As a quick addendum; in recent years we have started to see the horror of children being born HIV positive because their parent was infected during their pregnancy. But this is still an example of a means for bodily fluids to be exchanged as the foetus is nurtured inside the mother's womb via the body. I don't know if it's been figured out at what point the foetus becomes infected with the virus in terms of development and length of time in the womb, or if the egg itself is infected.
Would an in-vitro pregnancy (one where a fertile egg from another source is "planted" in the womb) become infected if the host parent were HIV positive? I would assume yes, because of the nature of how the foetus is fed, but I don't know.
In any event prevention in areas where human intervention can occur, is the big hot topic issue facing the world right now. One argument takes the view that since pre-marital sex is wrong and shouldn't occur and that birth control is a sin, the only way to prevent the transmission of the disease is through complete abstinence until you find the person you plan on spending the rest of your life and procreating with. While that's all well and good for those who believe that, and more power to them because we should respect everyone's belief systems, the problem is that these people seem insistent on making others follow their own rigid code of behaviour.
But since the vast majority of the world doesn't live that way it's highly unrealistic to demand that they do, and in fact to do so is the equivalent of saying we don't care about anyone who doesn't believe in what we believe. It wouldn't be so bad if it were only a few individuals who were like this, who didn't have any real power, but unfortunately it happens to be two of the wealthiest and most powerful forces on the face of the earth that are against advocating the use of condoms as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS.
Neither the current United States administration or the Catholic Church allow a cent of money to be given to any organization that admits people might actually be having sex outside of marriage. Okay that's not really fair I know their argument is that they believe having condoms available will increase the likelihood of both pre and extra-marital sex.
Article comments
1 - Bonnie
Nice summary, Richard. I just want to add this, about in utero AIDS infections: In the West, we have a very low rate of these transmissions, because drugs during pregnancy, labour and delivery can prevent the child from being infected by the virus. Without drugs, the odds are fairly high (around 20%, I think, by memory) that the mother will pass the infection on to the child. (And it's higher still if the mother is breastfeeding, whether due to lack of resources -- for instance, the lack of clean drinking water with which to prepare formula -- or lack of knowledge about her HIV status or the way HIV is transmitted.)
2 - John Feldsted
The article is inaccurate in that Health Minister Tony CLements represented the government for at least five days of the AIDS conference in Toronto.
3 - RedTard
There are tons of preventable diseases that kill millions worldwide, HIV/AIDS just being one of them. The reason AIDS receives so much attention is that morally bankrupt individuals and win at all cost political organizations use it as a political tool to attack conservative positions under the guise of helping people.
I only wish that heart disease and tuberculosis had as many political implications, then maybe those folks could get help as well.
4 - Jet in Columbus
It'll take many more hetrosexual deaths before they do something Richard because of jerks who thing it's a disease that only effects "immoral" people, discounting child hemophilics and the fact that everywhere else in the world it's a hetrosexual disease.
The moralists with their noses up in the air will sit on their judgmental asses and do nothing thinking they'll kill all the fags and adulterers and then AIDS will just magically stop because GOD will stop it without mankind's help.
Tantum meus sententia
Jet
5 - RedTard
Jet, think outside of your little indoctrinated box just once. Ask yourself honestly why there's not a world tuberculosis day and why politicians of either stripe aren't lining up for TB conferences?
6 - Jet in Columbus
Because the religious right and bigots like you don't consider tuberculosis an "immorally caused" disease.
Talk about thinking in a box.
I bet no one would notice if your left turn signal blew out would they?
7 - RedTard
That's clever, Jet. I just don't like to see serious issues being used as political attacks. The religious right is not the problem, an elusive little virus is. HIV/AIDS already receives a disporportionate share of research and funding and you still whine around as if you're some sort of victim or something.
INTERESTING FACT: Easily controlled diseases with simple vaccines and cures like measles, typhoid, and malaria kill millions each year and their treatments and vaccines often cost less than $1 each.
8 - Jet in Columbus
Oh, snappy retort! There's no sense trying to reason with you
9 - Clavos
I think one major reason AIDS receives relatively little attention in the industrialized nations is because it's not an airborne contagious disease, nor is it transmitted by simple contact.
Therefore, in the advanced countries at least, relatively small segments of the population are at risk, and the majority of the populace doesn't feel directly threatened by it, as they would in the face of an outbreak of an incurable disease that spreads through the air.
This gives many people a sense of "Well I don't have to worry about it; I'm never going to get it", so there's not enough pressure from the public to do more to find a cure.
There's also less incentive for the pharmas to spend money on R & D, because the potential market for product is not very large, relatively speaking.
I'm not excusing, just highlighting some of the reasons why things are the way they are, and why progress is slow.
I disagree with you, Jet, to the extent that I don't think that most people in the medical profession are prejudiced against gays. Many do, however, have a strong bias against addicts, another high-risk group.
10 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Are you sure there isnt a world TB day Redtard? Even some of the most obscure diseases often have huge online support networks. And TB isnt even obscure.
And what's wrong with attacking conservatives to get more AIDS funding? If you want funding, and conservatives are the ones being scant about it, I would attack conservatives too.
11 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos I was referring to those in government and the right wing that elects them
12 - Bonnie
You know, anyone who has read my work here on Blogcritics knows I am pretty vehement about the need for improved attention for AIDS, especially in the developing world. While we're at it, I would love to see better prevention and treatment for TB, malaria, chagas disease and other illnesses that disproportionately affect less wealthy countries. The thing that's different with AIDS/HIV is that the disease has become a chronic illness in the West while it is, because of financial interests and logistical issues, still very much a death sentence elsewhere. The focus isn't on spending billions on research to give something away; it's about giving something away to markets that can't afford it, while still selling it at top dollar in wealthier countries.
As for the immorality comment, why not add heart diseaase and diabetes and anything else with a lifestyle component to that list? Compassion demands that we treat people who are sick and history shows that judgement is not going to slow infection rates or heal anyone. (Not to mention that I think this particular judgment is invalid; it's also plain useless.) Women are disproportionately affected by AIDS in the developing world and they are infected because they can't demand the use of condemns. Children are infected because their mothers are. These surely aren't people who deserve to die, slowly and painfully, without the benefit of treatment or palliative care?
In other words, the AIDS crisis deserve the noise because it represents a shameful failure of society's haves to care for its have nots. People are dying not because prevention isn't feasible, not because treatment isn't available, but because politics, morality and greed put these options out of reach.
13 - RedTard
"Are you sure there isnt a world TB day Redtard?"
Not at all, my point being it doesn't receive as much attention becuase it can't be used to score political points.
"And what's wrong with attacking conservatives to get more AIDS funding?"
At least you're willing to admit own up to the strategy. Of course, from your tilted perspective I'm sure you see nothing wrong with using sick people as political tools. As I stated before it's a shame TB, Malaria, and Heart disease don't have the same political implications. It does tell you what's important though, political points trump human lives.
"People are dying not because prevention isn't feasible, not because treatment isn't available, but because politics, morality and greed put these options out of reach."
Only a brainwashed lemming would utter such nonsense with a straight face. Without greedy capitalists the treatments you mention would never exist in the first place. Morality is a double edged sword, if EVERYONE agreed to use condoms it's spread could be stopped, likewise, if EVERYONE was monogamous or practiced abstinence the disease could be stopped. Neither will happen but idealists both sides will continue to avoid compromises or any real solutions at all costs, all the while placing the blame for failure on the other side.
Politicians have done more than their fair share to highlight AIDS because of it's status as a political weapon, and similiarly they point fingers at the other side and rail about their lack of morals. As far as killer diseases go AIDS, along with breast cancer, receive a much higher percentage of funding than the percentage of lives they effect.
14 - Bonnie
RedTard, I have the feeling you are being a devil's advocate here, but I still want to respond. First, if neither scenario will happen, then the possibility of them happening -- of these options being feasible solutions to a problem -- is irrelavant. But even more than that, if everyone used condoms, the rate would slow, yes, but that doesn't address all means of transmission. And if everyone was monogamous, the rates would slow, but it would hardly be a solution in places where the HIV infection afflicts 20% of the population. Add to that the question of how monogamy would be defined (one partner in a long term relationship at a time still leaves multiple opportunities for infection over a lifetime in high prevelance populations, especially given gaps in expected lifespans between the sexes.)
I don't disagree that some diseases get attention that is disproportionate to the affect they have on the world. Globally speaking, HIV is not one of those illnesses.
15 - mike
passage of hiv from mother to child without meds-25%, with azt alone 8%, with combo drugs approximately 1%
16 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Well yes if you have AIDS or are affected by AIDS then i see no shame in using AIDS as a political tool to stop whatever harmful affect it has on you direct or indirect. That's just plain old self preservation...
17 - Baronius
Seriously, is there anyone on the planet who still thinks of AIDS as a homosexual disease?
18 - Jet in Columbus
I believe MR. Phelps does, but I could be wrong...
19 - Ben Williams Nadiope
Thanks, for publishing my comment. I want to encourage all that have been caught up in AIDS battle, you are not alone. the recent concluded conference and many more taking place are geared towards sending this vitus to the abysmal it desired to send us. Believe that you will live the next day when cheap drugs to ease or completely heal you will be descovered. Remember sweetheart the biblical God is the God of all fresh there is no nothing impossible before him Kindly surrender all to Him in the name of His beloved begotten son JESUS CHRIST.
AWAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU.
GOD BLESS.