didn't we have a couple of those before the testing procedures went up?

back in the 1980's. Although the screening is so much more stringent now that new HIV cases from blood transfusions are almost unheard of in most places.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-31 11:24am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
salm wrote: mmmhh... the article isn´t claiming that people in general are getting healed. only that there is a vast number of less infected people born. they´re not saying that aids is magically going to disappear overnight.
no, but the elimination of truly innocent victims of the disease is a great step forward.

a very great step forward indeed. i´m not arguing that. only explaining to NUA that he obviously understood the article wrong.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-01-31 04:56pm

salm wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
salm wrote: mmmhh... the article isn´t claiming that people in general are getting healed. only that there is a vast number of less infected people born. they´re not saying that aids is magically going to disappear overnight.
no, but the elimination of truly innocent victims of the disease is a great step forward.
a very great step forward indeed. i´m not arguing that. only explaining to NUA that he obviously understood the article wrong.

No. My position is that, while we are somehow developping ways to lessen mother-child transmission, AIDS might- and probably will- adapt.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-31 04:58pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote: No. My position is that, while we are somehow developping ways to lessen mother-child transmission, AIDS might- and probably will- adapt.

as any virus will do, Which is why prevention is the only thing that will truly stop this disease in it's tracks. However many people don't want to hear that.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2005-01-31 08:08pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: The difference is that newborns never engaged in any high risk behavior leading to their condition. Their only 'crime' (for lack of a better term was being born. Conversly, most adults with the infection have obtained it by sharing dirty needles, or by having unprotected sex. I'm not saying that all people who have HIV are somehow bad, but the fact is that if people layed off the smack, and wore protection this disease would be stopped cold. However human nature as it is, people make mistakes.

Let's see...

... one of the causes of HIV infection in non-drug-using women is men, supposedly in a monogamous relationship, cheating on their partners (with either women or other men) and bringing the virus home. Unless you suggest ALL married people should wear condoms during ALL sex play except when specifically trying to conceive? This route - through husbands - is the main cause of HIV infection in women in Africa, NOT drug-use, NOT prostitution.

Most hemophilliacs with HIV infection obtained it from tainted blood products

There are still some cases that appear through surgical procedures.

Medical personnel still contract the disease through accidental needle-sticks.

Yes, many adults with HIV engaged in high-risk behavior, but certainly not all of them. It's too knee-jerk for my book to simply shrug, say "oh well, they're adults, they must have fucked up to get sick" and simply dump them on the garbage heap. There are LOTS of adults who get HIV without having done anything wrong or immoral.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-31 08:52pm

Now guys like that I have no problem shooting.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-02-01 04:01am

Now guys like that I have no problem shooting.

And this is such a pious position to take. It's easy to jump on a bandwagon and try to look morally superior by judging people so harshly. Yes there are SOME people that might be deliberately sociopathic enough to knowingly have unprotected sex with people and not give a damn what their actions cause because they care about their own temporary gratification. Granted.

But there are also many people that have sex without either A) knowing they are infected, B) Know they are but haven't had the full facts explained to them as to transmission, risks or seriousness of the condition (Africa being a wonderful example), C) Educated in ways of social sex sensibility. In Canada right now they have a campaign focused on the theme of "Assumptions". It's an excellent idea and it deals with unspoken ideas such as "He came in me, he must be negative" or "He hasn't asked for a condom, he must be safe", etc. There are many people that have a little knowledge, but not ENOUGH. They are not necessarily evil, but they are not educated enough to act responsibly.

I'm just trying to make the point that in the great majority of cases, we are dealing with horny people that are engaging in high-risk behaviour that is influenced by MANY factors. It's an area that humans are the LEAST sensible in their actions. This is a given. Hormones make the best of us vulnerable to stupid decisions.

A blanket statement like I would SHOOT people for being responsible for high-risk transmission is just way too judgemental. Think about what you are saying. You would literally line people up and KILL them for these kind of mistakes? In all their forms? It's far too easy to lump people in a morally reprehensible category when you judge this sweepingly.

What a curse STD's are. It's the worst form of transimission imaginable. Piggybacking along with something so pleasurable and biologically demanding.

It's a piss off that the religious right has such a scapegoat to try and equate "morality" with serves you right. It's a totally false correlation, but they use it anyway.

Even though many illnesses can be traced to a behaviour that likely caused or at the very least, excacerbated it, (diet = heart disease), suntanning = skin cancer, smoking = lung cancer), it seems that people really HARP on the morality issue of it being someone's true fault for suffering something sexually acquired. Would you shoot someone for working at Mcdonalds and handing out big macs to a regular customer that died of a heart attack? Shooting the CEO's of Rothmans when someone dies of lung cancer? The people working in a tanning salon? They are all accomplices. Unless somebody is RAPED, there are consenting adults having sex. Everybody and their dog knows about safe sex and the reason for it. Where's the personal responsibility?

I just hate the inference that people who catch a sexual disease are in ANY way automatically NOT "innocent". Not "pure". Not "blameless". It's another form of puritanism that demonizes sex.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-02-01 09:52am

I don't give a damn about that. Not being faithful to a partner is damning enough in my eyes. Taking this kinda risk and then dumping it on your wife or whatever is just not fair play.

You can whine to me all you want this is about lieing to one of the few people in the world you should be truthful with and then putting thier lives at risk without even fair warning. That is frankly rather disgusting on this level, it's like driving drunk with your kids in the back seat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-01 10:08am

Justforfun000 wrote:They are not necessarily evil, but they are not educated enough to act responsibly.

Part of your moral duty in society is to take some responsibility for the safety of those you love (and to a lesser degree, all members of your society), and that includes the responsibility to educate yourself on the risks you may be subjecting them to.

In short, ignorance is no excuse. Not when the resources are available to educate yourself, particularly with all of the public-awareness programs out there.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-02-01 12:35pm

I don't give a damn about that. Not being faithful to a partner is damning enough in my eyes. Taking this kinda risk and then dumping it on your wife or whatever is just not fair play.

You can whine to me all you want this is about lieing to one of the few people in the world you should be truthful with and then putting thier lives at risk without even fair warning. That is frankly rather disgusting on this level, it's like driving drunk with your kids in the back seat.

Hey, no argument there. Is that where you were going with that statement before? I thought you were making a blanket statement regarding all people involved. Sorry.

That's a specific situation you are giving and I totally agree in that case.

Part of your moral duty in society is to take some responsibility for the safety of those you love (and to a lesser degree, all members of your society), and that includes the responsibility to educate yourself on the risks you may be subjecting them to.

In short, ignorance is no excuse. Not when the resources are available to educate yourself, particularly with all of the public-awareness programs out there.

And again with that particular portion I was thinking more of teenagers and/or people in very repressed, particularly religious lifestyles that are dealing with assholes doing everything they CAN to either keep quiet about sexuality or misinform as much as possible. A la Bush on the light side, and stretching far more extreme with JW's and Mormons.

My general point was that a blanket condemnation of every person with hiv, even if they were guilty of negligence or unknowing transmission, are not necessarily EVIL and shooting them would be ridiculous.

We need better education and REAL morals combined to help curb and contain this pandemic.