HIV Supervirus Discovered

NEW YORK - (KRT) - A previously unknown superstrain of the virus that causes AIDS has been diagnosed in New York, sparking fears among health officials and the gay community.

So far only one case has been found in the world - a New York man in his mid-40s who had unprotected sex with multiple men in October.

City and federal experts believe it is the first time this mutated strain of HIV has been reported anywhere.

It is virtually drug-resistant and progresses in a matter of months from HIV infection to full-blown AIDS, a process that normally takes 10 or more years. In this man's case it took only two months.

"I've been living with HIV since 1981, and I was dreading this day, because I knew this day would come when multidrug-resistant strains of the virus would begin to enter into the community," said Dennis de Leon, president of the Latino Commission on AIDS.

The virus is known technically as a strain of three-class antiretroviral-resistant HIV, or 3-DCR HIV. Simply put, that means it is resistant to three of the four classes of drugs used to treat HIV.

Usually a cocktail of drugs from the four classes is needed to keep the virus in check.

Those most vulnerable to the virus would be gays and intravenous drug users who share needles. But it could easily spread to the heterosexual community.

"Potentially, no one is immune," New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said.

The new superstrain virus can turn into AIDS in two to 20 months, Frieden said.

The man diagnosed with the virus, who is not being identified by officials, has AIDS and his prognosis is bleak.

An intense investigation is underway to locate his sex partners to track the source of the virus and stem its possible spread.

The infected man had repeatedly tested negative for HIV over the past decade, including as late as May 2003.

Last October he was involved in "multiple episodes with multiple partners" of unprotected sex while binging on crystal methamphetamine, a popular party drug known as the poor man's cocaine, Frieden said.

In December the man developed flulike symptoms and his doctor diagnosed HIV. Further tests by the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan turned up the superstrain virus.

Jay Dobkin, medical director of the AIDS Center at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, said:

"Many of us here remember the dark days before there was any effective treatment for HIV, and I think ... (this) should at least be a reminder that those days could come back."

Frieden and a battery of local HIV/AIDS experts said the best way for people to combat the new strain is to practice safe sex and be tested regularly for HIV. Anti-retroviral medications have helped to sharply reduce the number of deaths in New York related to HIV. At the peak of the AIDS epidemic there were 7,102 deaths in the city in 1994, compared with 1,656 in 2003.

Advocates for the gay community said this is a wakeup call about the complacency created by breakthrough treatments.

"It debunks that sense of false comfort we were resting on," said Ana Oliveira, executive director of the organization Gay Men's Health Crisis.

There are more than 88,000 New Yorkers who know they have HIV, the city Health Department says, and it's estimated another 20,000 have it and don't know it because they haven't been tested.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...0883423.htm?1c

From what i have read elsewhere about this story it seems that once infected with the HIV supervirus, you get AIDs within 2-3 months instead of 10+ years :wtf:

Perhaps we'll start to see more research in to finding a cure instead of just 'control' now?

Regards,

Lee

Man, that is scary. A lot of people have been wondering what the next epidemic will be to spread over the world as history has shown that every few hundred years there is an outbreak of a deadly disease. I hope it won't be this one.

you all are falling for it, HIV doesn't exist it's am myth to make drug companies money


but I have to say not surprising given that new strains have been popping up all the time

it's amazing to me still how only the gay community is targeted in articles about hiv. a few years ago, for a couple years, hiv was the number one killer of straight women between 18 and 40, usually contracted from their husbands or boyfriends.

i have two friends with hiv, and several more acquaintances who got the virus through i.v. drug use. i.v. drug users are, for obvious reasons, at very high risk from hiv.

i'm not saying the gay community shouldn't be very careful, but shouldn't EVERYONE be careful? maybe one of those multiple partners is an i.v. drug user or has a wife... there's no reason to believe that this supervirus will only affect the gay community.

Yikes, just another reminder on the importance of playing safe!

cheers,
Luke

that's one HELL of a reminder :(

thats it

im gonna find me about 10 pure virgin boys who are clean as a whistle

and go live on a deserted island with them

its the only responsible safe sex thing to do

:angel:

jIgG - I actually do think you are onto something about HIV, but I don't think the reason is that sinister or conspiratorial.

Why blame the drug companies as villians, when people essentially demand pills from their doctors constantly? In fact when people see a doctor, what is psychoogically better - if the doctor says you are sick and you have to ride out your ailment for a week, or for the doctor to say "you are sick, and here are some pills, now go home" ?

What would be better - for you to go to the doctor and get a $90 prescription for Nexium, or to just elimiate all the fast food and sodas and breakfast tacos from your diet, and exercize twice a week? Or should you blame the drug companies if people instist on getting anti-depressants as opposed to facing their problems?

I know I'm not a doctor, but I do think there is a lot of learn about HIV, about virology in general.

Oh and that New York Times article casually mentions the guy uses crystal... a very toxic drug. Perhaps he's screwed up his immune system from that. Note they made it a point to mention that he used it, and that he was promiscuous. Why is that?

People easily play into the idea that sex is naughty and taboo; that sex is something you shouldn't do. This article certainly feeds to that stereotype.

Steve

there ARE suggestions who say there's a link between drug use and HIV.

But if there's a bug that can actually attack cells and destroy, that theory is just that .... a theory. To me at least.

As there are people who have HIV that aren't druggies.


Crystal meth is toxic, and so are the meds used


It's not that sex is something you shouldn't do. Sex without protection is something you shouldn't do and with the club scene and the free-for-all fucking and glorifying of bareback, we'll be reading more about gay guys on drugs becoming HIV+

I think that before running to CNN they probably should have tried to figure out what exactly was going on first.

truth be told, some people progress bery fast... some people never getsick.

Some people don't have HIV and are immunosupressed because of the type of heavy drug use that he admits to.

This is a single isolated case. Don't let the news scare you. Let's wait for the REAL scientists can tell us what's REALLY going on..not just some press whore crack pots.

I hate to break the momentum of hysteria but....

Cancer, heart disease, stroke, Ebola, the flesh eating virus, etc. etc. etc. can kill you as fast, or faster, then a 3 month "aggressive strain" of HIV. Oddly enough more people die in the U.S. from cancer, heart disease and stroke then HIV. ( U.S. CDC ) Should we use protection? Hell yes, just like we should watch what we eat, excercise and go for yearly checkups. It's sad that in America HIV is the 5th leading cause of death for Americans aged 25-44 ( U.S. CDC ) . I'm 33 , the leading cause of death for my age bracket is accidents ( U.S. CDC ) and being male I have a 41% higher chance of dying in an accident then a female ( U.S. CDC ) Influenza and pneumonia are the 7th leading cause of death for all Americans and it saw a 3% increase in mortality while HIV saw a 1.9% decrease in infection ( U.S. CDC )

Our current president has admitted to using cocaine extensively in his youth, perhaps he'd like to address Gay America about the pitfalls of using stimulants, and the risky behaviors that come with using such drugs, though I doubt he cares as first time cocaine users in the U.S. has risen 63% in the last 6 years ( U.S. Subcomittee Hearings Facts on Drug Interdiction )

It's unfortunate that half of all people worldwide with HIV are heterosexual women ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ) 25% of HIV cases worldwide are obtained by heterosexual men ( U.S. CDC 2002 ) In the U.S. 40% of all new HIV cases are heterosexual men and women ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ) 75% of women in the U.S. get HIV through heterosexual sex and 25% of women get it through injection drug use ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services )

The ignorance that is being spread about this disease in the media is exactly what has made the numbers of heterosexual infections grow since the disease was first discovered.

One good thing to come of Gay HIV is a heightened awareness in the Gay community about the disease. Unfortunately the numbers will continue to grow in the U.S., and worldwide, until people can shake the stigma of this being a Gay disease, which it's not. Viruses don't discriminate, people do.

Do you think it would be easier for us to say "straight HIV" and "Gay HIV" so they understand it effects them as well? :D

February 15, 2005
Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex
By ANDREW JACOBS

After all the thousands of AIDS deaths and all the years of "Safe Sex Is Hot Sex" prevention messages, it has come down to this: many gay men who know the rules of engagement in the age of AIDS are not using condoms. As news of a potentially virulent strain of H.I.V. settles in, gay activists and AIDS prevention workers say they are dismayed and angry that the 25-year-old battle against the disease might have to begin all over again.

While many are calling for a renewed commitment to prevention efforts and free condoms, some veterans of the war on AIDS are advocating an entirely new approach to the spread of unsafe sex, much of which is fueled by a surge in methamphetamine abuse. They want to track down those who knowingly engage in risky behavior and try to stop them before they can infect others.

It is a radical idea, born of desperation, that has been gaining ground in recent months as a growing number of gay men become infected despite warnings about unsafe sex. NEW YORK TIMES FULL STORY

Still the focus is Gay men, and those who especially use drugs? I feel sorry for the heterosexual women and men who will contract HIV thinking it isn't a straight disease and I feel worse for the Gay guys that will be looked down upon as irresponsible drug users, even though they could have been using a condom, and not using drugs, when they contracted the disease. So our NEW stereotype for people who contract HIV is drug using homosexuals? :wtf: Please see post above for latest HIV statistics.

Should we be opening a discussion about the production and showing of bareback movies?
Hot button anyone????

Hugs,
N.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by neilxod
Should we be opening a discussion about the production and showing of bareback movies?
Hot button anyone????

Hugs,
N.

---

:angel:

Well think of it like this:

The debate over the HIV topic is just like the debate over the scientific thoery that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

They are theories. They are not etchings on stone commandments brought down by Charlton Heston. That is what distinguishes science from absolute faith.

Just because they are posed by scientists, it should always be remembered that theories by definiton have the ability to be proven or disproven.

It is extremely difficult to discuss the subjects without falling into a precipice.

Steve

Desslock you make a very good point.

It would be refreshing to see scientific information, and debate, about this new strain, but oddly enough, all the press seems to be that drug using homosexuals are getting an aggressive strain of HIV.

Pretty soon drug using homosexuals will be blamed for this new aggressive strain, just like homosexuals in general are blamed for AIDS.

As far as global warming theory.. I thought they sampled permafrost many kilometers down in Antarctica and found that through ice timeline, millions of years back, that this warming is happening thousands of times faster then ever before? :high:

Denial.

well i don't know about global warming but i call tell you my hometown used to get a high of 34C in the summer when I was young and we thought that was horrible, now the temps in the summer are ~42C and 34C is considered mild. Same in the winter


back to HIV and bareback movies - not sure how I feel about those. Straight movies are shot mostly without condoms, but there's mandatory testing. Gay ones the way I understand it are, for the most part, free for all - show up get fucked bareback and if you have HIV or not so what.

And I dont think they can be compared to movies with violance. Two people having sex are something everyone does, two people stabing each other isn't something everyone does or wants done to them.

Obviously they have a following and target audience, and I somehow doubt it's commited gay couples. At least that's how I see it just by going to sites likebareback.com manhunt.com

I actually did a little experiment on manhunt with a friend, but that's for another time

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jIgG
back to HIV and bareback movies - not sure how I feel about those.

---

I like watching them, if they're done right, few of them are. As a producer I wont film that. I couldn't live with the guilt of being part of someone possibly getting HIV, not to mention the legal liability.

Yeah the reason I mention that is because yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a long article about that. A UN group designated to study global warming published what is called the "Hockey Stick" graph. And this paper was a strong justification for the Kyoto Treaty events several years ago, so science has clear ramifications.

A powerful visual, the Hockey Stick Graph shows that world temperatures were stable for centuries until the 20th century, when average temperatures spike up, creating this "hockey stick" line on a graph.

The scientists used as data carbon dating from tree rings of old trees, a lot of which were California redwoods. Unfortunately, one blogger in Canada is criticizing his methodolgy. The story was about how he went from being a pest, to actually getting some serious attention; the Mouse That Roared.

Amongst other things, he demonstrates that his using just any random data graphs out into a hockey stick. Basically it comes down to a complicated debate over the math.

I do wish that some credible people would similarly examine the methodology of HIV. I not so cavalier to just state HIV does not exist. But I think the drugs are toxic, and might be overprescribed. I also think many other prescription drugs are overprescribed - but necessarily because it is a drug company conspiracy, but because people demand their doctors give them pills.

I have a friend in Dallas who in his mid 20s was diagnosed as HIV positive, so the city aids clinic (the experts) quickly put him on a protease cocktail. {this was 1998 I think} He wasn't really sick of anything, it was a prophylactic measure.

Well so after 2 years of uncomfortable living, he exhausted his health insurance policy. And he was at the same point as when he started... oh and he shows the body effects of the drugs. So how useful was this medical prescription?

Did people who tested this way in 1985 or 1987 immediately get shoved onto AZT?
Was that healthy?

Wouldn't you want to question what the medical establishment is doing? I guess I could just throw my hands up and blame the evil drug companies for being greedy, or perhaps how evil the United States is because we don't have social medicine to pay for all this.

I'd reexamine it. Oh well, I do think time will eventually show the way, and these theories will be corroborated, modified or disproven.

Steve

Well you make a lot of great points there Desslock. Some say HIV was created by the U.S. government to kill out Africans.

I was watching a special last night that explained how the U.S. is using uranium in their bombs and shells in Iraq now, and back in Desert storm. They showed the Iraqi babies being born now with massive deformities ( here’s a site dedicated to is *graphic* http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html )

Now they have found high levels of uranium in Gulf War vets. Uranium destroys DNA.. our troops, and those attacked, get leukemia and cancer in 5 times the normal levels.

The first troop in Britain was awarded monetary damages because he has uranium poisoning from the Gulf War and has two children born with deformities. Gulf war syndrome is now linked to uranium poisoning from troops loading depleted uranium laced munitions. ( http://www.google.com/search?num=100...ndrome+uranium ) Amazing how the press in the U.S. has said NOTHING about this.

Can I get your opinion on why our government would a) put our own troops in such danger, then deny it and b) why we would poison the earth so maliciously?

Quick side note: Why lace munitions with depleted uranium? Because our nuclear power plants spend billions storing the stuff and it's a cheap "legal" way to get rid of it. so sad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
What would be better - for you to go to the doctor and get a $90 prescription for Nexium, or to just elimiate all the fast food and sodas and breakfast tacos from your diet, and exercize twice a week?

---

OH MY GOD! I'm scared! It's like you have been spying on me for the last 2 years! I think you are psychic... except I'm taking Prylosec, not Nexium ;)

Dess,I think that almost everything is open for discussion....educated debate by informed people. That's how civilized folk resolve issues and set standards.....no?

Hugs,
Neil

I have a lot of bareback galleries on my site. I have wrestled with the notion of having them or not, but ultimately I decided that I don't believe someone sees one of my galleries and decides, "I'm going to go get fucked up the ass without a condom."

I do, however, believe that if people see enough of this stuff and ultimately it's showing up everywhere, maybe people get a subliminal message that everything's okay, we're done with AIDS.

What I did on my site was I placed a link on my navigation bar to page about bareback sex. It's a discussion encouraging people to talk to their partners and it provides some links to some major AIDS groups around the world. I figured at least I'm doing my part to keep people educated and talking about it.

Just recently, I started doing a reno on my site and one of the things I'm doing is including a fairly large WARNING button that essentially says, "Guys, this gallery is a fantasy, AIDS is a reality. Don't bareback without talking to your partner first. If you want more information, click here." And the link takes them to my bareback information page, which I am in the process of revising further.

What more can I do? Ultimately, barebacking is a personal decision.

And I think the larger question, which has been raised already, is: Why are we (a gay webmaster board) having this discussion? Why aren't straight webmasters having this discussion? Barebacking is way more prevalent in their side of the industry and yet no one seems to care. In fact, no one even uses the word barebacking to describe straight sex.

Dzinerbear

All very good points. I looked at this through a psychologist's mind.

Over the years in medicine and in pathology, people's ideas about medicine and illness has changed dramatically. Only 100 years ago many people were still dying of fairly small diseases like the Flu, polio, and TB. However, science has exploded with all sorts of drugs or immunizations that you get as a child so you never have to go through the fear of getting certain diseases. I think the only childhood disease that we still mostly get is Chicken Pox. I know I had it.

Older generations, mostly 50-60+ grew up with the reminders of what their parents and grandparents had to go through when someone was sick and there were no immunizations or pills to cure the disease. The generation of people who grew up with mass immunizations, I think, have no idea about real prevention. We've never had to be on the look out for people with certain symptoms and we've never had to listen for outbreaks of disease unless you count the Flu season. Our minds are so use to thinking, "Well I was immunized as a kid and if I go to the doctor, he'll give me medicine that will fix it."

From childhood, most of us in the ages 18-30 have not had a disease that didn't take a single trip to the doctor's to fix up in about a week. Our minds are now programed to think this way. "if I'm sick, the doctor has medicine." I've read about people who are suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease or their children are and they just can't believe that there is no pill, treatment, or shot that will have the cure. It blows their mind.

I think this mindset has helped relax people's fear and make them take more risks when it comes to sex. Even most non-fatal STDS have some sort of pill to reduce their symptoms and make them easier to deal with. It just amazes me when I even think about it. I'm still in the age range were I think "I'm invincible" and nothing can happen to me because I'm still young. I do my best not to think that way in situations but invariably it happens.

Maybe one day in the future people will change this mind set and remember that there are still nasty deadly diseases out there that can get them if they are not careful.

Nicely said, Ms. Chan!

Right now I'm watching Glen Close cry her heart out while naked in the misting shower, in the Big Chill - on Encore Love Stories.

I watch the same damn old movies over and over.

Steve

February 16, 2005 01:26 PM US Eastern Timezone

Physicians and General Public Favor Mandatory HIV Testing; Views Support Findings of Recent Medical Report

FLEMINGTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 16, 2005--Results of a new national survey of 864 physicians and 1,339 members of the general public revealed that a significant majority of both groups believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population.


The national e-survey was conducted by HCD Research during February 12 -14, as part of its continuing investigation of the social, political and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 3% at a 95% confidence level.

The survey revealed that among the general public:

-- 63% of Americans believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 60% indicated that the associated health care benefits of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 40% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns of those representing the general public who were not in favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 76%

Job/employment issues 71%

FULL STORY

Anyone find this quite strange? We go, in ONE WEEK from.. a new aggressive HIV strain found, to drug using homosexuals are spreading the new strain to, physicians and general public favor mandatory testing.

The current top 15 leading causes of death in America ( U.S. CDC ) :

1) Heart disease
2) Cancer
3) Stroke
4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5) Accidents
6) Diabetes
7) Influenza and pneumonia
8) Alzheimer's disease
9) Kidney disease
10) Septicemia (blood poisoning)
11) Suicide
12) Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13) Hypertension (high blood pressure)
14) Homicide
15) Pneumonia resulting from breathing particles or fluid into the lungs

Why are they not calling for mandatory testing for any of the medical conditions above? New cases of HIV went down last year by 1.9% while cases of Influenza and pneumonia rose by 3.9%.

Something here doesn't make any sense.. anyone here have any input?