# Tea hinders HIV transmission!!



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 27, 2009)

Really cool article:



> WASHINGTON (AFP)  A chemical found in green tea helps inhibit sexual transmission of the virus which causes AIDS, said a study Tuesday that recommends using the compound in vaginal creams to supplement antiretrovirals.


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090519/hl_afp/healthusscienceaidstea


----------



## Thesemindz (May 27, 2009)

Wow. This may be some of the most important news in years. Why isn't this all over every channel right now?


-Rob


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 28, 2009)

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


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 28, 2009)

> 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.


 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 (May 28, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Wow. This may be some of the most important news in years. Why isn't this all over every channel right now?



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 (May 28, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> 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.



Nonsense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Another way is to not be a junkie and not go around plooking other guys up the dirt road.


----------



## CoryKS (May 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Nonsense.


 
Don't listen to him Jade, he's part of the conspiracy.


----------



## zDom (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another way is to not be a junkie and not go around plooking other guys up the dirt road.



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?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

zDom said:


> But what if the lady you fancy previously dallied with a fella who "swings both ways"?



I'm married and don't fool around.



> Or if someone at a hospital screws up and uses an infected needle?



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 (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another way is to not be a junkie and not go around plooking other guys up the dirt road.



From the article:
"With the vast majority of the world's 33 million people with HIV infected through *heterosexual sex*..."


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 28, 2009)

> Nonsense.


 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



> _Galega officinalis_ has been known since the Middle Ages for relieving the symptoms of diabetes mellitus. Upon analysis, it turned out to contain guanidine, a substance that decreases blood sugar by decreasing insulin resistance.
> Chemical derivatives from the biguanide class of medication include metformin (Glucophage, commonly prescribed for diabetics) and the older, withdrawn agent phenformin.


 


> 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.


 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.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> From the article:
> "With the vast majority of the world's 33 million people with HIV infected through *heterosexual sex*..."



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



> *The riskiest sexual behavior is unprotected receptive anal intercourse* -- the least risky sexual behavior is receiving oral sex. Performing oral sex on a man is associated with some risk of HIV transmission, but this is less risky than unprotected vaginal intercourse. Female-to-male transmission of the virus is much less likely than male-to-female transmission. Performing oral sex on a woman who does not have her period carries low risk of transmission.


----------



## Live True (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another way is to not be a junkie and not go around plooking other guys up the dirt road.


 
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.
I think this last is a case of under/poor reporting and we really don't know the transmission stats in these countries.

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 (May 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## Live True (May 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Live True said:


> 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).



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 (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Live True said:


> 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 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 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.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ]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.



Who said that?  However, if you are going to claim that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that it shouldn't be as funded as it is, you might expect some "colorful" responses at the least.  At least be accurate.



Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.



Absolute nonsense.  Out of a total research budget of 29 billion in 2008, the NIH put 2.9 billion towards HIV/AIDS - and 3.6 billion towards infectious diseases.  Like I said, at least be accurate.  It's obvious you didn't consult any of the actual sources before constructing this opinion of yours.  That is what might make others think you have other motives.  That, and the overly colorful way of describing and the focus on male anal sex.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 28, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Who said that?  However, if you are going to claim that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that it shouldn't be as funded as it is, you might expect some "colorful" responses at the least.  At least be accurate.



I don't claim it is a 'gay disease'.  I claim that statements made that indicate more heterosexuals get AIDS than homosexuals are correct only in a certain sense, and in any case, are geared towards inculcating an attitude that AIDS is not a 'gay disease'.  Nuance here - while I agree AIDS is not a gay disease, I disagree with the aggressive methods used to put forth this 're-education' of the US public with half-truths.

It is politics, as I said.  I dislike politics when it comes to allocating funds for medical research.  Like trying to convince people to fund lung cancer, when the public perception is that people with lung cancer did it to themselves by smoking, or funds for diabetes, when people think only fat bastards get it.  While I agree that it is wrong to withhold funding for HIV/AIDS research on the basis that it is a 'gay disease', it is equally wrong to try to inculcate an untruth to make it seem to be an 'everybody' disease.



> Absolute nonsense.  Out of a total research budget of 29 billion in 2008, the NIH put 2.9 billion towards HIV/AIDS - and 3.6 billion towards infectious diseases.



Infectious diseases is a big bucket - and by the way, NIH considers HIV/AIDS an 'infectious disease' and money allocated to infectious diseases can also find it's way to HIV/AIDS research.  More people die of bacterial infections, which is a tiny subset of 'infectious diseases' than die of AIDS in the USA.  So you're comparing apples and oranges.



> Like I said, at least be accurate.  It's obvious you didn't consult any of the actual sources before constructing this opinion of yours.



I consulted the same sources you did, it appears.  nih.gov.



> That is what might make others think you have other motives.  That, and the overly colorful way of describing and the focus on male anal sex.



I make no apologies for my manner of speech. Sorry, I like the term 'butt pirate' and find it humorous.  Would you prefer 'bone-smuggler'?

As to the focus on male anal sex - that's what the statistics say.  I'm frankly pretty icked out by the thought, but that's just me.


----------



## JourneymanDave (Jun 4, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist, you find some of the coolest articles, you're like a human Digg


----------

