End To Aids In Sight As Huge Study Finds Drugs Stop HIV Transmission (theguardian.com) 186
The Guardian reports:
An end to the Aids epidemic could be in sight after a landmark study found men whose HIV infection was fully suppressed by antiretroviral drugs had no chance of infecting their partner. The success of the medicine means that if everyone with HIV were fully treated, there would be no further infections...
"It's brilliant -- fantastic. This very much puts this issue to bed," said Prof Alison Rodger from University College London, the co-leader of the paper published in the Lancet medical journal.... Dr Michael Brady, the medical director at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "It is impossible to overstate the importance of these findings.
"The Partner study has given us the confidence to say, without doubt, that people living with HIV who are on effective treatment cannot pass the virus on to their sexual partners. This has incredible impact on the lives of people living with HIV and is a powerful message to address HIV-related stigma."
"It's brilliant -- fantastic. This very much puts this issue to bed," said Prof Alison Rodger from University College London, the co-leader of the paper published in the Lancet medical journal.... Dr Michael Brady, the medical director at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "It is impossible to overstate the importance of these findings.
"The Partner study has given us the confidence to say, without doubt, that people living with HIV who are on effective treatment cannot pass the virus on to their sexual partners. This has incredible impact on the lives of people living with HIV and is a powerful message to address HIV-related stigma."
"This very much puts this issue to bed..." (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Now we can start large scale mandatory HIV tests to get rid of this disease once and for all.
(Cue the ethics idiots claiming you can't force someone to find out they have HIV and it's better to let them continue to infect people)
Re: (Score:1)
Ironic considering that's where the issue started for most patients.
I thought it was in dirty bathrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, more likely from someone eating a monkey. Ebola often enters human populations in Africa from people eating bush meat.
More likely someone was bitten by a monkey before they could kill it and eat it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "This very much puts this issue to bed..." (Score:1)
So you're trading HIV for teen pregnancies and priestly pedophilia. Bravo
Re: (Score:3)
So this G-d fellow. I have a few questions. How come He allows innocent babies to get aids and die? Bit of a blunderbuss on the wrath thing. It seems His wrath got out of control on the Holocaust, maybe He gets all pissed and has anger management problems.
The Rabbi at the syn. near San Diego claimed G-d had saved him. Oh, and the poor woman who was shot and died, G-d apparently didn't love her, she got nailed, but you, Dear Rabbi, are Special? G-d likes you.
Errr...and what about the poor who were born in po
Re: "This very much puts this issue to bed..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Rabbi at the syn. near San Diego claimed G-d had saved him. Oh, and the poor woman who was shot and died, G-d apparently didn't love her, she got nailed, but you, Dear Rabbi, are Special? G-d likes you.
You certainly aren't the only person to raise this issue. My local rabbi expressed his disagreement with the idea, for exactly the same reason as you.
maybe He gets all pissed and has anger management problems.
Have you read those parts of the Torah? There isn't really much "maybe" about it.
Re: (Score:3)
One != many.
Yes, like measles (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, we have an effective vaccine for measles, so clearly that one's done for, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, people who take the measles vaccine are at a much lower chance of being infected or infecting others. It is sad that the NGOs keep claiming it is eradicated here and there when it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The NGOs don't claim that, stop making shit up.
Re:Yes, like measles (Score:5, Insightful)
It very nearly was before the anti-vax movement.
Re: (Score:2)
It was never gone. Even though it was declared "eliminated" there were cases each year, they've increased by an order of magnitude thanks to the anti-vax movement.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/images/trends-measles-cases.png
Re: (Score:2)
I will note even though you are incorrect and there are cases every year, illegal immigrants MAY be a notable part of the reason for that since they often are not immunized but immigration can't explain the 5-10 fold increase in years when the anti-vax movement gains traction.
Puts the issue (Score:1)
"This very much puts this issue to bed"
Clever.
HOPE (Score:2)
I surely hope this one is true.
Re: (Score:2)
I just paid a buttload of money to get my five cats tested and vaccinated for FIV and leukemia so why don't we have a shot for people yet? The pessimist in me is thinking they've got a huge pile of pills in the warehouse they need to sell first.
You might do better at preventing transmission if you stop keeping money in your butt rather than wringing your hands over the shared letters in FIV and HIV.
Strains, and other reasons (Score:2)
There are five strains of FIV; A, B, C, D and E.
The vaccine was developed based on A and D, but some studies indicate it provides no protection from A.
Dunham, S.P.; Bruce, J.; Mackay, S.; Golder, M.; Jarrett, O.; Neil, J.C. (2006), "Limited efficacy of an inactivated feline immunodeficiency virus vaccine", Veterinary Record, 158 (16): 561â"562, doi:10.1136/vr.158.16.561, PMID 16632531
There are at least 60 known strains of HIV, at least 89 CRFs, and more developing all the time. HIV mutates rapidly, so
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand: The development of FIV vaccines was a boost for HIV research, as for the first time, there was a vaccine for a (not so close) relative to the HIV.
Not really... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a vaccine. This is medication that has to be taken daily for the rest of your life. Stop taking the meds and the viral load will increase again as it's still in your system, and this you can spread the virus again.
Unless everyone is taking the meds, and everyone is taking them properly, then the virus will still spread. Just slower. But unless a actual cure or vaccine is found then this isn't the end.
But it's a really good place to be.
Re: Not really... (Score:2)
Re: Not really... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a vaccine. This is medication that has to be taken daily for the rest of your life. Stop taking the meds and the viral load will increase again as it's still in your system, and this you can spread the virus again.
Purdue Pharma has proposed combing this AIDS medication with their popular highly addictive family opioid Oxycontin.
This will ensure that patients will ALWAYS take their medication.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless everyone is taking the meds, and everyone is taking them properly, then the virus will still spread. Just slower.
I'm not even convinced about the slower part. Too many people think consequence-free sex is some kind of basic human right and will wilfully misunderstand the actual medical science, and transmission rates could actually go up.
20 questions with HIV (Score:4, Interesting)
So many stupid things begin with the innocuous-seeming word "just".
What you've just described as "just slower" is also described in fat textbooks everywhere as "exponential decay".
In classical physics, exponential decay is a major conundrum, because it can't every get to zero, but it gets to quantities so small, you wonder how they could even exist. What does it mean for HIV to infect one milli person?
If a sexual species has less a sustained fecundity less than 2, it can and will dwindle and disappear. We've actually witnesses extinction in the wild, once or twice.
If the fecundity of an infection is sustained at a value less than 1—average number of people infected by each new case—it can and will dwindle and disappear altogether.
For extra credit, we must now switch to more complex supply and demand curves.
If the fecundity of an infection at global scale falls to less than 1, the local derivative on disease prevalence is that the disease will diminish (in absolute number). In relative terms, the fecundity of the disease would be compared to the fecundity of the species, but that merely makes things more complicated for no expository benefit.
What you will find in practice, is that there is often some pocket of people which form a small cohesive network where the fecundity of the infection stubbornly remains high (higher than 1, at least).
If you have pudding for brains, you knee jerk reaction to this observation is that exponentially shrinking global population contains an exponentially growing nucleus, and the nucleus will ultimately win over the containing population (really?). This is because we think in terms of the recruitment meme, which is a meme about a meme.
If the new infections in the infection bubble sub-population are convinced to behave according to the risky norms of the infection bubble, then recruitment might indeed take over, modulo Jonestown [wikipedia.org] (pessimism concerning the human condition needs to be off the charts for anyone to view this fork in the road as the most probable).
More likely you see supply/demand scale effects, where as the infection bubble expands, each new person has less risky behaviour than the previous person (the same way that willingness to pay declines as you exhaust your initial, angel-round customers). Ultimately the infection bubble reaches some kind of equilibrium as a fairly small pocket of crazy people: some pocket of humanity with unusual moral codes nestled deep in the Africa savanna, and some gated 90210 anti-vax community on the outskirts of Greenwich, Connecticut, with equally unusual moral codes.
The reality of all this is that single-term governing extrapolations are usually only good for an order of magnitude (binary on a bad day, decimal on a good day). And then new structure emerges, and you have to tweak your model appropriately. The dominant model is harmonic analysis, with different governing phenomena at different wavelengths. The problem in a messy world is that the uncertain of large first order terms is so large, you can't even begin to estimate second or third order terms, until the first order term plays itself out. And then because we never consider multiple harmonics at the same data (you can generally obtain accurate data to characterize at most one term at a time), people naturally infer the weird, unschooled notion that harmonic analysis is not ultimately the dominant analytic frame.
There's a general principle in supercomputer engineering that every time you double the number of cores, some new evil thing emerges to sabotage your scaling factor, which you must then vanquish with hard mental labour (and you rarely know what the next one is going to be, until you finish perfecting the current generation).
We can guess with HIV, howe
Re: (Score:3)
In classical physics, exponential decay is a major conundrum, because it can't every get to zero, but it gets to quantities so small, you wonder how they could even exist.
Incorrect. The Planck Constant is well-studied, not something that causes physicists to wring their hands and get philosophical. This has been true for a long time now; generations. Max Planck was given a Nobel Prize for this in 1918.
Re: (Score:2)
What you've just described as "just slower" is also described in fat textbooks everywhere as "exponential decay".
While that's potentially true if the exponent is <1, if we don't have a cure and people are potential transmitters as long as they're sexually active you're talking 50+ years per iteration. We have something like 37 million HIV infected today, if they transmit to 1/3rd that's 12 million in 2069, 4 million in 2119, 1.3 million in 2169... it'll take a thousand years to wait for the exponential to approach extinction. And I wouldn't bet against people having casual unprotected sex in the future too...
Re: (Score:1)
Unless everyone is taking the meds
Which leads to an interesting problem. In the USA 1.2million people have a HIV infection, and apparently 15% are unaware of it. How do you eliminate a virus through treatment if 180,000 people don't even know they should seek treatment?
Hell of a way to find out your partner cheated... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think long term monogamy is expected in most gay male relationships...
Re: (Score:2)
15/1000 over eight years would be a pretty low rate of infidelity, although that number is not an indicator of the actual rate.
I definitely don't remember the source, but IIRC homosexuals who report being in monogamous relationships tend to have lower rates of infidelity than heterosexuals.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually less than the cheating rate for hetero relationships. That said, not sure why you felt the need to bring sexual orientation into it. Are you homophobic?
Re:Hell of a way to find out your partner cheated. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure why you felt the need to bring sexual orientation into it.
It's relevant in medicine.
Re:Hell of a way to find out your partner cheated. (Score:5, Informative)
"It is just as much as in hetero relationships."
No it isn't:
"The prevalence of non-monogamy in gay male relationships became widely known as the result of the ground-breaking book, The Male Couple, David McWhirter,M.D. and Andre Mattison,PhD., 1984. Based on interviews of 156 long-term couples, they found that after 5 years, all of the couples had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity."
Source: http://www.thecouplesstudy.com... [thecouplesstudy.com] (lots more similar links there)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The book you quote *might* be right, but I'd have some reservations in expecting a sex study from 1984 to still apply 35 years later. Gay couples were not allowed to marry in 84, and straight couples have changed quite a bit since then - especially the role of women (not to mention the divorce rate).
I don't doubt that many (most?) gay couples become non-monogamous at some point, but it's quite possible that the same has become true of straight couples since 84. At very least, an updated study is called fo
Re: (Score:1)
The book you quote *might* be right, but I'd have some reservations in expecting a sex study from 1984 to still apply 35 years later.
If only there were a search engine where you could find a better study. Nah, that would never work.
Re: (Score:3)
If only there were a search engine where you could find a better study. Nah, that would never work.
That would be good. Do you know of one? Because the one I tried produced 10 different articles all referencing the 1984 work as a source.
Re:Hell of a way to find out your partner cheated. (Score:5, Insightful)
The book you quote *might* be right, but I'd have some reservations in expecting a sex study from 1984 to still apply 35 years later. Gay couples were not allowed to marry in 84, and straight couples have changed quite a bit since then - especially the role of women (not to mention the divorce rate).
I don't doubt that many (most?) gay couples become non-monogamous at some point, but it's quite possible that the same has become true of straight couples since 84. At very least, an updated study is called for before you make blanket statements about gay vs straight behavior.
Well, on the one side we have an actual study, and on the other side we have the strong social pressure not to say something negative about a protected minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well, that question is answered, then. Good thing the gay community of today behaves exactly the same as in 1984!
Re: (Score:2)
"It is just as much as in hetero relationships."
Apparently it isn't:
"The prevalence of non-monogamy in gay male relationships became widely known as the result of the ground-breaking book, The Male Couple, David McWhirter,M.D. and Andre Mattison,PhD., 1984. Based on interviews of 156 long-term couples, they found that after 5 years, all of the couples had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity."
Source: http://www.thecouplesstudy.com... [thecouplesstudy.com] (lots more similar links there)
Re:Hell of a way to find out your partner cheated. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just as much as in hetero relationships. That's just about the most idiotic statement I've read today (and I've been reading comments on the internet all morning).
It might not be an accurate statement, but yours is much more idiotic than his. Homosexual male relationships are not "just as much" inclined towards monogamy as heterosexual relationships. There's no study anywhere that has ever anything of the sort. Very quick googling reveals figures showing that roughly half of homosexual male relationships are open to some degree.
You're just spewing propaganda. Check your heteronormativity. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight, but they are not and never have been exactly the same. (Nor do average lesbians behave in the same way as either the average gay relationship or average hereto relationship.)
Re: (Score:1)
you think an ass-pirate would plunder only one booty? get real dude.
AIDS, not Aids (Score:2)
Aids are things that assist you, AIDS is Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome.
If you end aids then there will be more people with AIDS.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . so is this cure being sold at ALDI or Aldi . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't drink the Koolaids.
Or especially the Flavor Aids.
Re: (Score:2)
Look it up, dumbass. Just fucking google "are viruses alive?" and it will explain to you that there is not agreement on the subject, and nobody gets to correct anybody, except if you find some idiot who says definitely that they're alive or not alive then they're wrong. But you only get to say "yer rong," there isn't a correct answer to give instead.
The Real Question is How Long Before HIV Adapts? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The drug cocktails are pretty potent. They have to be to work on all the various strains of HIV that are already around. Also, this isn't an antibiotic "oh, I feel better so I can quit taking them" situation, or a "let's feed it to cows to make them bigger" one either.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, small reservoirs remain in the body, and it only takes one resistant cell to recolonize the whole organism and resume spreading.
The only way this treatment remains effective long-term is if all the affected populations are given full treatment. Good luck with that part.
This is great news for people already affected and their loved ones, but it will also result in decreased condom use and will likely set the stage for future increases in infections. The same as with other treatable-but-not-curable S
For now (Score:3)
I heard on the news a few years back what may have been the most depressing thing I've ever heard. The story began with reports out of one of the HIV-ridden countries of Africa (forget which) that officials were trying to crack down on a rising number of petty thefts of antiretroviral drugs, and that they were worried because it seemed these thefts were leading to more measured resistence to the drugs by the HIV virus. I was still chewing this over, trying to figure out what the connection between these things were, when they clarified:
Apparently, some poor miserable bastards discovered that if you crush up the drug and smoke it, it gets you "high". Probably a pretty crappy buzz, but your averaged impoverished African youth probably doesn't have a lot of substances available to them. And apparently this form of consuming the drug does result in it entering the bloodstream, but only in very small quantities.
Just large enough to induce a selective pressure for drug resistance, apparently.
Trump is more truthful (Score:1)
Transmission only (not completely, but almost) stops if the drugs are taken - for the rest of the infected's life.
It doesn't stop being infected.
Not a cure.
Just a (likely very expensive) way of reducing the spread by those infected.
Good luck on the NHS in the UK, or any health system in the world paying to provide it "for free." Not going to happen.
Ergo, no end to AIDS in sight as the piece and linked articles try to suggest.
See Trump for lessons in honesty. He's got you beat,
It's not expensive (Score:2)
It's not expensive for people with bags of money (Score:1)
$3/day ~ $1,000/year. Sure, people are bound to have a spare $1,000 hanging around. Not most people, not anywhere.
That and $3/day is a fiction as it tends to cost around an average of $9,500/year to $12,500/year (generally north of $30/day) depending on the case.
So, if you've got HIV/AIDS, and you have money, and you take the pills etc every day for the rest of your life, then, sure...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need for luck. They already do.
Block transmission of AIDS (Score:3)
We have known how to block the transmission of AIDS for over 30 years.
"whose HIV infection was fully suppressed" (Score:1)
What when his infection mutates and suddenly becomes not fully suppressed?
Re: (Score:1)
Then his friend's Herpes gets a new BFF!
No, the end isn't in sight (Score:2)
measles (Score:2)
The end isn't in sight (Score:2)
The end to AIDS has always been possible (Score:1)
Like any other prevention? (Score:2)
What about junkies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Needle sharing is a tiny proportion of total infections. Most people have sex, most people do not shoot up drugs. And even less people shoot up drugs and share needles. According to the CDC, needles make up about 7% of HIV cases in the USA, and needle exchanges can drop the needle-related HIV transmission rate by about 70% within a couple of years of initiation of the program. if all states had needle exchanges, then needle sharing would probably be only about 2% of the total HIV cases, with sex accounting
Re:Sexual partners? (Score:4)
Except for the small town in Indiana where most of the cases were from sharing needles and our G-d Fearin' Vice President, while he was governor, decided dying was good for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Better than idiots throwing tantrums because they wrongly infer a message that was never there. This paper is specifically about transfer of HIV via sexual intercourse as shown by (part of) the name of the study: "Risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex in serodifferent gay couples with the HIV-positive partner taking suppressive antiretroviral therapy ...".
Now you have two alternatives: dig in or apologize for behaving as an asshole, which will it be?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Wee Sprout, that is not your lawn. Step back and STFU.
Did you consider, you're the invader here?
Re: (Score:2)
When good minded people support a needle exchange and find out why there are suddenly needles all over their neighbourhood they will vote Trump.
If they were exchanging the needles, they wouldn't end up as litter.
Didn't think of that, did you? LOL
If there are needles "all over the neighbourhood" that demonstrates four things:
1) You're British or from a British colony
2) Your neighborhood is full of drug addicts
3) You don't have a needle exchange that those addicts are using
4) You're trying to influence elections in another country than your own. Shame on you.
I recommend that you stop speculating what "Good Minded" people support, and instead simply s
Re: (Score:2)
If they were exchanging the needles it would be a needle exchange, not a needle "exchange" (ie. need based).