HIV/AIDS Myths: Top Ten Myths About HIV and AIDS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2006
- Becky Kuhn, M.D., co-founder of Global Lifeworks, debunks the following 10 myths about HIV and AIDS: HIV doesn't cause AIDS; because of ARV medications, we no longer need to be concerned about HIV/AIDS; if you have HIV and are sexually active, you no longer need to practice safer sex; you can't contract HIV through oral sex; you can't get HIV from one sexual encounter; a woman cannot spread HIV to another woman by having sex with her; if you are HIV positive but your viral load is undetectable, you cannot spread HIV; AIDS can be spread by kissing, hugging, or shaking hands; if you have HIV, you can cure it by having sex with a virgin; every individual with HIV will eventually develop AIDS. This video refutes misinformation from videos "Lee Evans Speaks Out About the HIV Tests," "Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS," "AIDS Inc.," "The Other Side of AIDS," and "House of Numbers." It also debunks the claims of HIV denialists like Peter Duesberg, Stefan Lanka, Kary Mullis, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore, Gary Null, Andrew Maniotis, the Perth Group, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, David Rasnick, Valendar Turner, Robin Scovill, Brent Leung, David Crowe, Walter Gilbert, Harvey Bialy, Rebecca Culshaw, Roberto Giraldo, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, and Matthias Rath. Visit aidstruth.org/denialism/denial..., www.GlobalLifeworks.org and AIDSvideos.org to learn more. This video is freely downloadable from www.archive.org/details/aidsvi... . Disabled accessibility: The transcript for this and many other AIDSvideos.org videos can be downloaded from aidsvideos.org/translate.shtml . [Do you want to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Are you fluent in a language other than English? Then volunteer to translate our videos into other languages! Click AIDSvideos.org/translate.shtml to to learn how you can help!!! © Copyright 2006-2011 Global Lifeworks. All rights reserved. This work is licensed to be used for non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/b....]
Thank you Dr. Kuhn. As a 20 year LTNP its good to see serious, usable information that I can easily share. I have had no HIV related illness and no visible side affects from meds. I'm candid about my status and many people say they would never guess. Thank you for your efforts.
Awesome channel. Thanks for all the great information.
Good video! Finally some common sense!
Great job guys. Keep up the good work.
Kudos on getting appropriately tested and glad you've drawn the correct conclusion that you want to reduce your risks going forward. Keep following your doctor's instructions for any additional tests if they are indicated. (I don't know which tests you've taken or when you can be 100% sure you're in the clear.) Also, kudos for wanting to help the fight against AIDS--bravo!!!
It was a good debate. Keep up the good work!
Hi Chapeau - Good to hear from you. Could you point me to the CDC page or quote you're looking at so I can take a look? HIV- 6 months after exposure has been the traditional "all clear" date. I'm aware that with newer tests, some feel comfortable with an all clear at an earlier date, but I'd like to see the statement you're looking at, thanks!
Well, thank you for being honest enough to acknowledge that you passed on disinformation. Was it intentional or unintentional? If intentional, why should we believe your other statements? If it was unintentional, are you rethinking your other statements to determine whether they were disinformation as well?
Thank you doctor!
I am a HIV/AIDS negative person considering doing outreach with people who do have HIV/AIDS. I am concerned about what risks I may face, and I want ot be informed to eliminate any ignorance I may have about this. I know touching, huggin etc does not spread the disease, where can I find out more info about the risks of coming in contact with someone who may be hurt and bleeding, someone sneezes, vomits, etc...Thanks for helping me find more info.
That's what that study showed. Remember, other factors can increase the risk above that estimated average, e.g. if the woman just contracted HIV and is in the middle of primary HIV infection with a high viral load, or if one or both partners have other STDs, etc.
Yes, if you are HIV+, you should be able to get free medical care under the Ryan White Care Act. Note that it hasn't been fully funded so there are waiting lists for treatment in some areas, unfortunately.
This is Eric. If you're in the United States or another developed country where modern testing procedures are followed, the risk is believed to now be incredibly low. (I don't have the exact stats on me and couldn't find them in a quick search.) Modern screening pools samples from multiple donations together, then uses an expensive, sensitive test on the pool. If the pool is positive, each individual donation is then tested to identify the specific donation with HIV or HIV antibodies present.
This is Eric. There are two receptors that HIV-1 uses to get in to CD4 cells: CCR4 and CCR5. A lot of the long-term non-progressors have a mutation so one of the receptors is missing or different, which makes it hard for HIV to enter the cell and gives some degree of resistance to the person. There is research underway on approaches like genetic therapies that might take a person's stem cells, give them this mutation, and reinject them so the person could produce resistant CD4 cells themselves.
Very informative video.
This is Eric. I agree no one should be cast aside, and I also agree we shouldn't create "classes" of HIV+ depending on how they contracted the disease. One thing I need to point out: unfortunately, there are some people who deliberately seek to become infected with HIV. See the documentary "The Gift" and wikipedia article "Bugchasing and giftgiving" for details.
During the so-called "latent period," HIV is not inactive, nor is there a "trigger" it's "waiting" for. It's actively attacking and killing CD4 cells, but the body is generating new ones at the same pace so the patient may remain asymptomatic. Typically, over time, the body no longer can keep up, CD4 count drops, and the patient becomes symptomatic and develops clinical AIDS. Presence of HIV in the body can be detected directly using the PCR test.
Hi AIDSvideos: I have always believed what I have been tought about HIV/AIDS. But I have been looking at some videos of people who refused to take medication and used instead better nutrition (vegetarian food). And they say that they are fine. Is that possible? Is it possible to be OK without medication? I understand that it can also go many years before a HIV carrier finds out about it because his/her health are good. Can you please provide me with more information in this regard?
A patient is diagnosed as having clinical AIDS when they are (1) HIV positive, and either (2a) have a CD4 count under 200, or (2b) have one or more opportunistic infections or cancers (e.g. pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, tuberculosis, Kaposi's sarcoma, etc.) that indicate their immune system has been compromised by the HIV infection. CD4 cells are also referred to as "T cells" or "white blood cells."
Point taken.
OK, thanks for the heads-up. I read the document you mentioned. A bit of an edge case, but one can't be too careful in making statements about HIV. Our updated script "Common Myths About HIV/AIDS" clarifies this point to read "You cant become infected with HIV by giving a person a light kiss on the lips." I'll see if I can use UA-cam's annotation feature to add a clarifying note on this video as well.
I can't really afford to see a dr, hate going to the clinic, whats the cheapest way to get tested for hiv?
This video got 3 stars.. It deserves 4. Although some points discussed alot of people already know, some out there still aren't educated on AIDS. Knowledge is power.
It's certainly true that if a substance is not patentable, the market incentive for profit making entities (such as publicly traded companies) to conduct controlled clinical studies, which are expensive, is essentially eliminated. In that case, public and/or not-for-profit financing is a possible (albeit difficult) answer for unpatentable but promising substances. An academic researcher could apply to the National Institute for Health for a research grant, for example.
Follow-up: it's worth noting that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommended in September 2006 that all patients age 13-64 years be tested for HIV when they visit the doctors office. So although mass screening of elementary school children still would not be cost effective, research has shown that in the U.S., doing an HIV test for every patient at a routine doctor's office visit (a visit they make for other reasons anyway) is in fact cost effective.
Infants who contract HIV from their mother usually become infected during the birth process (via exposure to blood & other maternal fluids during passage through the birth canal) or after birth by nursing on the mother's milk. This is why to prevent mother-to-child transmission, we use ARVs for the mother to reduce maternal viral load, Caesarian section to reduce exposure to maternal blood, ARVs for the infant as post-exposure prophylaxis, and infant formula to avoid exposure to HIV in milk.
I want to ask you guys. If we french kiss someone everyday, but we're not sure he/she's open sore or cuts. Do we still at the risk of HIV? thank youu
Median time between contracting HIV and progressing to clinical AIDS diagnosis (without treatment) is about 10 years in developed countries, less in developing countries where people are less healthy and well nourished. That's the median (middle point in the bell curve). Individual disease progression rate varies.
BW002 trial showed only 1 of 145 patients treated with AZT died vs. 19 of 137 on placebo; 24 on AZT had opportunistic infections vs. 45 on placebo. [NIAID citing Fischl et al, "The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT)...." N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185-91.] ACTG016 trial showed that HIV+ patients with CD4 counts of 200-500 on AZT were less likely to experience disease progression. [NIAID citing Fischl et al, "The Safety ..." Ann Intern Med. 1990 May 15;112(10):727-37.]
Yes. See wikipedia article on "HIV" for a table showing the estimated relative risks of various sexual practices.
Different approaches have been tried over time in terms of when a person who is HIV+ is started on ARVs (originally AZT monotherapy, today "triple cocktail"). Current practice is to prescribe ARVs when patient's CD4 count drops below 350 or they develop symptoms. [Hammer et al, "Treatment for Adult HIV Infection," JAMA 2006;296:827-843.] Studies clearly show that patients treated this way live longer than those left untreated. Also, even AZT monotherapy saved lives. (Cite follows.)
"HIV-1 PCR and HIV-1 culture were compared in testing the PBMC of 59 HIV-1 antibody-positive and 20 HIV-1 antibody-negative hemophiliacs. Both methods were found to have sensitivities and specificities of at least 97 and 100%, respectively .... the sensitivities and specificities .... for the detection of HIV-1 appear to be equivalent, and both methods are superior to testing for HIV-1 antigen in serum for the direct detection of HIV-1." [Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)]
ARVs do sometimes have unpleasant side effects. But remember: (1) often people are put on ARVs because they're already becoming sick with a low CD4 count and/or clinical AIDS symptoms, and they're no panacea, so it's no surprise if people on ARVs still look sick, and (2) they might be sicker or dead if they weren't on the ARVs. Studies have proven that ARVs are safe and effective for treating clinical AIDS. The death rate is lower for those on ARVs than those not treated.
There's no censorship going on. HIV denialists are free to say their views in public, put them on the Internet and videos, and publish them in books, and they have done so. They have complete freedom of speech. Thanks for encouraging people to view the AIDSvideos links. Yes individuals have the right to decide for themselves whether to take prescribed medications. When they decide, I hope they'll rely on the findings of published peer-reviewed controlled scientific studies.
You're entitled to your opinion. To be clear, we took no position on that question in this video. We simply stated that "HIV positive individuals WHO CHOOSE to be sexually active need to practice safer sex to reduce the risk that their HIV negative partner will become infected. When both partners are HIV positive, they also need to practice safer sex .... If a person is HIV positive and chooses to be sexually active, it is important for them to inform their partners."
Glad you brought up South Africa. A key reason HIV spread so widely there was Thabo Mbeki's years of HIV denialism and opposition to ARVs. "According to demographic modelling, if during the Mbeki presidency South Africa had rolled out ARVs for pregnant women with HIV and for treating those sick with Aids at the same rate as happened in the Western Cape, then at least 170 000 HIV infections could have been prevented and more than 340 000 deaths averted." [Nicoli Nattrass 23 July 07]
@mphello: This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. IIRC, the virus that causes chickenpox (on first exposure) and shingles (later in life) is generally only considered transmissible by an adult when the virus has become active and the adult has an active shingles outbreak. Other viruses affect specific tissues in the body and genital-to-genital sexual contact in and of itself wouldn't pose a risk of transmission (although being in close proximity to the person's cough or sneeze would).
What is the possibility of getting HIV if MIGHT have gotten into contact with fresh blood in a small cut on the tip of finger with someone with unknown HIV status?
Cos my symptoms after 1 week of possible contact are itchiness around collarbones and thighs
Merry Christmas....And may God watch over all of the sick and suffering this Christmas season. I wish I had the power to take it all away.
"Casual contact through closed-mouth or 'social' kissing is not a risk for transmission of HIV. Because of the potential for contact with blood during "French" or open-mouth kissing, CDC recommends against engaging in this activity with a person known to be infected. However, the risk of acquiring HIV during open-mouth kissing is believed to be very low. CDC has investigated only one case of HIV infection that may be attributed to contact with blood during open-mouth kissing." [CDC]
True. That's why the video says "Although the risk of an HIV positive woman infecting another woman by having sex is lower, the risk is still not zero." No "huge disservice" there either.
(1) Rates of HIV transmission in the adult film industry in the U.S. are relatively low because the actors are counseled on HIV prevention outside of their work and tested for HIV monthly and a database is kept of their sexual partners for contact tracing if one becomes HIV+. (2) They are not immune. Recently, one actor contracted HIV through unprotected sex in Brazil, and three of his female sex partners subsequently tested HIV positive, with PCR confirming he was the source for two.
Wikipedia's article on "HIV" has a good table showing the estimated risk of HIV transmission of different sexual practices with scientific journal citations for the supporting studies. Suggest you consult those original studies for details involved in estimating relative risk factors of different practices.
@cruzangringa: OK, now I read down and found the exchange you're referring to. Contrary to your claim, I never posted that "to avoid AIDS, you should avoid water with a drop of saliva." I said that avoiding drinking water contaminated with blood and saliva will reduce your risk of various infections, which is a true statement. Her question is not only about saliva. It's about blood AND saliva, which is much more complicated as I noted in my response above.
The U.S. National Intelligence Council published a report in September '02 called "The Next Wave of HIV/AIDS: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, India, and China" highlighting the risk of possible "breakout" of HIV and rapid spread in those countries.
@cruzangringa: I can't possibly quantify the potential risk posed by different concentrations of blood in water for various periods of time in a 500-character UA-cam comment response, so I didn't attempt to (and won't). I simply gave her good health advice: "don't drink water contaminated with blood or saliva." That should reduce her risk of contracting Hepatitis A, for example, or various infections that are waterborne or can be transmitted via exposure to saliva.
NIAID: As of 1991, "10 to 20 percent of wives and sex partners of male HIV-positive hemophiliacs in the United States are also HIV-infected (Pitchenik et al., 1984; Kreiss et al., 1985; Peterman et al., 1988; Smiley et al., 1988; Dietrich and Boone, 1990; Lusher et al., 1991). Through December 1994, the CDC had received reports of 266 cases of AIDS in those who had sex with a person with hemophilia (CDC, 1995a). These data cannot be explained by a non-infectious theory of AIDS etiology."
i have a question if SIV could be eradicated from what i understand is the source aids came from before mutating into aids. could aids be eradicated?
Yes, the theory that HIV causes AIDS absolutely passes the Occam's Razor test. It's the simplest explanation for why HIV+ infants born to HIV+ mothers, HIV+ infants who were nursed on milk from HIV+ mothers, HIV+ recipients of transfusions, HIV+ health care workers who were jabbed with needles with HIV+ blood, and HIV+ patients of an HIV+ dentist who used nonsterile procedure all develop AIDS. The only thing they have in common is being HIV+. They do not share lifestyle factors.
Agree with you about the importance of questioning everything. But remember, anybody can get five friends and create a "peer-reviewed journal." That doesn't mean they, their "journal," or what they publish have any credibility. Journals earn credibility through consistently applying rigorous peer review over many years. HIV denialists are failing to publish in leading journals like Science, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, etc. because they're not doing research of the necessary quality.
Saliva and sweat are both considered to not pose a high risk of HIV transmission. They have a low concentration of HIV so it's believed you're unlikely to be exposed to enough in ordinary contact for transmission to be a meaningful possibility. (Note: It *is* believed possible to transmit HIV through oral sex.)
Previous quote was from CDC, "HIV and Its Transmission," authored July 1999, last reviewed & modified March 2007.
I actually read that "challenge" and let them post a notice about it in the comments here. But the "challenge" statement is a mishmash of conflicting claims, misinformation, and statements that appear to rule out use of standard scientific tests on bogus grounds. They demand a "direct test" for the presence of HIV but seem to rule out tests like PCR. It's completely unscientific, as is the organization posting it and the arbitrary criteria they poorly define and document.
This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. Depends on the degree you want to get. You could get a Master's in Public Health which should take 1-2 years after you complete any prerequisite requirements. (For adult learners who must keep working, this can be done online at Capella and APEI, among other institutions, by the way.) You could get an M.D., which is four years plus your residency. You could get a Ph.D., which typically takes five years. You could get an M.D./Ph.D, which is longer.
is it to late to control the disease if you went over 5 years without takeing any meds and only taking painkillers?Can the deteriorating process be reversed if someone decides to take the meds and stop the pain killers?If you were to guess would you assume they have clinical aids because of no treatment after 5 years or so? and if so can meds still be affective in makeing a frail person look healthy again?i would like to help somone who feel hopeless dr.
I don't dispute your concern and motivation. I'm simply debating you on one comment you made earlier. I believe you are doing a wonderful job and wish you all the luck in your efforts. I also know that through the efforts of caring individuals like yourself, this terrible disease will be shown to the door.
Good job Becky, just keep hammering that with the actual lack of funding. just keep doing it
How much of a factor is exercise in keeping the immune system strong... that is, along with taking meds? I work out really hard, especially mountain biking, and I wonder if I work out 'too hard' if that is bad or the same as it would be for someone who is not HIV+
Great video, keep up the good fight!
No abusive language or namecalling, please. I didn't take your words out of context at all. Your statement was all-inclusive and included no exceptions. I simply pointed out some specific cases where I found it hard to believe you'd argue for death. But I'm really curious: so you believe divorce is "not permitted." (It's legal where I live. Where do you live?) According to what belief system do you think divorce deserves a painful death?
I subscribed and favored this video.
UA-cam seems to block URLs in comments, but see articles at the aidstruth, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, AVERT, AEGIS, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and AIDSvideos web sites for citations of published research study results in peer-reviewed scientific journals that prove this. Many papers are now readable free online, otherwise you can visit the library.
The argument about latex pores is a red herring spread by people who want to raise doubts about the effectiveness of condoms. Water molecules are far smaller than the pores of latex condoms, but condoms still hold water. Oxygen molecules are far smaller than the pores, but latex condoms still hold air like a balloon. Why? Because the pores don't overlap. Condoms, if used correctly for every act, are a highly effective means of reducing your risk of contracting HIV.
Does HIV symptons varies with each individual or is it the same?
Thanks
Thank you very much for making the video, it's been very helpful but there's just one single question I would like to ask.
If myself and my partenter were HIV-, always have protected sex and have never had sex with anyone else. Does that mean we'll be safe from HIV since we can't create it?
I've always been worried if HIV can be created like the other sexual diseases. But is it created or simply spread?
Actually, people can often live for years or decades after they've been diagnosed with clinical AIDS. In particular, if they go on ARVs after getting a diagnosis of AIDS, their CD4 count may rebound and their health may improve to the point that their clinical AIDS is in remission and they no longer meet the criteria for a diagnosis of AIDS, just HIV+.
We mention the issue of transmission via transfusion in our "Introduction to HIV/AIDS: What You Need to Know" video.
@cruzangringa: Reading down in the thread, I see the post you're referring to. My statement above: "Don't drink water that's been contaminated with either blood or saliva. That will reduce your risk of contracting various infections." is absolutely correct and absolutely good general health advice. I did not specifically address her question about HIV. I'm not in the business of encouraging people to drinking contaminated water, even if it doesn't increase their risk of HIV.
From AIDStruth site: A meta-analysis of 54 ARV clinical trials showed that using one ARV reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% compared to a placebo, using two ARVs reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. one ARV, and using three ARVS reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. two ARVs. [Jordan et al, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy." BMJ 2002;324:757.]
I agree.
It's impossible to predict for a specific individual since disease course and individual immune systems and susceptibility or resistance vary, so you can only speak of averages. Median asymptomatic period after initial HIV infection in developed countries is believed to be about ten years. Note that's time from infection to symptoms, not time from infection to death.
Vaccine trial recruiters are NOT discouraging safe sex. The trials are designed to include education for the participants warning them that they may get the vaccine or a placebo, that the vaccine may or may not be effective, and that even an effective vaccine may not work 100% of the time. Participants are always advised to continue using safer sex practices.
There are multiple issues here that interact. The virus is present in saliva. However, it's in extremely low levels that are considered to present essentially no risk of infection through "light" kissing. You're unlikely to be infected by HIV when exposed to a single HIV virion, for example. It's believed possible to contract HIV by giving or receiving oral sex. Genital or oral sores from HIV or other infections would increase risk of transmission. See the original articles for more.
It varies based on many factors: how aggressive the person's strain of HIV is, their overall health and nutrition, personal genetic makeup, etc. Therefore you really can't predict for an individual; you can only speak of averages. In the developed world, a person may be HIV positive for 10 years before developing clinical AIDS. With treatment, ARVs, nutrition, and overall good health, they may live close to a normal lifespan. If you're HIV positive, see a doctor as treatment can be lifesaving.
It's not credible to suggest that NIH, CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, Pasteur Institute, AMA, 10s of 1000s of scientists worldwide, numerous NGOs, and the millions of patients who are doing better on ARV medication are all lying for money: conspiracies that large break down.
This is Eric; I'm not a doctor. I don't know if there are specific studies quantifying whether there's an increased risk of HIV transmission when one partner has bleeding gums or not and if so how much. Speaking as a layperson, more contact with blood generally increases risk and is a source of concern. Whether or not this increases risk of HIV transmission (or creates a risk of oral transmission when deep kissing) you want to get bleeding gums treated for their own sake as I noted previously.
I'm not saying that people don't need or deserve our help. I don't believe that people that are HIV+ are to be outcast, condemned, or punished for their actions. I think they have enough to worry about without that attitude. What I am saying is that I can't understand how such a nonchalant attitude can be taken toward the risks involved with irresponsible behavior.
Without a copy of the article there's no way I can evaluate whatever it stated. Generally speaking using condoms at "typical" frequencies reduces your overall risk of contracting HIV in heterosexual married by 85% below the risk level for not using condoms; in that study, among couples who used a condom every time, there were no transmissions at all during the study.
This is Eric. Thanks for your interest. Fortunately, the prevalence of HIV hasn't reached 1/3 of the population. About 33 million people are believed to be HIV positive currently, IIRC. Only a fraction of them will have progressed to clinical AIDS. I wish you success in pursuing your dream of a medical career!
@RoboMuffins: Go to the aidsvideos site and click "Risk" and "FAQ." Watch our videos "What's the Risk I Have Contracted HIV?" See a doctor; get tested; follow the doctor's instructions.
Could you provide a source or documentation for the claim that HIV was transmitted through kissing please? I'd like to review the evidence.
Margaret Heckler made a bad call in saying she hoped that a vaccine would be found within two years. She was basing this on past experience with some other viruses that have been much easier to develop a vaccine for. Unfortunately HIV is hard because it mutates rapidly. None of this changes the fact that HIV causes AIDS.
The video was created in 2006 and all the information is fully up-to-date as of the video's filming date. If you think it's out of date, be specific about your concerns.
The reason research isn't done on ozone is there's no evidence you could ever develop a therapy using ozone to treat HIV in humans. Even if ozone could be shown to kill HIV in vitro, that doesn't mean you could use it therapeutically in vivo. For example, hydrochloric acid will kill the virus, but you can't use that therapeutically! As for "toxic drugs:" if testing shows a drug does more harm than good, it won't be approved. If it's not approved, the pharmaceutical company makes no money.
HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the U.S. in '06 by race: 49% black, 30% white, 18% Hispanic, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander,
The only thing I don't like about advice from the medical community is their insistence of "caution" in words; true, when they say "you may, you increase risk, etc." but what if we take a tough stance, "Don't DO action X, otherwise you'll get result Y." That might jolt people from the slumber that life is a zero-consequence party and get them to practice self respect.
Once an infant is HIV+, whether and how quickly they progress to clinical AIDS depends on many factors including (rare) genetic resistance, nutrition, general health, and access to ARVs that can prevent progression. In Africa, on average, HIV+ infants have rapid progression to clinical AIDS and a short life expectancy due to poverty, malnutrition, and disease. In developed countries with nutrition and ARVs they may be able to live close to a normal lifespan.
The median time in the developed world between contracting HIV and developing clinical AIDS is 10 years without treatment. With monitoring, treatment, and good nutrition, sleep, and general health, you may be able to live a normal lifespan with HIV. So it's not surprising that wealth athletes who contract HIV can still look healthy today. Also, worldwide, the majority of people who contracted HIV did so through heterosexual sex.
zomg i was thinking that too!
Vaccine trials are made available to high risk groups. This is not limited to people in developing countries or poor white communities. Unfortunately, educating people about safer sex doesn't guarantee they will comply. Even among those educated, enough will do unsafe things that it becomes possible to determine if the vaccine is effective. Also, don't call them "guinea pigs." They are "volunteers" or "human subjects."
I agree that notifying a partner does not then justify unprotected sex or transmission. But remember, just because an HIV+ person has sex doesn't mean that HIV will be transmitted. If all sexually active people used condoms correctly every time, HIV transmission risk would be reduced to a level so low that the sexual epidemic would be halted. (We'd need to stop transmission through needle sharing and MTCT as well to halt the entire epidemic.)
You are correct that the risk of contracting HIV via oral sex is lower than anal/vaginal sex. That's why the video says "Although the risk of spreading HIV through oral sex may not be quite as high as through some other sexual practices such as vaginal or anal sex, the risk is still there." We are in agreement. No "huge disservice" there.
MTCT is not how ALL HIV+ Africans were infected. In Africa, there's a significant amount of heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV. However, it would be fair to say that MTCT is more common in Africa than in the developed world due to the higher rate of HIV among pregnant women and less access to antiretroviral medications that can prevent MTCT.
"HIV has been imaged" means that HIV has been seen on electron micrographs (i.e. electron microscope photographs). You can actually see the virus itself using an electron microscope.
"2007 AIDS Epidemic Update" from UNAIDS shows that "Since 2001 .... the number of people living with HIV in Eastern Europe and Central Asia has increased by more than 150% from 630 000 [490 000 -- 1.1 million] to 1.6 million [1.2 -- 2.1 million] in 2007. In Asia, the estimated number of people living with HIV in Viet Nam has more than doubled between 2000 and 2005 and Indonesia has the fastest growing epidemic." (WHO press release, "Global HIV prevalence has levelled off," 20 Nov 07)
Great video. I'm glad to see it gets so many views (although another 0 on the end would be better)
These are the sorts of vid's that youtube SHOULD be featuring instead of some of the other trash. I just watched one where some guys telling everyone that the governments spreading it(to black people) through the air, skin contact & food etc. It's a shame these "urban legends" get started when the facts could just as easily be spread.
Yes, questioning is one element of the scientific method, but it's only one part. Formulating testable hypotheses, performing the tests, publishing your hypothesis, test methodology, and results, and submitting them to peer review and scrutiny are also necessary parts of the scientific method. HIV denialists consistently fail to do these last four parts. Hence they're not practicing the scientific method.
See wikipedia's "HIV" page for a table showing the relative risk of transmitting HIV via different sexual practices.
From AIDStruth: A meta-analysis of 54 ARV clinical trials showed that using one ARV reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% compared to a placebo, using two ARVs reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. one ARV, and using three ARVS reduced progression by an additional 40% vs. two ARVs. [Jordan et al, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy." BMJ 2002;324:757.]
No, same concept, different name. "Safer sex" is the preferred term because it emphasizes that you are practicing risk REDUCTION ("safer") rather than creating a misconception that it is risk ELIMINATION ("safe").
Gallo and Montagnier don't question that HIV causes AIDS. From their joint letter to Harper's: "The position of us both is that HIV is the essential and sufficient agent that causes AIDS. One of us (Luc Montagnier) has emphasized that there may be .... other factors that can favour HIV transmission .... and also promote faster progression toward the clinical stages of AIDS in untreated HIV infected people ... but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the cause of AIDS." (aidstruth)