Pretty interesting look at the world population as a % that is H.I.V. positive.... good ol' USA is somewheres between .5 and 1% of the total population which translates into 1,500,000 to 3,000,000.... play safe good buddies.
might want to think about where your hot girlfriend harkens from
I'd be more concerned with Hep C. Symptom onset is quicker and more acute for HBV, but HCV (while symptom onset can take 20 to 30 years) is more deadly and more prevalent.
while the HepB virus can be transmitted through blood _or other bodily fluids_ (similar to HIV), the HepC virus can be transmitted ONLY through blood-to-blood contact. Thus, there is a significatly lower risk of contracting it through sexual contact. Indeed, most public health authorities consider HepC only marginally to be an STD.
(Unless, of course, one indulges in BBGreek)
Yeah Baby!
-- Modified on 5/4/2008 3:05:57 PM
The Hepatitis Foundation lists as its number two risk factor for HCV as “Those with multiple sex partners or sex with partners who have other sexually transmitted diseases.” Spontaneous recovery from HCV is only about 20%. While HCV transmission is more similar to HIV, HCV accounts for 50% of all liver transplants. The good news is that it takes 20 to 30 years too die from it.
According to the Hepatitis Foundation “5% of all Americans will become infected with HBV at some time during their lives” HBV IS FAR more contagious than HCV or HIV (about 100X more), but the negative outcome from HBV is far lower. 95% of all infected recover spontaneously and develop immunity.
They are both nasty. One’s easier to get, the other is more deadly.
-- Modified on 5/4/2008 4:07:29 PM
I never really thought of why this was a requirement before, but it makes sense since there's a ton of people who will discover their sexuality in college, a ton of people from all over the world who may or may not play safe and will probably contract things. One thing I also liked was the huge condom bowl in the bathroom on every floor in the dorms. I used to stock up by the fist full. 
hehe. Ah... good old freshman year in the dorms. hehe.
Katie
to go to school period in Mass your kids need hepb vaccination. Its been this way for at least 15yrs.
I am happy to announce that I've had my Hep B shots (since I used to teach) back in 1997. I've also completed the HPV shots last year (all three). I'm doing my best. I hope all of you are, too.
Hugs,
Ciara
In 4 years a simple test will tell you if you need a booster.
bet me local goons don't kill 10X as many people as HIV.
Some random Africa and AIDS facts I found interesting:
About 1 in 3 people in Africa have HIV.
One of the most effective ways in which they've been able to curtail new outbreaks is with edutainment. In Angola, they gave the military comic books about getting HIV, printed in their local language (though many were illiterate.) They were so popular that even if they were illiterate, they passed them around and people got the message. It worked to help curtail the spread of AIDS.
One of the biggest dangers was in mining regions where the men were away from their wives and families for a very long time and saw providers. However, culturally, it was common to use a condom with the wife, but not with providers (because they didn't respect the providers.)
Africa is rife with problems from diseases to conflicts, but AIDS is certainly at its height in Africa.
Katie
Bomb the shit out of them, then stand around in the middle while they continue their intramural firefights.
Worked in Vietnam, too. Probably set them back 30 years.
Only if we find oil in Africa.
We owe God a death, and he that dies this year is quit for the next.
I can only hope I die in penili vaginorum, little death before the big sleep.
Governments fail to attack the real infestations:
Unsound scientific dogma.
Failure to educate in the most stricken parts of the world.
Overpopulation.
Inhumanity is much of the world.
Until these issues are tackled - these graphs will not mean much. Sadly, they are only place holder pins in the map...
Want to cry... look at the stats on murder. These are per 1000 people NOT per million.
I couldn't have said it any better.
Rwanda. There are many African states where more or less organized violence is an ongoing fact of life.
And talk about governments? Kleptocracy is the predominant form of African govt.
The major pharmaceutical companies such as Merck,Phizer, Astrazeneca, and others would have to pour billions of dollars into research and development for one. Government assistance would also be very helpful too.
Is H.I.V. a problem in Africa yes, but it is also present in every country too and everyone should be educated on it.
Are some of the drug companies interested in finding a cure probably not. Here is the some of the problem. Selling antiviral drugs that treat HIV patients is highly profitable for a lot of the drug companies that sell them.; so it makes them more interested in treating it as a chronic disease instead of finding a vaccine for hiv. Some drug companies have even tried to block South Africa from selling generic versions of HIV drugs.
Will there be a cure for H.I.V. in our lifetime, I am optimistic there will be. A recent vaccine trial for Merck failed to produce a vaccine. But more trials are in the works.
Im not sure why you would say that drug companies are not interested in finding a cure for it. Im sure they are. Thats like the million dollar pill basically and whichever company finds a cure for it will have a 20 year patent on it at the MINIMUM so they would rake in so many profits based on the world drug facts posted. You have close to 500-700 million people infected worldwide. If you sold the vaccine for say....500 bucks a pop, add it up. It will not only be the biggest discovery of our lifetime in terms of medical technology, but also the biggest money maker for a pharm company. I do not believe 1 company can do it alone $$$ wise, and would require several pharm companies teaming up
The problem with that is, pharm companies are greedy like oil companies, thus they wont waste their time.
I said some (not all companies)may not be as interested as others, since they already make huge profits in selling antivirals that treat H.I.V.
I do agree with you that it will take several companies teaming up; thus any of the profits would have to be shared among them.
do joint ventures all the time. There's a big difference in being smart and greedy vs being stupid and greedy.
Everytime someone posts with this... as the "Authority" when there are better sources I go a bit crazy... sorry - but the NIH is better... for this... you may also wish to check the FDA and the CDC....
And a note of Vaccine production, please understand - the cost of a vaccine is in large part to pay for the development of said vaccine.... and yes, drug companies do not make a huge profit on Vaccines... However, they do make some money....
So.... What is the real cost on developing, manufacturing, distributing and selling a vaccine???? liability.
So fhe next time you gripe about your local pharma NOT making your favorite vaccine.... just remember all the law suits brought against them for doing that very thing.... Immunity is a funny creature... there is not vaccine that will be 100% safe or confer 100% immunization in the total of the human population.... yet another tidbit of science that our educational system FAILS to teach at the 8th grade level...
we need better education for democracy and capitalism to work properly.
The article in question never said the vaccine would be 100% effective and it is not my sole source.
H.I.V. mutates constantly and that is part of the reason a vaccine has been difficult find. Most of the research going on is treating H.I.V. as a chronic disease with antivirals that cost thousands of dollars a year for a patient to buy.
I commend pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline for trying to also find vaccines too. Take for instance the clinical trial for the herpes vaccine,Herpevac which has shown recently to be effective in over 70% of women. GlaxoSmithKline the maker of valtrex should be applauded for this eventhough they manufacture Valtrex to treat HSV-1 and HSV-2.
Yes, pharmaceautical companies spend billion of dollars in research and development of drugs. Do they get sued, yes. But preventative medicine is still the best.
discovering, developing and marketing a new drug.... someone has to pay for it. by the by, most research is conducted at universities - NOT pharmaceutical companies.... they quit doing research in the 80's.... they in-license most technologies these days... they CANNOT afford research....
Most pharma are doing what is termed "development" Why? Cause liability has gone WAY WAY up... and governments - world wide - have ceased to allow pharma to recover the cost of R&D. Wyeth is laying off 1000 people, Merck
(who you praise) had downsizing over the past few years... why? Because they were sued for deaths attributed to VIOXX - a drug arguably SAFER than aspirin... yea... talk to me!
As to preventative... no sex. not in the champagne room, not behind closed doors, not anywhere.... that preventative enough? People have sex, it is one of the strongest drives in all animals... some would argue stronger than food. Because they have sex... they catch communicable diseases.... it is that simple.
Pharmacogenomics means that NO drug will treat all patients with the exact same outcome... epigenomics means that even if they did have the same genetic makeup - their historical background would ensure that there would be differences.... it is called a BELL SHAPED CURVE!
Stuff that does into the development of a new drug? Pharmacology that is - does it cure whatever ails ya.
Toxicology - does it kill ya?
ADME - does it turn into something else in your body - and how do you get rid of it?
pharmacokinetics - how long does it stay around...
Formulations - what is the best way to give it?
Process research - how to make it cheaply
med chem- is this the best drug candidate....
All this is done BEFORE it even goes into man.
yeesh.....
representations about their products.
Yet another tidbit of law...
You point out the incest of politics and science, and yet fail to understand that is precisely the problem of the authority that you would accept.
The whole point of peer review is to look at an issue critically. Practically speaking, those criticisms are way too often incestuous, and don't get outside the accepted patterns, like say creation science. Wikipedia does this VERY well, by accumulating the most PsOV in one place.
Wikipedia opens itself to critiques from ALL sources, and provides a readily understandable format. If you don't like it, then you should have an answer better than claiming your lab coat or degree makes you a better authority - the witness behind Wikifuckinpedia could be anybody, and that doesn't affect the accuracy of his allegation.
The problem with the Federal and academic agencies is precisely that they are too incestuous, and that doesn't keep BS out anymore than Wikifuckinpedia. You know goddamned well we can find as much BS in academia or the FDA as on the net. Open critique is the way to go.
kinda like going to a 3rd grader for hard research data on nuclear physics... not something I would recommend.
I happen to agree about the incestuous nature of academic and federal research agencies... and You've been around long enough to know that I advocate burning them to the ground and starting over on Academic institutions... but know what... until we do that, it is better the Wikifuckinpedia. Way better.
All the raw data is in the links I provided - and available to all - to read and interpret on their own terms... All Wikifuckinpedia has to offer is someone else's interpretation of that data - if they bothered to read it at all....
I don't have a replacement for the current federal funding system... only the hope that the arrogance and elitism can be toned down... Just remember - YOUR tax dollars paid for all the research... YOU should have access to the results, and YOU should have a say into what research is done - AND YOU should have a say as to who does the research... and finally, the results should be expressed as to how they are directly to YOUR BENEFIT...
Open critique ? sure.... but NOT anonymous critique.... I mean really, that is how dirty politics are played out...
-- Modified on 5/5/2008 3:40:33 PM
NIH's funding alone.
"The NIH invests over $28 billion annually in medical research for the American people.
More than 80% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world.
About 10% of the NIH’s budget supports projects conducted by nearly 6,000 scientists in its own laboratories, most of which are on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland."
By the by, people do wish to find a vaccine for HIV - or a cure for AIDS... it would be a gold mine... but Science (unlike what the narrow mined white lab-coated scientist will tell you) has limits as to what is known.... and how best to proceed.... Remember, there are still scientists who think that HIV is NOT caused by the HIV virus... (I am not among them, but they do have influence.... especially with the media!)
Politics and economics are way to vested in science for science to be the objective art it purports itself to be.
http://search2.google.cit.nih.gov/search?site=NIH_Master&client=NIHNEW_frontend&proxystylesheet=NIHNEW_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0&getfields=*&q=funding+for+HIV+research
-- Modified on 5/5/2008 6:06:41 AM
when I can pick up a copy of the local free entertainment rag, and find several PAGES of offers for pretty good money (like $200 for a few hours' involvement over a few months) for dipshit imaginary diseases like Seasonal Affective Disorder, knowing that they are not likely getting a representative sample.
Poor medical marketing companies, creating demand so they can fill it, making people crazy so they can suck their relatives' money. Fuckers ought to be stoned - in the Islamic sense of the word.
Wanna gripe about the sad state of psychiatry... start at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, and right on down the line.
By the by, I have know people with things that you would also call "imaginary" such as toxic house syndrome, chronic fatique syndrome, Lyme disease, severe depression... and so on.... oddly enough, the more we know about these disorders the more we find out about the role of biological response modifiers and mental health... By the way, how are YOUR cytokines?
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008 Mar;18(3):230-3. Epub 2007 Aug 3. Links
A detailed examination of cytokine abnormalities in Major Depressive Disorder. Simon et al.
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School [email protected]
Recent technological advances offer an opportunity to further elucidate the complex cytokine network in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Twenty cytokines were simultaneously assessed in 49 individuals with MDD and 49 age and gender matched controls. Multiple pro-inflammatory and two anti-inflammatory cytokines were significantly elevated in the MDD sample, including an antidepressant naïve subset. These data support a generalized chronic inflammatory state in MDD, and implicate additional cytokines and chemokines previously linked to cardiovascular disease.
the money comes from? The DSM is hardly the product of academics, it's an APA publication.
The problem is that the DSM deliberately precludes reproducible diagnoses, most significantly because (a) there is no reproducible standard for any threshold definition of a problem; ie, 'significant impairment' is whenever the doc finds it most profitable to get rid of your whining ass by dxing you; and (b) there is no isolation of an obvious variable, ie, the patient's environment. So eg while a kid is dxd ADHD, NOBODY ever asks if the teacher has her entire class on ritalin, as in fact frequently happens. What's most interesting to me is that any engineer could move them in that direction, but they don't do it.
You can talk molecules in circles, but the fact remains that when you pin down the evidence process, DSM dx are not diseases in the sense that there is any organic etiology, and if you read the DSM intro, you can see that.
Garbage in = garbage out. No amount of correlation establishes causation, and the sooner these folks acknowledge that, the farther ahead they will be.
First - the more objective tests we have to diagnose... the less likely the scenario you describe will play out. But I suppose you're gonna tell me that a positive culture for Staph aureus is meaningless also. Thanks, we've advanced medical science a smudgeon beyond that - in spite of ourselves.
There usually ARE biochemical or molecular signals for a disease... but then again, I forget you would rather we stand over the patient and hope that YOU show up... and give us the benefit of all your knowledge... well some patients cannot wait for you to dither about with your aruguments against yourself... you double and triple takes on a diagnosis...
but to the point... WHO DO YOU THINK WRITE THE GUIDELINES>>> it always comes back to the "academic" Experts.... ALWAYS! with a couple of exceptions.... but only a couple.
For the most part... the APA's membership is made up of medical specialists who are qualified as psychiatrists, having gone through an accredited (READ FRICKIN ACADEMIC) residency program in psychiatry. They also gotta be licensed to practice their "Art"! For the most part, most practicing psychiatrists don't have the motivation nor the time to contribute to the DSM.... which is why it falls to the academicians... ya know, those that can do.... those the can't teach... or more accurately - have the time & the mandate to.
For my part, I would recommend the writings of one such as Bob Adar (University of Rochester) who has published extensively on psychoimmunopharmacology - and psychocardiology. and other mind-body interactions. but hey, you probably know everything that you could learn from Bob. sad to say, one day we will be able to diagnose you... by simply taking a blood sample.... and hopefully we can make it all better for ya!
JackO has made posts much, much dumber that this one. I doubt this even makes the top 1000 all time dumbest JackO posts.
Your idea about taking a blood sample from him makes much more sense. I suggest that we start with about 14 pints to begin with. lol
one would be fine.
You know why there aren't any? Read the DSM. They aren't looking for them. The standards preclude finding any, because they don't isolate environmental issues that can't have an internal cause.
do play a role in internal pathways... It has a direct biochemical/molecular mark on the genome... called DNA methylation. the "health" of the parents (both mom and pop) influence the methylation of the infant's DNA... and that has been demoed to influence IQ, body type and other health related issues.... heck, probably explains some of your behavior...
that is not a disease, it is a DSM disorder.
Do you know why it is called a disorder? Because it's NOT a disease. There is no organic etiology, and they will NEVER find one, because they are, as I have discussed, not isolating obvious variables. It's not any more reproducible than cold fusion.
Psych (ie DSM) dx are called disorders for good reason - it gets too close to fraud to claim an organic etiology. Psych dx are social judgments that may be right or wrong, but they are social judgments - sure some behaviors respond to meds, just as my fine products have been known to cure anxiety in many folks for millennia. Does than make anxiety a disease, or a habit?
Now, you can claim all the correlations you want - you will notice that all psych dx occur in humans, so the cause must be biological, eh? You're just still looking, and you'll always look, because it's a gold mine.
animals as easily as in humans.... funniest line ever... a psych major went to a psychiatrist friend of mine to see if she could get a student internship with him... he told her of his research studying depression in rats..... another student overhearing the conversation asked
'so how do you know the rats are depressed?'
in short - we CAN and DO find markers for disease all the time.... in of themselves these markers do not 'cause' the disease (such as elevated gamma glutamyl transpeptidase and kidney failure) however, they are great markers that something is amiss in the kidney...
The case I cite, links markers for depression to the immune system. One of the first of this type of link between the immune system and nerologic function is the IL-1 - one part of the molecule has the immuno function and participates in the regulation T-cell proliferation while the other separate part of the peptide regulates the pyrogenic and somnogenic activity... Am J Physiol. 1990 Sep;259(3 Pt 2):R439-46.
In short, the neural and immuno control systems are chemically linked. Dude, ya gotta read more than the DSM if you REALLY want to know what progress is being made...
I get the feeling that someone really messed with your mind... and not in a good way. Sorry about that, mistakes get made.
organic issues, because it only occurs in biological entities. You don't need to tell me that "neural and immune systems are chemically linked" - we've known that since the dawn of cosnciousness.
All you have to do is admit that you're just chasing the money in circles, and you won't find causes thru science until you isolate major variables.
So if you "find markers all the time", you should be able to name one. All I want is ONE. I don't want a LINK, I want a marker, something that positively identifies *any* DSM dx.
You aren't going to find it, because hell, people can't even identify the *disorders* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment precisely because they are NOT DEFINED by objective markers. If you look at clinical dx standards, you will see they are cultural judgments, and that is the reason there are no tests for them. I've cross-examined plenty of shrinks into that admission. If there is progress being made, you need to tell the APA.
because a simple inflammation of the tissues in question will often result in an elevation of the marker. PSA? notoriously bad as a marker for prostate cancer... CA19-9 for either pancreatic or hepatic cancer is bad... too non-specific... however, as markers to follow disease progression - pretty good. as for psychiatric conditions? Amyloid beta is not too bad for Alzheimer's - only problem is that to know for sure, you have to biopsy the tissue in question... and no one recommends doing a brain biopsy for a simple diagnosis.
You seem to be hung up on the DSM? why is that? and the APA is completely aware.
While I criticize the academic community (and the APA is a part of that community) I can also recognize the good that IS done. get the right diagnosis for any disease psychiatric or other - and the demons can be held at bay... at least for a while. heck, the handfull of diseases we can treat - and cure - are mostly infectious diseases caused by bacteria or fugus. the handfull of diseases we can prevent - are mostly infectious diseases caused by viruses.
Oh, if we were to institute a "you must live a healthy life - with limited vices..." we could live a healthier life - cut out smoking.... watch emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease go down... Get rid of over eating - heart disease and cancer in general goes down... Eat healthy balanced diets - diabetes - decreases...
but that would make for less interesting lives - back to the state of the art.... and that is precisely the point - for the most part - a diagnosis is art. Some are better than others... you seem to be hung up on this issue... as you and I have discussed it many - many times... probably to the boredome of the P&R board and the Gen Dis board.... Why are you so obsessed.... this seems to be an issue with you -
Finally - why all the aliases?
-- Modified on 5/7/2008 6:34:07 AM
you can identify a cancerous cell, correct?
Can you identify a psych dx? No, you can't. Roshenhan has shown that psychrinks imagine things whenever they think someone is looking.
A psych dx is a person's label for certain patterns of behavior. The key problem is that they NEVER look into the social background to even investigate what aspects are legitimate and normal reactions, and what is conscious.
It's not reproducible. It's a cultural judgment. Sure it's real, sure there are crazy people, and some meds can make people behave differently.
The problem is claiming you know through your "science" what "causes" it, when in fact you know your process isn't scientific and can't ID an organic cause.
Finally, the reason I focus on the DSM is that it is the closest thing you have to a code, and to minimize your shape-shifting. COnsistency is an essential element of science, and the DSM is the closest thing you have to any consistency. You'd blow circular BS forever otherwise.
The problem here is that it is moving into an irrational and unpredictable social control mechanism, like every other religion before it. Social coercion is fine, but it needs to be predictable, and this is not.
"you can identify a cancerous cell, correct?"
Nope - never said that! and infact some would argue that cancer begins the moment there is a decrease in the healthy state of a cell which removes the growth control mechanism. Difficult to determine even with molecular methods. Some (and certainly supported by the work of Bert Vogelstein at hopkins) believe that multiple hits on DNA are necessary for a cell to go into unregulated division and metastasis. At which point would you say an oncogenic event has occurred? difficult to say.
with respect to "markers" for any disease, most of them are non-specific. In fact, working on markers is at best difficult because of all the things you have to rule "out"! as you know, almost impossible. What has come to the forefront is the use of multiple markers...
even something as simple to measure as blood pressure - which can have multiple etiologies... is somewhat difficult to diagnose. Simpler? Diabetes... nope sorry that too contains multiple etiologies in that bucket as well.
So now we come to your fav... psychiatric disorders... many of the disorders are difficult to diagnose... clearly. I've had friends misdiagnosed... and that is truly horrible... but once the correct Dx was made... then Rx was a bit easier... and they live healthy happy productive lives.... without? nightmare.
"Consistency is an essential element of science" - that is so off the wall wrong as to be laughable. there ain't nuttin consistent about science. It is always finding that what was thought to be true... is false... a good thing... constant questioning... constantly asking but what if that is NOT true. Where I disagree with the direction that academic science goes is that once specific academicians make up their mind about "truth" you cannot question it. Once (as a student) I did a piece of research that proved the "Textbooks" wrong. When we tracked the statement in the textbook to it source... the statement was a speculation in a 40 year old paper... with NO (read ZERO) data to support it. pure speculation.... took us over 8 years to publish those findings... but eventually - they were published.
as far as different conclusions about a Dx on a patient... ever witness gathering data on a scientific study... every one views the results with their own prejudices...
As I said before, you seem to be hung up on this... and you keep citing a single study - also not a great thing to do. (unless of course you are Watson and Crick).
try to explain that when you're changing your story about how useful science is in predicting anything.
On your planet, nothing is reproducible or falsifiable, nothing can be explained, you just take the ever-changing word of the guys in the white coats, right?
Rosenhan's classic study is a good example of how useful that sort of scientist is.
So sad that AID's continues to spread in India and Africa as the population of these countries grows at such a rapid rate.
--Sitara
I'd like to see a map on cholesterol levels and seat belts. A lot more than one freakin' percent.
made ya look!
-- Modified on 5/5/2008 3:16:32 PM