[[What I want to know is, what are the odds of catching HIV in various scenarios, such as:]]
First answer these questions:
What are the chances your partner is infected?
Is your partner a gay male or an injection drug user (in a region where those are populations that are heavily impacted)? A prostitute?
Where did you find this partner? In a bar/dirty bookstore/computer programming conference?
Do you or your partner have open sores/other STD?
What kind of sex did you have?
How many times did you have sex?
If your partner is HIV+, are they on medical therapy and if so, what is their viral load? (A non-detectable viral load doesn’t ensure that they are non-infectious, but lessens the chances some of passing it on).
It’s really hard to put “odds” on this kind of thing.
There are some studies on sero-discordant couples - where one partner is infected and the other is not - on rates of new infection. Look in the archives here to find the column(s) that Cecil wrote about this, too.
Not to discount the tragedy of AIDS and the growing number of women infected, HPV (human papillomavirus) is responsible for or associated with most (some experts say ALL) cervical cancer in women. The media sometimes make it sound like getting a PAP smear is the only way to prevent this cancer. The PAP smear is a screening test that may identify the cancer in its early stages when it can be treated, but most people don’t realize that the cause is a sexually transmitted disease. There are many strains of this virus that are benign and some people who get the “bad” strains (mostly types 16 and 18) seem to be able to resolve it. But it is the major contributor to this cancer that is the sixth most common cancer in the world and a leading cause of death in women.
JillGat: “Central Africa is being devastated by it.”
AIDS is a serious problem in central Africa (i.e., Congo Kinshasa, Congo Brazzavile, Gabon, CAR, etc.) but it is worse in southern Africa (i.e., RSA, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Swaziland).
And as long as someone mentioned Duesberg, this link features a great article refuting his and others’ claims that HIV does not cause AIDS http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html
I see several posters referring to the increasing percentage of American women among the newly-infected. Are the absolute numbers of newly-infected women also increasing? Or is the increased percentage just a reflection of a decline in the new infection rates for gay men (due to more safe sex in the gay community)(which would decrease the gay male share of the new-infection pie)? Does anyone know?
I see several posters referring to the increasing percentage of American women among the newly-infected. Are the absolute numbers of newly-infected women also increasing? Or is the increased percentage just a reflection of a decline in the new infection rates for gay men (due to more safe sex in the gay community)(which would decrease the gay male share of the new-infection pie)? Does anyone know?]]
Absolute numbers of female cases ARE increasing in some regions. But I made a chart that shows exactly what you’re saying in my state, where we see no real ascending trend in females. If you’re looking at percentages, one group can stay the same or even actually go down in numbers, but still have a larger percentage of the cases if the other group is going down faster. The chart I have (wish I could paste Harvard Graphics in here) shows bars for absolute numbers of male and female cases reported each year. The majority of the cases are males. Male cases dip in recent years (maybe because of safe sex? Maybe because the most susceptible ones died?)and females fluctuate a little but show no trend. There are far fewer females than males reported. I put a line over the bars showing the percent of cases that is female. When the males go down in numbers the females go up dramatically in percent of cases. Even though their numbers aren’t really rising here. Gotta look at numbers, rates and percentages to get the whole story.
-Jill
Handy mentioned HPV and prostate cancer… I don’t know if there is an association between the two. Some isolated studies have suggested it, but I don’t think there’s anything definitive. Almost all men will end up getting prostate cancer if they live long enough, from what I understand. There does seem to be a connection between anal cancers and HPV in some gay men (especially, I think, in those with HIV disease who have compromised immune systems).
Spoke re. HPV: [[Wow! That’s pretty scary, Jill. Is there any sceening test for this virus that a guy could take, to make sure he’s not a carrier?]]
I’m not sure. I think they have to like drill out core samples from various areas on your penis and scrotum. You need a referral?
One of the ways they identified the link to begin with was that a higher rate of cervical cancer was found in women who had the same certain male sex partner - ex. and subsequent wives and girlfriends, etc.
Let me check with a doctor I know who specializes in HPV and be sure what I’ve said is accurate (the core samples was a joke) and see what else I can find out.
-Jill
Later - I spoke to a doctor I know who’s very knowledgable about HPV and it sounds like there’s a lot we don’t know about it. We’re not sure how to screen males, or what we could even learn from doing so because this is such a common virus. Condom use doesn’t seem to prevent the spread of it, either. There seems to be pretty good evidence that it’s causal in cervical cancer, probably in anal cancer, but it’s speculative with prostate cancer. Association doesn’t always mean cause. There may be co-factors. HPV can’t even be cultured in the lab like herpes can be.
Actually micro user isn’t as full as shit as he might sound. I read an article about this subject a couple weeks back that explained a lot of why there isn’t any AIDS epidemic in Africa or anywhere else, and never has been. (I just looked all over for the magazine/article, and I can’t find it. If I do I’ll post a reference here.)
Basically:
In 1985 the CDC had a conference. One of the goals of that conference was to esablish common methods for accounting AIDS. The problem was that (as micro user tried to put it) at the time, the standard AIDS test cost around $80 per person so there was no way to actually test people who couldn’t afford to pay, and that meant much of the population of the African continent.
It was considered to list a group of 20 or so common conditions and complications of AIDS infected people and classify positive those that met a given number (6 or 7) of the conditions, but there was concern that local doctors wouldn’t be experienced enough to tell the difference between conditions that had very similar symptoms. In the interest partly of speeding things along, but mostly of enlargening their budget, the CDC set an extremely loose standard. There’s only three symptoms they consider to detirmine if you have “African” AIDS or not. If you have had a persistent fever and persistant diarrhea for at least 30 days, and have lost at least 10% of your bodyweight in the same time period, congratulations, you have AIDS.
Of course, many impoverished people in Africa don’t have money for even the most basic medicines, and often the drinking supply and the sewage system end up being essentially the same water. There’s lots of diseases, or combinations of diseases, that can lead to those three symptoms, and that’s the whole, ridiculous point: the present estimate of AIDS infection in use by the CDC is worthless.
The article noted that the CDC is very selective about handing out African AIDS population research contracts these days; they’ve gotten burned almost every time by other researchers who say that the CDC’s figures overestimate the AIDS-positive population by at least 10X. The reason the CDC said there was a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in Africa was that, by their own standards, there was. When you actually go in and start blood testing individual people, however, most of the positives are either homosexuals or IV drug users, or often, both: just like in most every other country.
And I’m not implying that IV users and homos deserve to suffer and die; only that if an organization that’s trying to combat the disease cannot come to terms wth the method of transmission, I’d put their chances of sucess at pretty damn near hopeless. - MC
Well, as long as we’re on the subject of deadly viral STDs, I was told by a freind in the medical field that Hepatitis C is another one to worry about. I’m not entirely sure about the rate it spreads through sexual contact, but I was told that (like HPV) it is more prevalent than AIDS, but doesn’t get nearly same amount of press. Anyone know anymore?
On a related note, I was once told by a well-traveled soul that in many poor places, the AIDS IV transmission rate is considerably lower because IV users don’t use needles: they can’t afford them. Instead, they slit their skin with razor blades and rub the drugs into the wound.
-?- I dunno if it’s easier to wash off a razor blade than a needle, or if everybody has their own razor blade. - MC
[[- The article noted that the CDC is very selective about handing out African AIDS population research contracts these days; they’ve gotten burned almost every time by other researchers who say that the CDC’s figures overestimate the AIDS-positive population by at least 10X. The reason the CDC said there was a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in Africa was that, by their own standards, there was. When you actually go in and start blood testing individual people, however, most of the positives are either homosexuals or IV drug users, or often, both: just like in most every other country.]]
This is as untrue as it can be, btw, as is much of that post. Please see the May issue of Scientific American (there’s a link to the current issue’s article on AIDS in Africa in an earlier post, too).
Many of the people I work with have conducted research on HIV disease in Africa and seen astounding rates of infection - up to 40% of pregnant women in some prenatal care clinics - in Zimbabwe. Over 50% of the HIV/AIDS cases in the world are now female. It is primarily a heterosexual disease in most of Africa.
MC, we’re still waiting for a documented source from a person or agency as well respected as the CDC which disputes the CDC’s finding.
The charge: “The CDC doesn’t know AIDS from an catastrophically huge epidemic of an already known disease!” is an extraordinary claim. It needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.
About 95% of what is in MC’s recent, lengthy post is nonsense. However, it is correct to be skeptical of AIDS case estimates you read in the paper and even of those from “respected” sources.
The fact is that many well intentioned and otherwise sensible epidemiologists have colluded with politicians in international organizations, governments, and NGOs to make unconscionably inflated estimates of HIV prevalence in many countries (to say nothing of playing games with the numbers to mislead the numerically unsophisticated about current trends in disease incidence).
An historically reliable source for HIV prevalence estimates around the world is the US Bureau of the Census. Here are some 1998 estimates of HIV prevalence among low risk populations (i.e., pregnant women, blood donors, or other persons with no known risk factors)from their web site (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/hiv1.html):
Country Capital or Major City/Outside Major City
Congo Kinshasa 3.1/6.3
Congo Brazzaville 5.8/4.0
Gabon 4.7/1.2
CAR 11.7/15.3
RSA 27.0/18.1
Botswana 42.9/31.7
Zimbabwe 28.0/29.3
Zambia 27.0/12.7
Swaziland 26.3/26.5
The CDC admits it makes no attempts to check the veracity of the “no homosexual sex” claims. Hell, here in the US, a lot of Gays are still in the closet, and I believe the more backward the country is, the more likely someone is to deny it. I would say, then, Congo-- almost 100%.
Danielinthewolvesden: "The CDC admits it makes no attempts to check the veracity of the “no homosexual sex” claims.
Cases of AIDS and HIV infection are reported to the CDC by state health departments. It is up to the state or local health department to interview people to find out how they might have been exposed. The CDC has to accept what is reported to them by the states since they have neither the budget nor the authority to interview members of the public except in the course of special investigations.
Danielinthewolvesden: “Hell, here in the US, a lot of Gays are still in the closet, and I believe the more backward the country is, the more likely someone is to deny it. I would say, then, Congo–almost 100%.”
There is no evidence to support this belief. Certainly there are many examples of countries with relatively low per capita incomes where substantial numbers of men dress openly as transvestites and seek male sex partners.
Danielinthewolvesden: “Also, in Africa a lot of men have Homosexual sex, without being 'Homosexuals”, and do not
admit to the act. thus, these are all counted as Hetero."
Although some sub-Saharan-African men do have sex with other men, the consistent finding of nearly 20 years of research into the spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is that HIV transmission there is mainly through heterosexual sex. The finding that HIV prevalence is as high among pregnant women as among men certainly supports this conclusion.
AHunter3: “In some parts of Africa clitoridectomy and infibulation are widespread and probably contribute to AIDS; in fact, they could scarcely help but do so.”
Could you share with us your basis for this claim? I am aware no relevant data. The most pertinent data I know of is from one small, unpublished study of STDs among prostitutes. In that study, women who had undergone some type of genital mutilation (clitoridectomy or a lesser procedure) were somewhat less likely to have STDs than women with intact genitals.