New Strain: Full-Blown AIDS in 3 Months

[OneFinger]

New York City doctors have discovered a man with a previously unseen strain of HIV that is resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.

 

Read the full story at:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=azBO_AumTJhs

[Boston Guy]

Sounds like the old days.

 

BG

[guptasa1]

Saw this too. Very scary story - I certainly hope this stays an isolated strain...

[noviceny]

Doesnt seem to be isolated since the guy who has it had been having unprotected sex with a bunch of other guys. He was HIV- and after this "many partner thing" he was diagnosed HIV+. No drugs had been tried on him before since he didnot have HIV. Nevertheless, 3outof4 of the meds were useless. It sounds like someone carrying this xtra deadly strain infected this guy and is still out there

[JT Brooklyn]

IMHO..Now more than ever, those "Into" or Contemplating BB'ing, have just been given, one more reason not to chance their Health..Unless of course they would like to take apparently the "Fast Route" to HIV.. :+ :+ :+

[joel304]

I just posted this link on the SF Craigs List m4m ... I'm sure it will be deleted ... Hope the BB pigs trolling for sex with strangers will take this in ...

[guptasa1]

Some great information can be found here:

 

http://www.aidsmeds.com/Fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=18079

 

(This is a great place with TONs of information if you want to learn about HIV.)

[Lewis H]

A much more comprehensive report is available from NYTimes.com:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/health/12aids.html?pagewanted=1&incamp=article_popular_5

 

They may ask you to register, but it's free and worth it, IMHO.

[joel304]

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/m4m/59534046.html

 

 

How are people still doing this ... ;(

[Guest]

According to the newspaper article I read, the guy had unprotected anal intercourse with multiple guys. Maybe he'll be a drain on society for less time that he thought he would be. I just hope he doesn't get a chance to spread it too much.

[stlbtmboi]

New HIV Strain

By Joel E. Gallant, M.D., M.P.H. (12-Feb-2005)

 

 

Dr. Gallant:

 

A nightmare scenario: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=azBO_AumTJhs

 

All the more reason why HIV'ers and others need to change their attitudes and practice safe sex. It scares me to death!!

 

Any comment from you?

 

Burt

 

 

Burt,

I'm a little surprised that this is being talked about as something new. We've known for years that you can be infected by resistant virus, and there have been cases described in which people have been infected by virus that's essentially resistant to all drugs. The difference here is that this patient progressed to AIDS very rapidly. I haven't seen all the details of the story, but I doubt that we can be sure that his rapid progression was a definite consequence of the resistance of the virus. In many cases, people who progress rapidly do so because of their own genetics rather than due to characteristics of the virus. In addition, by talking about a new "strain" of the virus, the implication is that the virus being transmitted in the community is evolving en masse, which is not the case. This unfortunate individual was in the wrong place at the wrong time (or moe likely in many wrong places many, many times) and picked up a resistant virus from someone who had developed highly resistant virus as a result of therapy. It doesn't mean that the standard wild-type virus out there today is worse than it was 10 years ago.

 

Still, my criticism of the media spin aside, this is STILL a very scary story. It's scary because it means that for a few people who are infected today it might as well be 1983, when effective therapy didn't exist. It's scary because the people who are engaging in unprotected sex under the assumption that HIV is "just another treatable chronic disease" are horribly naive; they could be infected by a monster virus like this, or by a slightly less resistant virus, but one that's still treatable only by a fraction of the available drugs. It's also scary because it demonstrates the dangers of our crystal meth epidemic. This man was having unprotected anal sex with multiple partners and was using crystal meth, which is notorious for for removing the inhibitions and good judgment that help negative people stay negative. Finally, it's scary because one of the many men who were participating in his destruction almost certainly knew that he was transmitting a really nasty virus, but didn't care enough to put on a condom. There's something rotten here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have a question about this answer, you may post a follow-up question.

 

All information presented in this Johns Hopkins AIDS Service web site Patient Forum is intended for general knowledge only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. Readers should and are encouraged to seek prompt medical care for any specific health issues and consult their physicians before starting a new treatment regimen or changing a current treatment regimen.

 

http://www.hopkins-aids.edu

[Fit In LA]

THis is GREAT public relations for the gay community.... totally irresponsible gay men running around having unprotected bare back sex with hundreds of other men and sprreading a new strain of AIDS

[Guest RandyRon]

>THis is GREAT public relations for the gay community....

>totally irresponsible gay men running around having

>unprotected bare back sex with hundreds of other men and

>sprreading a new strain of AIDS

 

Why should we think that Gay Men as a group are any different than the population as a whole. Every day we see people who won't use their seat belts, ride motorcycles without a helmet, etc. There will always be a small (hopefully) group who will ignore any warnings or take any precautions. All that the rest of us can do is try to act rationally and do our best to stay healthy. I now ask all escorts that I hire if they do BB. If they say yes, I move on. Yes, I know that having sex with an escort itself may be risky, because of the number of other men that are his sex partners, but I certainly try to minimize it.

[joel304]

Unfortunately, this is representative of the gay community. M4W and W4M forums are far less populated with bareback, hyper-sexual talk. Instead of running to the defense of our community in a single sided defense of "we're no different," when in fact, statistics are proving that we are (in the anonymous sex field), let's come out against this behavior publicly (Cosby like) and try to garner broader respect from communities as a whole.

 

 

In a time where our rights are threatened with regards to marriage, adoption and elsewhere, it is most important to publicly denounce the risky and irresponsible behaviors as they permeate our culture. Society will see us through the lens of this story if we let them.

[Doug69]

>According to the newspaper article I read, the guy had

>unprotected anal intercourse with multiple guys. Maybe he'll

>be a drain on society for less time that he thought he would

>be.

 

Ahhhh . . . . nothing like signing onto a forum filled with gay men who hire prostitutes and reading someone post that they are glad that people with HIV are dying more quickly so that they won't be a drian on society for as long.

 

Don't you claim to be a medical doctor? Shouldn't the medical licensing authorities in your state be notified that you wish for a more rapid death for some sick people based upon how they became sick?

 

>I just hope he doesn't get a chance to spread it too

>much.

 

Well, the only people to whom he can "spread it" are those who let him cum in their asshole. Aren't those exactly the type of horrible people whom you hope die quickly?

[Rick Munroe]

I have to agree with Doug. Where's the compassion, Unicorn? Nobody deserves to die.

[Rick Munroe]

>THis is GREAT public relations for the gay community....

>totally irresponsible gay men running around having

>unprotected bare back sex with hundreds of other men and

>sprreading a new strain of AIDS

 

Yeah, one more reason not to allow those totally irresponsible gay men to get married and be monogamous.

[Rick Munroe]

>Unfortunately, this is representative of the gay community.

>M4W and W4M forums are far less populated with bareback,

>hyper-sexual talk.

 

They may not be talking about it on message boards, but straight people are probably barebacking way more than gay men. I know quite a few straight women who don't use condoms because "I'm on the pill." I'm always shocked to hear it, and I tell them about STD's, etc., but they all say that guys complain so they let them do it raw. This is definitely not something that is specifically gay.

 

Also, what about porn? They use condoms in almost all gay porn now, while they go bare in almost all new straight porn (not to mention all those straight porn series devoted to girls taking multiple loads in their asses, cunts and mouths). It's been the gay community that has taken the lead in promoting safe sex for the past 20 years, so it's untrue to say that barebacking is "representative of the gay community."

[Doug69]

>Unfortunately, this is representative of the gay community.

 

If you think that guys taking crystal meth and spending all weekend taking loads in their ass "is representative of the gay community," I'd say that says a lot more about where you go and what you do than it does about the "gay community." Like all populations, there are some gay individuals who engage in risky behavior. Why are you propogating the bigoted and destructive proposition that this behavior is "representative" of gay people generally?

 

>M4W and W4M forums are far less populated with bareback,

>hyper-sexual talk. Instead of running to the defense of our

>community in a single sided defense of "we're no different,"

>when in fact, statistics are proving that we are (in the

>anonymous sex field), let's come out against this behavior

>publicly (Cosby like) and try to garner broader respect from

>communities as a whole.

 

There are all kinds of risky behaviors that people generally engage in that result in their injury or death, and yet I rarely hear the sort of vicious condemnation of them that I hear - most viciously from gay men - whenever the subject is barebacking and HIV.

 

When Christopher Reeve was injured, and then when he died, there was this enormous outpouring of sympathy for him - even though he was injured because he chose to engage in an extremely risky sport for no reason other than to give himself pleasure. I didn't hear anyone say that he "deserved" it or that he was so stupid for engaging in such a risky activity and got what he deserved.

 

Last year, NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt died in a racing accident and millions of people around the country spent days collectively expressing grief- nobody suggested that his death was less tragic or that he was to blame or was somehow morally irresponsible because he chose to spend his life driving a car around in circles at insanely high speeds.

 

People are injured or die from risky behaviors all the time- fat people get strokes and heart attacks because they eat too much and don't excercise; people are paralyzed from playing risky sports; people get cancer because they eat shitty food. Rarely do you hear the type of hateful moralizing that is being spewed here at those who get HIV because they bareback.

 

I'd be willing to bet lots of money that many of you writing in this thread are sitting there at your computers with big fat guts hanging over your belt buckles - an INCREDIBLY risky activity highly likely to ensure your own deaths. And you don't realize the irony that you sit there lashing out at other people who are sick because it was their choices which led to their illness.

 

Somehow, when the issue is sex and HIV and barebacking, the level of shrill lynch-mob moralizing aimed at the sick becomes truly alarming.

 

>In a time where our rights are threatened with regards to

>marriage, adoption and elsewhere, it is most important to

>publicly denounce the risky and irresponsible behaviors as

>they permeate our culture. Society will see us through the

>lens of this story if we let them.

 

Yeah - let's get equal rights for ourselves by attacking and condemning the sick among us - to show straight people that we are good, responsible people who deserve to have more rights. That is just repulsive. While we're at it, shouldn't we also stigmatize and attack those gay people who are fat, or who are jobless, or who have mental illnesses or who have other defects - after all, we've got to show those straight people that we are decent and should be invited into their homes.

 

Go re-read the NY Times article. As Robert Gallo says, this is a single anecdotal incident that, scientifically, proves nothing; there are all sorts of reasons why this individual may have progressed so quickly to AIDS and may be drug-resistant.

 

And yet, the level of hysteria generated is truly alarming, and it is oh-so-predictably followed by the type of hateful attacks on those who are HIV-positive that one would expect to find in Fidel Castro's Cuba, where those with HIV are quarantined, and certainly not in a forum filled with those who get their sex from gay prostitutes. Then again, the dirtier one feels about what they do, the more one has to take public showers.

[Rick Munroe]

Bravo, Doug.

[Guest]

>I have to agree with Doug. Where's the compassion, Unicorn?

>Nobody deserves to die.

 

Well, although I'm not one of its supporters, most Americans support capital punishment. This person intentionally infected himself. What's more, he seems to be spreading death intentionally as well. He isn't gunning people down, but he's killing many people nevertheless. You can argue that he's mostly killing the willing, Jim Jones style, but that doesn't make it right. To add insult to injury, society is paying for his treatment. I find it totally repulsive. One can have compassion for a person yet be repulsed by his behavior. Society does that all of the time.

[+ deej]

>Go re-read the NY Times article.

 

And read a few other things as well.

 

>As Robert Gallo says, this

>is a single anecdotal incident that, scientifically, proves

>nothing; there are all sorts of reasons why this individual

>may have progressed so quickly to AIDS and may be

>drug-resistant.

 

Wow, your logic doesn't often fail as rapidly as it does here. There is NEVER "one infection".

 

One individual is infected. He was infected by SOMEONE. He admits to having promiscuous unprotected sex, so presumably SOMEONE else is having promiscuous unprotected sex too.

 

What are the chances that SOMEONE infected others? I'd guess rather high.

 

Read the reports coming out of Boston. It appears there are similar infections spreading there.

 

Why is it spreading? Guys are having unprotected promiscuous sex, unless you want to go back to the "got pregnant from a public toilet seat" reasoning.

 

Gay men *are* having promiscuous unprotected sex. I saw it on the patio outside my hotel room last time I was in Palm Springs. (It was time to take the cooler to the car anyway, and as I waded through them I ACCIDENTALLY tipped it and all the ice and ice water fell out. Oops.) IT'S HAPPENING.

 

Where is it happening? WITH GAY MEN!

 

If we get pigeon-holed or stereotyped because of it, it's only because we've turned a collective cheek and we've EARNED the stereotype. "They're adults" we say. Or we say "they can make their own choices".

 

Yes, they can and now their choices are reflected back on ALL of us.

[Muscle Lover]

There is a much more responsible discussion of this issue at muscleserice.com.

[Guest]

>When Christopher Reeve was injured, and then when he died,

>there was this enormous outpouring of sympathy for him - even

>though he was injured because he chose to engage in an

>extremely risky sport for no reason other than to give himself

>pleasure. I didn't hear anyone say that he "deserved" it or

>that he was so stupid for engaging in such a risky activity

>and got what he deserved.

>

This is a bit of sophistry. Although one will not, of course, get thrown off of a horse if one doesn't ride a horse, clearly the overwhelming majority of horse riders do not get paralyzed. In the case of someone who has unprotected anal sex with lots of guys, however, the result will almost certainly be HIV infection. It would be hard for me to believe with all the public education campaigns going on that there's anybody over 15 on this planet who doesn't know that. Christopher Reeve didn't try to become paralyzed. The patient in question, however, clearly knew he would be coming down with HIV for certain, sooner rather than later.

 

>Last year, NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt died in a racing

>accident and millions of people around the country spent days

>collectively expressing grief- nobody suggested that his death

>was less tragic or that he was to blame or was somehow morally

>irresponsible because he chose to spend his life driving a car

>around in circles at insanely high speeds.

>

Again, most NASCAR drivers do not die from their work (many people do earn their living with hazardous work, however). The patient in question wasn't simply risking getting HIV; he intentionally contracted HIV. In the case of Dale "The Intimidator" Earnhardt, he intentionally performed very dangerous moves in order to scare his competitors. His moves put himself and his fellow drivers at more risk than those of most of his competitors'. I saw the footage of the accident, and it looked to me that what Dale Sr. was doing was a bit of a "dirty trick" (although pefectly legal, apparently). For my part, I would have felt a lot worse if that move had resulted in another driver's death (as opposed to Dale Sr.'s death). One of the things that bothers me about the patient from the original post is that he doesn't just put his life at risk, but those of others as well.

[marc anthony]

>One of the things that bothers me about the patient from the

>original post is that he doesn't just put his life at risk,

>but those of others as well.

 

Unicorn: I hope that much of what you are writing is just rhetoric because you are unhappy with the actions of this original patient... and not that in your actual practice of medicine you decide who should receive treatment, or how vigorously you treat patients, because of how their condition was contracted.

 

If not, we need to stop treating illicit drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gunshot wounds in gang fights, and blunt trauma in speeding car wrecks.

 

Doctors are entitled to their opinions too, but in my opinion, the most important opinion they should have is that they are commissioned to treat patients.