Drug milkshake still no match for abstinence

[MisterMike]

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-usaids144145175feb14,0,6505213.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

BOSTON - Massachusetts doctors have treated several HIV patients with a resistance to some of the most commonly prescribed treatments, raising further concerns about a possible new, drug-resistant strain of the virus.

The patients' resistance to drug treatment is similar to that in a New York City case that has sparked widespread concern among public health experts, the Boston Herald reported.

Dr. Gregory Robbins, an infectious-disease expert at Massachusetts General Hospital, said doctors there have treated several HIV patients in recent years with early resistance to two of the four drugs most commonly prescribed to treat infection.

"There is global concern that there may be an increasing amount of patients who have a resistant virus," Robbins said.

In the New York case, an unidentified man in his mid-40s was diagnosed with a rare strain of HIV in December.

He showed an immediate resistance to three classes of HIV drugs, and his infection progressed to AIDS within three months.

Drug resistance is increasingly common among HIV-positive people, but not with such a fast progression to AIDS, said Ron Valdiserri of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He said public health officials have not confirmed any other similar cases.

Still, public-health officials around the country are closely monitoring the case to determine the extent of the threat, said Dr. Alfred DeMaria, director of communicable disease control for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

The man in the New York case apparently had used the recreational drug crystal methamphetamine and had unprotected sex with multiple male partners.

One issue doctors are looking at is the connection between methamphetamine abuse and resistance to the AIDS drugs.

"This isolated instance is a wake-up call to show where resistance is going and why we need to make sure people don't get HIV infections in the first place," DeMaria said.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Yup, another reason why a stash of condoms and blood-testing, the latter for those who think they're at risk, are good things to have.

 

[PeachMonkey]

In the news tonight:

-- Dog bites man

-- Getting hit by cars decreases life expectancy

-- HIV infection is bad

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let me suggest a different title, in view of the well-known fact that ALL the countries in Europe with long-standing policies of needle exchange and addict maintenance, sex education for kids, condom distribution, etc. have far, far lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, HIV infection, and drug-related crime:

IDEOLOGY STILL NO MATCH FOR INFORMED CITIZENS AND RATIONAL SOCIAL POLICY

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Minor, unimportant sidenote: is the phrase "drug milkshake" or "drug cocktail"?

 

[PeachMonkey]

It's "drug cocktail". You're not making a "milkshake", you're taking a large group of different pills.

Robert, social policy is fer lib'rals. Far easier to blame the sick.

 

[MisterMike]

Let me suggest a different title, in view of the well-known fact that ALL the countries in Europe with long-standing policies of needle exchange and addict maintenance, sex education for kids, condom distribution, etc. have far, far lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, HIV infection, and drug-related crime:

IDEOLOGY STILL NO MATCH FOR INFORMED CITIZENS AND RATIONAL SOCIAL POLICY

"All" of 'em eh? So which one is it again? Norway or Sweden?

As for more social policy...suuuuure...just put it on my tab.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Both Norway and Sweden have similar social policies, and both have far lower rates of drug abuse and associated social problems than we do.

2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.

3. It remains remarkable that folks who associate themselves with religious and conservative viewpoints so consistently deny their moral obligations to others so insistently.

 

[MisterMike]

1. Both Norway and Sweden have similar social policies, and both have far lower rates of drug abuse and associated social problems than we do.

2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.

3. It remains remarkable that folks who associate themselves with religious and conservative viewpoints so consistently deny their moral obligations to others so insistently.

1. Yea, but you don't see everyone flocking over there on boats do ya? I wonder why that is?

2. Sure, needles are cheaper than shelling out the dough for HIV medicine. But who says I have to pay for either?

3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.

What's needle exchange?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

What's needle exchange?

Addicts turn in their needles to the government in exchange for clean ones. This reduces the chance of their sharing the needles with another addict. They stay clean and HIV free.

Some say this is bad because it promotes drug usage...though it saves lives. I guess the rational is the only good addict is a dead addict.


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine.

Naw. No major religious figure has ever bled through the nose for someone else. Never. Nope. Didn't happen.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Hey now, let's be fair. He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Hey now, let's be fair. He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.

WWJD? Needle exchange! The so-called "gospels" make it a point to spotlight Jesus' propensity to hang out with the undesirable and untouchable elements of society...the "unclean", such as prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. He broke bread with them, and shared the majority of his miracles with them.

Add a couple thousand years to the concept of that definition, and I think we'd see him playing Mother Theresa to the folks in AIDS hospices, rehab centers, and the like. I think we'd also see him condemning a new generation of Pharisee's...Swaggart, the sweaty fat guy who mouthed off after 9/11 that America deserved it for harboring gays and the like, Benny Hin, Pat Robertson, Paul & Jan Crouch begging for our cash so they can build another station (instead of feed the poor, as was the function of tithes in the church unde the direction of Peter, according to Acts), and so on.

If we are to believe the messianic origin of Jesus of Nazareth, and accept his crucifixion as fact, then he bled outta pretty much every part of his body for the well-being of undesirables.

If you profess to be a Christian, than you, more than any other person on the globe, ARE your brothers keeper. You have enrolled in a commitment of faith to pick up where Jesus left off, an continue the compassionate work he started. And if the tax man asks you for one dollar to pay for services you disagree with (like needle exchange), remember the words of your chosen master: Give $2.00. Then get in line to help hand them out (how many miles do you carry the Romans shield?).

How easy the fundamentalist right forgets -- at times of convenience -- the major dictums of the teachings of their iconic Lord. Love. And love, lived, is compassion. And compassion is not convenient, nor is it meant only for those who live in accordance with how you think they ought to.

Love is patient; love is kind...do the words "judgemental" or "selective" enter in there anywhere?

The fruits of the spirit are selfishness, avarice, pride, self-centeredness. Darn it; got it wrong again. Try this one; "...love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness..." etc.

"For God so loved only the people who kissed his heiny in church, ..." Oh, wait. That ain't right. Oh yeah... "...the world...(which happens to include HIV positive homosexuals, prostitutes, and drug addicts, in case you didn't notice)". Goes on to say he did not come to condemn the world. Guess someone forgot to tell Falwell & the like about that part. Professing to live in the image of Christ, not a sunday goes by that ain't full of condemnation for the people not in pews.

"Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God, for God is love. He who loves not, does not know God." (1st John 4:7-8)

**Note: It does not say, "Only those who think the way you think are born of God".

What would being compassionate to all people look like? Being kind? Being faithful to the principal tenets of your professed faith? Being faithful in service to others as is expected (remember...by your fruits shall they know you are his disciple, the greatest of which is Love)? Or is it easier to hide behind the excuse of "by grace, through faith, and not by works"?

It's your religion, not mine. At least have the stones to live it, or the courage to bail out if you can't embrace the parts you don't like. It's not a smorgasbord.

Sorry for the rant, all. I've been watching silly, spiritually myopic assertions rolling accross the boards for over a year now, pretty much choosing to ignore them. But when the echoes of that ethnocentric religiosity are used to defend positions that are unsupportable, even within the dogmatic cosomologies of the faith professed by the people spewing the garbage, it just gets to a point on my nerves where I can't sit comfortably by with hypocrisy unchallenged.

Regards,

Dave

 

[MisterMike]

WWJD? Needle exchange! The so-called "gospels" make it a point to spotlight Jesus' propensity to hang out with the undesirable and untouchable elements of society...the "unclean", such as prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. He broke bread with them, and shared the majority of his miracles with them.

Although I don't see Jesus handing out needles I agree he would have spent time with them. It's interesting that the tax collectors are lumped in there with the unclean - taxes now being the way the needles are paid for.

If I want to be charitable, I'll do it my way, in private, and not at the gun of the IRS dictating how much and how often. That's my only gripe.

 

[MisterMike]

Hey now, let's be fair. He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.

Haven't seen the Passion have you? Or maybe read the Bible?

 

[MA-Caver]

The topic of taking drugs to combat HIV vs abstinence is what we are talking about. It would be appreciated to focus back on the main subject and not go off on a religious tangent here. Thank you.
There are other topics in the Study better suited for that type/line of discussion. Or feel free to create one of your own.
------------
Back on topic....
Absinence is probably the better of the two choices. It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("they") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory.
But no, they wish to make more money by promoting unsafe/unprotected sex so they can sell more of their *ahem* cocktail.
What really gets me is that they most likey HAVE A CURE but are witholding it for the almighty dollar.
I've stated my stance on the drugs they continually push everywhere on every form of mass media out there. Anti-depressants, libido enhancers, lupus repressors, arthritis <sic> meds, etc. etc. etc. Now an HIV cocktail. Sure why not? Something new for them to concoct and sell.
It's a waste of time IMO and also IMO basically they are the ones we really need to worry more about, not the spread of HIV. People have been educated and need to be continually educated about how the disease spreads and what steps are needed to prevent the spread. At least until THEY decide to release their cure when they think they've made enough money off the placebos they're peddling. Unfortunately... it'll never be enough... money.

 

[MisterMike]

Absinence is probably the better of the two choices. It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("they") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory.
But no, they wish to make more money by promoting unsafe/unprotected sex so they can sell more of their *ahem* cocktail.
What really gets me is that they most likey HAVE A CURE but are witholding it for the almighty dollar.
I've stated my stance on the drugs they continually push everywhere on every form of mass media out there. Anti-depressants, libido enhancers, lupus repressors, arthritis <sic> meds, etc. etc. etc. Now an HIV cocktail. Sure why not? Something new for them to concoct and sell.
It's a waste of time IMO and also IMO basically they are the ones we really need to worry more about, not the spread of HIV. People have been educated and need to be continually educated about how the disease spreads and what steps are needed to prevent the spread. At least until THEY decide to release their cure when they think they've made enough money off the placebos they're peddling. Unfortunately... it'll never be enough... money.

That's right, and now the drugs don't work, which was the intent of what the article tried to get across. Seems some can't get past their own moral crusade.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Mister Mike in bold.

That's right, and now the drugs don't work, which was the intent of what the article tried to get across. Seems some can't get past their own moral crusade.

That particular strain of HIV has been found in one person out of hundreds of millions of infected people.

Haven't seen the Passion have you?

Wow. Now there is a reference we can rely on. "The Gospel According to Mel." If it happened to Jim Cavaziel, it MUST be true. We'll have to start listing that as a source on the thread dealing with the historicity of the Bible.

I find it amazing how you can cite the Gospels and then lambast progressives for their "moral crusade." You suggested RP700 read the Bible. Might I suggest you turn to Matthew, chapter 25?

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’"


Regards,


Steve

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Haven't seen the Passion have you? Or maybe read the Bible?

God forbid I make a joke on this forum. My point, or more accurately sheshula's point, was just that the very person you espouse as your savior believed in charity even for the "morally blameworthy", a far cry from "why should I have to pay out the nose"?

No, haven't wasted my money on "Passion of the Christ," nor spent the time to read the Bible cover to cover. I'll agree with MACaver on this point though: if you'd like to bring up my biblical expertise, or lack thereof, start a new thread.