Tea hinders HIV transmission!!
- Thread starter JadecloudAlchemist
- Start date
Wow. This may be some of the most important news in years. Why isn't this all over every channel right now?
-Rob
-Rob
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
I thought the marrow transplant was incredible:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858843,00.html
Marrow transplants are very risky but it is a breakthru.
St. Johns Wort has shown to have Antiretroviral properties I am sure there are more:
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-063-06.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1858843,00.html
Marrow transplants are very risky but it is a breakthru.
St. Johns Wort has shown to have Antiretroviral properties I am sure there are more:
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-063-06.html
LuckyKBoxer
Master Black Belt
So does someone really think the medical companies are looking for a cure? I doubt it, they may happen to find one, but it will get buried, there is after all no money in a cure, the key for them is to find a way, preferably and expensive way, to make you live with the disease.. for as long as possible. Ya I know I am cynical as hell, hard not to be now days.
It would be great if they actually found a cure, or a way to at least stop transmission of it.
It would be great if they actually found a cure, or a way to at least stop transmission of it.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
When I was in Acupuncture school one of the teachers told us that an herbalist found a cure for Diabetes and was shut down by the Government or some agency. I don't know how true the story is or what herb it was(he might have told us but I forgot what herb)
Retroviral cocktails are expensive business so I can agree with the concern about money. I think there is people working on a cure as we have seen in previous breakthrus but regardless of cure or progressive treatment we are coming along further then before.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
1) The effect was only demonstrated in cultured cells with the purified protein. No in vivo data was shown. Any in vivo data is likely to be far less impressive.
2) It's not like you can drink green tea to get this effect; it would have to be applied as a cream, like the article states.
3) Condoms are far more effective.
So basically, what we have here is a potentially useful adjunct therapy. You would not want to use this method as a primary defense, but as a backup to condoms. It would also likely have to be applied every time before sex. Hence, not that earth shaking.
The original article can be found here for the interested.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Nonsense.
Another way is to not be a junkie and not go around plooking other guys up the dirt road.
CoryKS
Senior Master
Don't listen to him Jade, he's part of the conspiracy.
zDom
Senior Master
But what if the lady you fancy previously dallied with a fella who "swings both ways"?
Or if someone at a hospital screws up and uses an infected needle?
I'm married and don't fool around.
The chances of that are infinitesimally smaller than druggies sharing dirty needles and bumping uglies with strangers.
I'm just saying. Tea is interesting. Keeping it your pocket is probably safer.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
From the article:
"With the vast majority of the world's 33 million people with HIV infected through heterosexual sex..."
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
Did not say it was true. Don't know if it was true it was a story told to us in class. If you are interested in verifing the story you are more than welcome to contact the school and speak to the teacher in question:
http://www.amcollege.edu/
Greg Brody is the name. I know other herbalist who swear on other herbs that do have compounds for Diabetes such as Galega Offcinalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galega_officinalis
No it is not as ground breaking as other break thrus but it is something to look more into.
Maybe some good can come out of the find to combat HIV and AIDS.
Uh huh. But if you do the research, you find that the majority of heterosexual cases of HIV infection occur in sub-Saharan Africa, due to the prevalence of schistosomiasis, which is common there but not in most other places in the world.
This is a common tool used by people who have a vested interest in making HIV an 'everybody' disease instead of a 'homosexual and drug user' disease. If it's an 'everybody' disease, then there is less stigma and it is easier to attract funding to cure it. If the typical victim is gay and/or an intravenous drug user, it is less likely to get funding for research.
I'm hip, and I'm sympathetic, but it isn't a 'heterosexual' disease in the USA or most of the developed world. It still has a lot to do with driving the Hershey Highway. Sorry.
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?GMResults&loc=nccs
Live True
Brown Belt
Wish it were that simple. While in the US more homosexual men and IV drug users are infected, they account for only 85% of the cases up to 2007 (per CDC stats...I couldn't find more recent stats in a quick search).
Other sources note that Heterosexual transmission is also on the rise as more women are infected by thier spouses (some through homosexual relations) and children are infected through thier mothers. (article here) This article actually points to 3 patterns:
- industrialized countries iwth large # of reported AIDS cases, most cases are homosexual or bisexual males and urban IV drug users (as noted above)
- central/eastern/and souther Africa and some Caribbean countries-most cases occur among heterosexuals. Iv drug and homosexual transmission either do not occcur or occur at a low level.
- Eastern Europe and Middle East, Asia, and most of Pacific where Aids has only small numbers of cases reported. Most cases believed to be from travelers who had contact with homosexual men and female prostitutes.
According to this FAQ (, which matches some of what I've read elsewhere) worldwide the heterosexual population accounts for more than 80% of all HIV infections.
Now, I'll readily admit, having taken enough statistics courses, that statistics are sometimes a matter of who is reporting them and how you interpret them...that said, I think it's compelling that this is not simply a druggee and gay male disease. It's never that simple, and seperating groups out in a disease like this only makes it easy to believe it could never happen to "me". When really, this is a pandemic that could happen to anyone who is not in a monogamous relationship and never has the risk of mixing blood or fluids with anyone, ever...in whatever manner. Hmmmm....
As for the information on green tea, I think there are many homeopathic cures and aids, but they work much differently and don't get the proper testing, advertisement, and distribution, because they don't make money. I believe I read recently that some of the natural components of curry have been found to have an positive impact (by this I mean deterrent affect)in cancer....but research is slow because anyone can access the basic ingredients and the money potential is not there. AIYA!
So thank you for the information, and yet another reason to love my tea, even if I'm not going to be pouring over my nether parts before sex anytime soon (GRIN).:uhyeah:
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
It was first called GRIDS.
Here is a timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_AIDS_cases
http://fohn.net/history-of-aids/
But looking at the history we can see that not everyone infected was Homosexual. However the term GRIDS was used because of the wide spread of Gays showing up with symptoms only later did addicts,hetrosexual and so on show up in numbers matching GRIDS hence they renamed it AIDS.
Here is a timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_AIDS_cases
http://fohn.net/history-of-aids/
But looking at the history we can see that not everyone infected was Homosexual. However the term GRIDS was used because of the wide spread of Gays showing up with symptoms only later did addicts,hetrosexual and so on show up in numbers matching GRIDS hence they renamed it AIDS.
Live True
Brown Belt
Bill, just read your latest post, and have to agree that is most prevalent in industrialized countries like America among gay men and drugs. I also think that one article I noted with the 3 scenarios is intriguing. That said...20-25% (depending on what article/site/ref you use) of heterosexual or other transmission is not something to scoff at. Avoiding those activities will prevent most, but not all, cases.
I can't argue that making a disease like AIDS an everyone disease makes it more attractive to fund research. But making it a "not my problem" issue, makes it easy to ignore and deny that it could every happen to anyone you care about (including yourself), and I simply think that is faulty thinking as well as a trace of denial. The world is simply not that pretty or simple.
Also, just becuase you are unlikely to get a disease, doesn't make it one you shouldn't support eliminating. I find it interesting that folks who support cancer research and the like can be so against AIDS funding. This points to more of a personal moral/religious concern than a truly logical one. That doesn't make it wrong, but it should not be justified as a logical reason. It is an emotional one.
I can't argue that making a disease like AIDS an everyone disease makes it more attractive to fund research. But making it a "not my problem" issue, makes it easy to ignore and deny that it could every happen to anyone you care about (including yourself), and I simply think that is faulty thinking as well as a trace of denial. The world is simply not that pretty or simple.
Also, just becuase you are unlikely to get a disease, doesn't make it one you shouldn't support eliminating. I find it interesting that folks who support cancer research and the like can be so against AIDS funding. This points to more of a personal moral/religious concern than a truly logical one. That doesn't make it wrong, but it should not be justified as a logical reason. It is an emotional one.
My point is that some things are easier and simpler than they may appear. While bullet-proof vests are nice, not going where shootings are common might be a tad more efficacious. Condoms may stop the spread of STD's, but not putting your phallum bway-bway in people not your spouse might be a more efficacious way to protect oneself.
Yes, you can still get shot in non high-crime areas, and yes, you can get an STD from your spouse. But the odds are much, much, lower - and you don't have to douse your little bishop in tea before doing whatever.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Very, very few people have one sexual partner in their entire lives, to whom they are always faithful. Public health approaches should take into account the actual, not the fantastic.
As for your other assertions, according to the CDC, heterosexual contact accounted for 13,627 new cases in 2007, while male homosexual contact accounted for 22,472. IV drug use counted for 4,939. So, it's hardly a "gays and druggies" disease.
Also, it's not like gay man are going to stop being gay men, and they are people too. They deserve public health consideration. Telling them to have sex with one woman their whole lives won't exactly cut it.
I agree, and I am not against HIV/AIDS funding. I know it is a problem when people see it as a 'not me' disease and therefore don't want to pay for funding. I get that, and I'm on your side there.
I will admit that I find it a trifle galling that medical research has had to become a political event - so now if you say "more homosexuals than heterosexuals get AIDS," you are tarred and feathered as a hater, a bigot, etc, etc. It has become anathema to even SAY the truth - because you'll be descended upon with a fury by the gay lobby.
I note with some irony that more Americans will die of bacterial infections this year than of AIDS; anti-biotic resistant bacterial infections are on a steeply-rising path - and they can't get much in the way of federal funding; because the AIDS lobby has soaked it all up.
That ain't medicine, that's politics, and it sucks. And as sympathetic as I am towards AIDS sufferers, their lives are not inherently more important than mine.
