AIDS prevention - juxtaposition of worlds

2 things in a week - from wildly different points of view - on AIDS preventions.

From the realm of religion, and the realm of science; the former quite a surprise.

Religion:

After Condom Remarks, Vatican Confirms Shift
By RACHEL DONADIO and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI clearly acknowledged on Tuesday that the need to prevent diseases like AIDS could outweigh the church’s long opposition to the use of birth-control devices, including condoms.

It was a significant and stunning personal pronouncement from the conservative pope after more than two decades of heated debate inside the Roman Catholic Church and condemnation by health workers who said the church’s ban on prophylactics was morally indefensible during the AIDS crisis.

Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s spokesman, said that for Benedict, the use of condoms by people infected with HIV could be “the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom there are relations.”

“Whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual,” he added.

Though Benedict did not change official church teaching — which still strongly opposes contraceptives — his words ricocheted around the globe, greeted with anger from some conservative Catholics and enthusiasm from clerics and health workers in Africa, where the AIDS problem is worst. The pope also considers the continent to be a major area of growth for the church.

“We’re in a new world,” said the Rev. Jon Fuller, a Jesuit priest and a physician at the Center for HIV/AIDS Care and Research at Boston Medical Center.

The pope is “implicitly” saying, he said, “that you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil.”

Catholic conservatives who believed Catholic teaching against contraception to be inviolable were reeling. “This is really shaking things up big time,” said Dr. John M. Haas, the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, who serves on the governing council of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.

Dr. Haas, a moral theologian, said he had seen an embargoed copy of the new book in which the pope conceded there might be extreme cases in which there were grounds for the use of condoms.“I told the publisher, ‘Don’t publish this; it’s going to create such a mess,’ ” he added.

In the book, “Light of the World,” which was released on Tuesday, Benedict said that in some cases condom use could be “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

But his words left room for ambiguity.In the book’s German and English editions, the text cited the example of a male prostitute, implying homosexual sex, in which a condom would not be a form of contraception. The church opposes contraception on the grounds that every sexual act should be open to procreation.

But questions emerged when the book’s Italian edition, excerpted by the Vatican newspaper on Saturday, used the feminine form of prostitute.

On Tuesday, Father Lombardi said the Italian translation was an error, and that the pope had specifically told him that the issue was not procreation but disease prevention — regardless of gender.

“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Father Lombardi said. “He told me no.” Father Lombardi said that he had spoken directly with the pope at least twice since Sunday and that Benedict had personally approved the statement he released on the condom question, indicating how adamant he was.


Science:

In a development that could change the battle against AIDS, researchers have found that taking a daily antiretroviral pill greatly lowers the chances of getting infected with the virus.

In the study, published Tuesday by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that the hundreds of gay men randomly assigned to take the drugs were 44 percent less likely to get infected than the equal number assigned to take a placebo.

But when only the men whose blood tests showed they had taken their pill faithfully every day were considered, the pill was more than 90 percent effective, said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, head of the division of the National Institutes of Health, which paid for the study along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“That’s huge,” Dr. Fauci said. “That says it all for me.”

The large study, nicknamed iPrEx, included nearly 2,500 men in six countries and was coordinated by the Gladstone Institutes of the University of California, San Francisco.

So what is the new doctrine?

If you have a disease it is okay to use a rubber? Does that only apply to married couples with a disease/HIV?

If you want to have sex with a casual partner (a sin), is it no longer an additional sin to use a rubber for purposes of avoiding the possibility of transmission of a disease?

What about a married couple (or unmarried couple in committed relationship) where the primary purpose of the rubber is simply to avoid pregnancy?

Is this a universal policy...or really is it just meant areas in the world where incidence of disease is epidemic? But in the developed world contraception is still bad?

As a Catholic that engages in premarital sex (& doesn't plan to stop; I'll deal with my maker at some point), I've never considered using the rubber "an extra sin" or made things worse; simply a responsible action given the circumstances.

More so, what about homosexuals? As a group truly not welcomed by the Church, are they supposed to take comfort in the fact that their lifestyle is still condemned by the Church, but if they are going to sodomize each other a rubber is now recommended?

I realize my tone is sarcastic, but from what I've read about this, simply put I'm confused as to what the announcement really means. There is a popular expression, "You can't be half pregnant." Likewise contraception is either right or wrong.

Well discreetgent, The catholic story means nothing to me.On the other hand the science story proves quite interesting,Perhaps a man such as yourself, could give me the ticker symbol to that company and I would appreciate it.

"You can't be half pregnant." Likewise contraception is either right or wrong. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I don't think it is that simple. Perhaps it is under Catholic law. I don't know Catholic doctrine so can't comment on that. Under Jewish law there is a divergence of opinion on using birth control. However, even the opinions that prohibit birth control in general allow it under some circumstances; for example if a pregnancy would endanger the women the solution is not abstinence, birth control becomes permissible. Similarly if one of the partners contracted AIDS or Hepatitis, birth control is permitted.

macksback: Gilead Sciences makes both parts of the pill (Emtriva and Viread)

I don't think it is that simple. Perhaps it is under Catholic law. I don't know Catholic doctrine so can't comment on that. Under Jewish law there is a divergence of opinion on using birth control. However, even the opinions that prohibit birth control in general allow it under some circumstances; for example if a pregnancy would endanger the women the solution is not abstinence, birth control becomes permissible. Similarly if one of the partners contracted AIDS or Hepatitis, birth control is permitted.

macksback: Gilead Sciences makes both parts of the pill (Emtriva and Viread) Originally Posted by discreetgent

As I said in my post I was being somewhat sarcastic...historically the Church has been so absolute*/rule-based without exercising common sense it has turned off many members.

Unlike the Jewish faith, where you have different branches that practice differently (forgive me if I am not using the correct terminology), there is ONE Catholic Church with a single doctrine. I believe many Catholics welcome a more common sense approach to current realities. That said this announcement is so damned cryptic, and as you point out in your original post, unexpected, many are wondering what the hell is next/what it really means.

If this was corporate America I'd say sack the Vatican's PR guy....

*an example of "absolute" is its position on abortion, where it says it is wrong even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother
http://www.lifeisaprayer.com/article...-cases-of-rape

Unlike the Jewish faith, where you have different branches that practice differently (forgive me if I am not using the correct terminology), there is ONE Catholic Church with a single doctrine. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Close enough. My point was that even the most extreme positions recognize that there are circumstances that call for exceptions.

*an example of "absolute" is its position on abortion, where it says it is wrong even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother
http://www.lifeisaprayer.com/article...-cases-of-rape Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I have several female Catholic friends in England. This is a major problem for them. The current approach (no contraception) assumes first and foremost that people always choose to have sex consensually. The church more than anyone knows that sins occur so how can they not acknowledge incest and rape? The problem is that once they show lattitude in one direction they are scared they'll have to show it in another...so instead of being flexible about where the line could be, they deny a line exists. The report that DG has posted is most definitely ambiguous. At best the suggestion is that if you are gay and a prostitute (not one , but both) you are exempt from abstaining from both sex and condoms. I have no idea why....because as ATL said, that is not clear.
Yes, sack the Vatican PR person

That said, thanks for posting DG. Always interesting to hear about rumblings even if we are not quite sure if they are actually developments yet. The science article was very interesting. Next the Vatican will be reversing their stance to say that all gay men must take that drug then they do not need to use condoms.

That said this announcement is so damned cryptic, and as you point out in your original post, unexpected, many are wondering what the hell is next/what it really means. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

What it may really mean is the Pope is senile.

"Catholic World" says that the Pope did not justify condom use in ANY circumstances. He just said that use of condoms could be the first step in greater moral responsibility. (http://www.catholicworldreport.org/index.php?option=com_content&v iew=article&id=222:did-the-pope-justify-condom-use-in-some-circumstances&catid=53:cwr2010 &Itemid=70 )

Here's a beautiful analogy by
Father Joseph Fessio:

"Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe.

Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: "Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” "Pope says Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances,” “Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases.”

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g., as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use,” though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading."

The "science" is BS - taking a daily antiretroviral pill will pretty much guarantee you'll develop AIDS - because it destroys your immune system. According to research, HIV is a harmless passenger retrovirus that doesn't do anything at all. In fact, there is no test for HIV. Further, Anthony S. Fauci is on the take from the pharmaceutical companies.

see: http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=371830

.

Hot damn Mr. Bill, I read all the way until I saw Camille post before I realized what a bump this was!

Hot damn Mr. Bill, I read all the way until I saw Camille post before I realized what a bump this was! Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah I know - don't lose interest though. You're comments solicited in this more recent thread > http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=371830


.

The "science" is BS - taking a daily antiretroviral pill will pretty much guarantee you'll develop AIDS - because it destroys your immune system. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Are you fucking serious?

In fact, there is no test for HIV. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Oh sure, PCR and RNA testing are invalid because??? Yes, HIV is usually tested for via antibodies, but the HIV virus has been isolated.

I am not sure what your game is: probably convincing people to go bareback. If that is it, fine, outside of unprotected anal, heterosexual transmission of HIV was and is mostly a bullshit scare tactic. Men need to be a 1000x more concerned about getting a woman pregnant than HIV.

However, you would have to be as blind as a bat to not see the explosion and subsequent reduction of AIDS related diseases like CMV retinitis, PCP pneumonia, and KS.

I am no great fan of drug companies, but their treatment of HIV has been one of the most exciting and great successes seen in medicine in recent years.

Are you fucking serious?

Oh sure, PCR and RNA testing are invalid because??? Yes, HIV is usually tested for via antibodies, but the HIV virus has been isolated.

Incorrect - HIV has never been isolated in any AIDS patient.
- http://healtoronto.com/hiviso.html
- http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008...aids-patients/
- photos? http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm
- http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm


I am not sure what your game is: probably convincing people to go bareback. If that is it, fine, outside of unprotected anal, heterosexual transmission of HIV was and is mostly a bullshit scare tactic. Men need to be a 1000x more concerned about getting a woman pregnant than HIV.

My 'game' is to inform people of the HIV = AIDS scam.

However, you would have to be as blind as a bat to not see the explosion and subsequent reduction of AIDS related diseases like CMV retinitis, PCP pneumonia, and KS.

The CDC and WHO increases the numbers of bogus AIDS occurrences by calling historically well known diseases 'AIDS' - if the person has a HIV positive test.

I am no great fan of drug companies, but their treatment of HIV has been one of the most exciting and great successes seen in medicine in recent years.

Not too exciting for the millions of lives destroyed by the poisons they advocate and distribute. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

.

Incorrect - HIV has never been isolated in any AIDS patient.. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp038194

"Among a few strains in the Bethesda laboratory that grew in continuous cell lines, one came, unbeknownst to both of us, from the third isolate from a patient with Kaposi's sarcoma in Paris. The origin of the HIV strain with a very high capacity for growth that could readily overcome other HIV strains in culture — and which contaminated cell cultures in several laboratories, beginning with both of ours — was unraveled only in 1991, thanks to the use of the polymerase-chain-reaction technique."

The CDC and WHO increases the numbers of bogus AIDS occurrences by calling historically well known diseases 'AIDS' - if the person has a HIV positive test. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Government officials did the exact opposite of what you accuse them of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On

"And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic is a nonfiction book written by San Francisco Chronicle journalist Randy Shilts, published in 1987. It chronicles the discovery and spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) with a special emphasis on government indifference and political infighting—specifically in the United States—to what was initially perceived as a gay disease. Shilts' premise is that while AIDS is caused by a biological agent, incompetence and apathy toward those who were initially affected by AIDS allowed the spread of the disease to become much worse; AIDS was allowed to happen."

There is no point in even arguing with someone like you. The facts don't agree with anything you have said. You could talk to countless medical personnel or San Francisco support groups to see the explosion of AIDS was not some government fabrication, but I am not sure even that would convince you of anything.