Mosquitos, can they be carriers of HIV?

[Guest]

Hi Rom,

 

>>>pretty sure I remember that there is a HIV infected sub population which does not develop A.I.D.S.<<<

 

A few individuals seem to be highly resistant. But it's still an incurable infection. It is still a death sentence, to everyone who contracts it, bar a hand full, who have shown to be able to eradicate within. And even that, is still not-conclusive.

 

>>>>>>>"That's why there are no recorded instances of human transmission from blowjobs" Thought this practice was classified as medium risk behavior<<<<

 

Yea...it is. But not for HIV transmission. Plenty of other STD's you can contract, though. Most non-life threatening. There seems to be an enzyme in human saliva, which kills HIV on contact. It not a known transmission route, at this time.

 

HT

[Guest]

>>>It is still a death sentence, to everyone who contracts it, bar a hand full, who have shown to be able to eradicate within. And even that, is still not-conclusive.<<<

 

 

sorry, but this is a very panic infused statement and not true. it is not much more of a deathsentence than being born as everybody has to die one day.

AIDS treated with the right medication is now seen as a chronic desease such as many others which can be kept at bay by regularly taking medicine. it is so far not clear yet how significantly life of an infected with all access to the proper antiretrovirals is reduced as antiretrovirals have not been around that long yet.

the big problem of AIDS nowadays is more economical as large parts of the world have no access to proper antiretrovirals yet.

[Nervous_Dog]

I think it is ok to have people very worried about HIV.

 

Two resons, 1 - they may not have access to anti virals or the knowledge of anti-virals,

 

2 - Fear is a good deterant, if people are not worriedd, they may end up thinking, "Oh never mind, even if I get it I wont die anymore,"

 

Now theres a funny thing Fly, me being too serious and you being almost flippant!

 

DOG

[Guest]

yeps, a two edged sword.

one of the main reasons in the rise of the newly infected rate is the availability of antiretrovirals, that now AIDS turned into a managable chronic desease.

but a blanket statement of AIDS being an automatic deathsentence is just panicdriven.

 

fear is OK, but panic not.

[Guest]

Hi Fly,

 

>>>it is so far not clear yet how significantly life of an infected with all access to the proper antiretrovirals is reduced, as antiretrovirals have not been around that long yet.

 

You dispute your own statements. HIV is incurable. There is no known cure, to keep you from dying, from it's resulting infection. Some drugs have shown to delay the process, but to say because there is some drug treatment available now, that you no longer have anything to worry about it, is insane.

 

I'll stand by my statement.....contract HIV, and you will die from it, unless something else gets you first. If you contract, it will kill you. Period. There is no known cure.

 

HT

[Guest]

>>>I'll stand by my statement.....contract HIV, and you will die from it, unless something else gets you first. If you contract, it will kill you. Period. There is no known cure. <<<

 

 

i stand by my statement...you get born, and one day you will die, sooner or later. if you contract life, it will kill you. period.

 

 

point is, that the antiretrovirals have so significantly prolonged life, that there is yet not enough data how long. people on proper antiretrovirals have survived more than a decade without developing full blown AIDS, and go on and on and on...

as i said - i do know people who had full blown AIDS seven years ago, and live now a good life with very managable sideeffects of the antiretrovirals.

i can't help it, but every professional i know in the field of AIDS does call it a managable chronic desease. it's not just me - i picked that term up from people who know far more than me about the subject.

i have never said that there would be "nothing to worry about". what i say is that there are far worse things today to worry about than AIDS.

it's like malaria, for some this is a desease they panic about, but if you have lived for longer in malaria areas it is just an occupational hazard that can be treated easily, where only the poor and the stupid die from.

 

that does not mean that people should go around not using caution and protection, but it's time to stop panic reactions and blanket statements based on such.

[tomc12]

I think you are both right. The antiretrovirals have made significant improvement in the prognosis of a person with HIV. Of course that assumes you have access to quality medical care and have the money/insurance to afford it, which, unfortunately the majority of people with HIV don't have

[short-time]

I just read through this entire thread and noticed one important thing that was never mentioned and it has nothing to do with mosquitoes.

 

What I?m talking about is the fact that HIV has never killed anyone. Once the disease develops to the advanced stages of AIDS you eventually will die, yes, but not from the HIV virus. You die from complications of usually common illnesses that get out of control due to an immune system that no longer functions.

 

This may seem like a trivial distinction since the end result without treatment is still death, but its mechanism is nothing like say Ebola - which kills its victims without any help.

 

ST

[Guest]

tomc12 said:

I think you are both right. The antiretrovirals have made significant improvement in the prognosis of a person with HIV. Of course that assumes you have access to quality medical care and have the money/insurance to afford it, which, unfortunately the majority of people with HIV don't have

 

 

exactly!

AIDS nowadays is basically a economical and political problem. AIDS means a deathsentence for people born in countries which are too poor to afford the antiretrovirals for their population (including building up the necessary countrywide network of qualified healthstations). and countries whose politicians refused to accept certain realities, to note there are china and south africa especially.

and, a large part of the problem are the pharmagiants, who consistenly fight against the manufacturers of generic medicins.

that is also where the global fund has it's problem, where the general public was blinded by the promises of rich western governments of huge funds, but the certain small chapters actually bring those funds straight back into the pockets of the pharmagiants. very selfserving.

 

thailand is a shining example for the developing world in terms of dealing with AIDS, most major battles against the pharmagiants have been won now, a countrywide network has been built up (only bangkok still has some major problems, which will be sorted out soon), and a large part of the infected population is registered, and receives free antiretrovirals. this has been achived by open discussion and *not* by force. only setback here in thailand was the drugwar, as heroin junkies had no access to clean needles anymore because pharmacies were punished for selling needles to junkies.

[Nervous_Dog]

To look at the ecenomic impact remember the famous Gay photographer, married to Patti Smith at one stage (no jokes about that turning him gay) Robert Mapplethorpe?

 

He lived a lot longer than all his black models.

 

To quote him "This is an ecenomic disease, I live because I can afforedd to, they could not"

 

Sad to say he also died before anti virals became truly effective

 

DOG