BE CAREFUL People- Aggressive new HIV strain detected

[TSLoverIB]

Just came across this today, haven't seen it spoke here yet. I remeber several patients in New York died quick from a drug resistant strain. Never heard about it again until reading this.

Just Be Careful People
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/02/14/Aggressive-new-HIV-strain-detected-in-Cuba/2421423945549/

[Tapatio]

Paging Westheangelino. Will Westheangelino report to this thread and shill for Truvada? Westheangelino, please report to this thread and shill for Truvada.

SuperClap™.

[sunairco]

Big on the news cycle down here in Miami. Potentially this will be ground zero due to proximity and the possible opening of relations/tourism in the states. In the mean time, many other countries allow travel including canada and it's a destination for sex tourism. If this is so virulent, why aren't we hearing of the fast progressing strain from other countries? I'm only saying so because sometimes I wonder if this might be an underhanded ploy playing on fears to but some stall on the normalization of relations with Cuba. At this point, there are many that have interests in derailing the effort.

[Ts RedVeX]

...vaccines and cure coming soon to your local pharmacy!

[TSLoverIB]

Big on the news cycle down here in Miami. Potentially this will be ground zero due to proximity and the possible opening of relations/tourism in the states. In the mean time, many other countries allow travel including canada and it's a destination for sex tourism. If this is so virulent, why aren't we hearing of the fast progressing strain from other countries? I'm only saying so because sometimes I wonder if this might be an underhanded ploy playing on fears to but some stall on the normalization of relations with Cuba. At this point, there are many that have interests in derailing the effort.

Good Point, not sure why we are not hearing from results from other countries. The last major regarding this was two patients from Africa, both quarantined in New York City.

[TSLoverIB]

...vaccines and cure coming soon to your local pharmacy!

Well i hope your careful until then, vaccines and cures for some strains. I seriously do not believe for all yet. This virus as any is one smart SOB, i remember reading one study. They were introducing i new technique to block the virus with disabling the protein as it attached to the cells. Very interesting , yet scray stuff, just to understanding how this virus operates.

[Tapatio]

Cuba's approach to HIV is pretty remarkable (not to say optimal- but who knows?) Here's a link that will shed some light on their efforts: https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211/44946.html

Half petri dish, half laboratory.

And the US is now warming relations, increasing contact.... We'll hear more about this soon.

[ronjer1]

The CDC Announced in 2010 that HIV is not an infectious disease that can be transmitted and the government even removed it from the list of infectious diseases for US Immigration.


“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule-technical-qa.html

[fred41]

Apparently the problem with this strain is catching it in time, not treatment.

From the article:"
While the aggressive form of HIV responds to most antiretroviral drugs, people may not realize they have AIDS until it's too late for treatment to do any good. Vandamme said it's vital for people having unprotected sex with multiple partners to be tested for HIV early and often."

This is why it is important for people to get tested regularly when they are single and have active sex lives. What with self testing kits now available at most pharmacies there is no reason not to anymore.

BTW...by aggressive they mean 3 years...there really is NO excuse for folks not to get tested within this time period.

[Tapatio]

The CDC Announced in 2010 that HIV is not an infectious disease that can be transmitted and the government even removed it from the list of infectious diseases for US Immigration.


http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule-technical-qa.html

For purposes of immigration. What that means is that we no longer consider HIV status as a reason to potentially turn immigrants away from the country.

It DOES NOT mean that HIV isn't infectious and can't be transmitted.

But hey, go fuck all the HIV positive people you'd like to. Be sure to go bareback, be the bottom, and make it really rough.

Dafuq is wrong with you?

[ronjer1]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

[Tapatio]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

You'll note that I did not take exception to the CDCs statement but to your interpretation.

Within the context of the statement the CDC statement is fine. Your statement is irresponsible.

Comprehension- check into it

And please don't breed.

[ronjer1]

Within the context of the statement the CDC statement is fine.


"(CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease "

It's fabulous to see that you finally understand that HIV is not a communicable disease.

[trish]

The CDC Announced in 2010 that HIV is not an infectious disease that can be transmitted...WRONG!

The CDC has not ruled that HIV isn’t a communicable disease. Rather, it has removed HIV from the list of diseases that keep people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S. It is not a communicable disease of public health significance, nevertheless it is quite obviously communicable. You cannot leave off the qualifier "of public health significance." This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule.html

(read the italic bold green print)

[lifeisfiction]

WRONG!

The CDC has not ruled that HIV isn’t a communicable disease. Rather, it has removed HIV from the list of diseases that keep people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S. It is not a communicable disease of public health significance, nevertheless it is quite obviously communicable. You cannot leave off the qualifier "of public health significance." This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule.html

(read the italic bold green print)

Trish with the natural acumen for legal theory.

[runningdownthatdream]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

Show some respect - you've been here for three posts and trying to educate others who've been here for years. And, it seems you have a reading comprehension problem. Here's the Title and blurb from the CDC site:

Final Rule Removing HIV Infection from U.S. Immigration Screening:

Technical Questions and Answers

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance. By law, non-U.S. citizens (known as aliens) who are determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance, a mental health disorder with associated harmful behavior, or drug abuse/addiction are inadmissible to the United States. Aliens wishing to live in the United States permanently are also screened for these medical conditions to determine whether a permanent resident visa will be granted. Prior to the effective date of January 4, 2010, HIV was among the diseases that could prevent people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the country.

They've even tried to help your comprehension by putting the critical sentence in italics:

communicable disease of public health significance

.......and I've taken it one step further by putting the term public health significance in bold. Get it now?

[ronjer1]

[QUOTE=trish;1579319]This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

[runningdownthatdream]

[QUOTE=trish;1579319]This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

Let me help you apologize:

Dear HA, I was wrong. I did not read the article in the way it was intended to be read. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension.

Thank you,
Ronjer1

The New Poster

[trish]

[QUOTE=trish;1579319]This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

I'm saying very little. The CDC declared in 2010 that it would remove HIV from the list of communicable diseases of public heath significance. I haven't bothered to examine their definition of significance. Perhaps you could do that for us.

I wouldn't dare guess who was scared of HIV in 2010 and why? I only suggest one be respectful enough of its dangers now to take the recommended precautions.

i would speculate the spread of HIV had been sufficiently stymied by modern treatments and medications for the CDC to justify removing it from the list alluded to above. Should that change, say due to a mutation we may find HIV back on the list.

[broncofan]

[QUOTE=trish;1579319]This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.
First, admit that you overlooked a very important qualifier. HIV is a communicable disease. That is known. If it were not communicable, then how would people contract it? It's certainly not hereditary. Secondly, as Trish said it could take a while to analyze the different factors the CDC takes into account to determine a communicable disease is one of public health significance.

It is absolutely of personal significance, whatever the global factors are in determining public health significance. If you contract it and it hasn't mutated into a more aggressive form of the virus, you will still be on anti-retrovirals for the rest of your life. And if you do not take them you run a risk of dying from a combination of opportunistic infections and a degraded immune system. In summary, you misunderstood what you read.

[ronjer1]

[quote=ronjer1;1579335]
I'm saying very little.... I haven't bothered to examine their definition of significance. Perhaps you could do that for us.


Ok, then thank you for being honest in that you didn't understand exactly what the CDC was saying. The definition of "significance" is easily found in any dictionary. The CDC is saying that HIV poses no danger of significance (i.e. importance) to public health. What's there not to understand here? If HIV was deadly, would it be of NO significance to public health? LOL, do we even need to ask such a question? Of course, no, they would never make that statement in this case.
So HIV is not deadly then. People in Africa are not dying of HIV infections, for if they were, it would certainly be "of significant importance".



"I wouldn't dare guess who was scared of HIV in 2010 and why?"

No need to guess, as Tapatio said he was scared to go fuck all the HIV positive people, especially going bareback, at the bottom, etc. So obviously somebody is scared of an "insignificant" pretend danger of no importance, right?
Wow, the contradictions posted here are astounding.



"I only suggest one be respectful enough of its dangers now to take the recommended precautions."

Are you kidding me? Don't you see your contradiction in that statement? First you stated to read the CDC statement of "no significant public health" danger....and then you ignore that and claim that HIV is indeed a significant public health danger. Say what? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps 'runningdownthatdream' can step in here and solve this contradiction for you....after he apologizes (like he said he would) of course.



"i would speculate the spread of HIV had been sufficiently stymied by modern treatments and medications"

Speculate? I thought we were talking about what CDC stated in their statement. Nobody cares about speculations and what not. It is a fact that viruses spread. Whether they kill is an entirely different issue.

The fact remains that the only reason that any authority would say that HIV is of no significant danger to public health is if it:

a) did not spread (not communicable), or
b) did not kill, or
c) both a and b.

Take your pick.

[ronjer1]

[quote=ronjer1;1579335]
It is absolutely of personal significance, whatever the global factors are in determining public health significance. In summary, you misunderstood what you read.


Please read that CDC statement again, especially the italics that everyone hypes about here. That will show you that HIV is of no public health significance, despite you trying to change that statement by negating it. Either HIV is a danger to the public or it isn't. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

[fred41]

The answer is in the CDC article you cited:

"HIV infection is being removed from the definition of a communicable disease of public health significance because it is no longer applicable based on current medical knowledge and practice, scientific knowledge, and public health practice. HIV infection is not spread by casual contact, through the air, or from food or water."


One of the reasons it's off the list is because one has to significantly go out of one's way to contract this virus.
pretty simple really

[trish]

Thank you, Fred.

Ronjer1, that the CDC does not regard HIV to be a communicable disease of public health significance does not mean HIV can't be permanently debilitating or deadly. In fact we know it to be so. Its effects are significant to those who contract it, but (for what it's worth) I suspect it's off the list because the CDC does not regard as threat epidemiologically speaking.

You suggest that the only reason an authority such as the CDC would say HIV is of no significance to the public health is if


a) did not spread (not communicable), or
b) did not kill, or
c) both a and b.

Take your pick. I don't think those constitute the complete criteria used by the CDC, though I do think its a good starting point. I might (and I would speculate the CDC might) add a few more criteria to the list including...

d) Even though it's deadly and communicable, it is not currently spreading (in the sense that the percentage of infected persons is steady or dropping) because people i) are getting diagnosed and ii) taking precautions.

I'm not looking for any drama here. Just saying that it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that a deadly, communicable disease that is being kept under control by the consistent use of practicable precautions no longer poses a significant threat to public health. If you disagree, your beef is with the CDC, not me. Just know that HIV is communicable and it does degrade your immune system leaving you vulnerable to infections that may prove deadly. I sincerely hope that you always take the proper precautions so that it never happens to you.

[Tapatio]

One of the reasons it's off the list is because one has to significantly go out of one's way to contract this virus.
pretty simple really

Nicely summarized. It's a shame that HIV was ever on the entry ban list. It was actually a real step forward that it was removed.

Remember when AIDS was called GRID and the only thing our president had to say about the crisis was "Don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons"?

Still so much misinformation/disinformation- that's my only objection to someone pointing to this CDC statement without proper context.

[TSLoverIB]

Why listen to comments of interpretations of a article, when you can watch a VIDEO that CLEARLY explains it.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/aggressive-strain-hiv-discovered-cuba-231031547.html

Be Careful People, Opinions are one thing, facts are another...

[Tapatio]

And a warm HA welcome to ronjer1, by the way.