61–70 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignorance of STDs was okay in 1960s, because antibiotics worked really great back then and just about every STD was easily curable.
Importantly, while the bacterial STIs were curable, Herpes was definitely not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term
That's factually untrue according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior[0]. The facts are[1] that the younger the age group the higher the condom usage is. And while condom use has fallen a little since its height, it still remains significantly higher amongst the young than any older generation or group. [0] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ [1] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/condomgra…
Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.
If there is no significant chance of untreatable disease, it is not 'irresponsible' to have a very active sex life. The irresponsibility stems purely from the danger. Without it, it becomes a moral issue and is quite different from 'irresponsible'. And yes, there are people who actively oppose any development of an HIV vaccine or cure due to their moral fear that people will start having more sex. The chaplain of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave. The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprote…
Even if there were a perfect HIV cure, and antibiotics were 100% effective, there is a risk of infertility from chlamydia, etc. So no, unprotected sexual freedom isn't a practical goal for medical science. Better to use condoms instead.
I'm a little tired of the disconnect between medical advice and reality when it comes to sexual practices. Dental dams, anyone? Sure they're smart; I don't think I've seen one outside of health class. Doctors could easily provide more helpful advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term
That's factually untrue according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior[0]. The facts are[1] that the younger the age group the higher the condom usage is. And while condom use has fallen a little since its height, it still remains significantly higher amongst the young than any older generation or group. [0] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ [1] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/condomgra…
HIV must be the most almost cured disease ever.
In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.
HIV/AIDS is a multi-billion dollar business, no-one seriously wants to cure it.
Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/new_a... I like how the ID is 71 neat
Why would you link to that discussion? Here is what I see as the "top" comments: -what about that 1%? I'd fear if it became the new super HIV --Can you not appreciate the 99%? ---He's a 1%er for sure... ----Let's git im! -----ANGRY AT OP? WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? I'VE GOT YOU COVERED! COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium... ------Here you go Comrade -------!redditsilver --------Here's your Reddit Silver, ZarathustraV! -…
thankfully, /r/science has you covered. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/71ndtd/scientists_...
Hopefully it's cheap and/or Bill Gates starts throwing money into producing it if it passes clinical trials. I have a feeling that Africa is where AIDS does the most damage, and I doubt they can afford the $1000/mo. it will certainly cost in the States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no significant chance of untreatable disease, it is not 'irresponsible' to have a very active sex life. The irresponsibility stems purely from the danger. Without it, it becomes a moral issue and is quite different from 'irresponsible'. And yes, there are people who actively oppose any development of an HIV vaccine or cure due to their moral fear that people will start having more sex. The chaplain of the…
... why does the CDC have a chaplain? It's a non-military government organization.
Can someone knowledgeable provide more details about the "tri-specific" nature of the attack and what effects this might have on the selective resistance of the remaining strains? (e.g. is it something that would take three simultaneous mutations to overcome, thus being much less likely than any resistance that only takes one, due to HIV's incredibly high mutation rate, though those that do achieve all three would st…
(Related personal anecdote and why I recommend them so highly: I'd been listening to them for awhile, then a research paper came out showing a possible link between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and XMRV in mice. People online had taken the paper and went crazy with it and some people were finding sources for murine (mouse) cancer drugs and dosing themselves with it in hopes of curing their CFS. They went through the paper and recognized the researcher and lab who wrote it. And noted that the lab had previously published XMRV research. XMRV is apparently remarkably difficult to eliminate contamination from. Basically if a lab has ever worked with it, you have to burn down the lab and build anew if you want to be sure it isn't around. So they advocated skepticism and said wait for independent verification before getting too worked up. A couple months later, the original paper was retracted as the researchers announced no other lab could reproduce their findings and it was down to XMRV contamination of their samples. That is the kind of thing you only get when you're listening to bona fide experts in their field and it blew my mind.