400,000 Thais Have Hiv But Don't Know It

[animatic]

My long post above was directly in rebuttle to the deleted myth post.

[chrislarsson]

This story shocked me. because this day's nobody have to die because of AIDS, it can be controlled perfectly by proper medication. people who have AIDS even can have a normal productive life .

Your example only shows that the Thai health care system sucks.

This is suggesting that doctors in Thailand would not be aware that medicines exists to slow down the progress of HIV. It sounds a little bit difficult to believe. There must be more behind this story that is not known.

No, it suggest the girl didn't have the wealth to pay for the very high medicine cost.

Developing countries should unite...and try to reform the patents on drugs ones and for all...so that generic drugs will be affordable to more people.

[TAWP]

Developing countries should unite...and try to reform the patents on drugs ones and for all...so that generic drugs will be affordable to more people.

As an opponent to all forms of patent, I see no problems with that proposition.

[chrislarsson]

Developing countries should unite...and try to reform the patents on drugs ones and for all...so that generic drugs will be affordable to more people.

As an opponent to all forms of patent, I see no problems with that proposition.

Patents are good when they lead to what they are supposed to do, which is to spur development. If profits cannot be made from research and development, there will be little research and no development. But in the case when it comes to drugs, patents seem to slow development down rather speeding it up.

This is a good article on the topic:

Dying in the name of monopoly - Joseph Stiglitz

"But, despite the high price they pay, developing countries get little in return. Drug companies spend far more money on advertising and marketing than they do on research, far more on research for lifestyle drugs (for conditions like impotence and hair loss) than for lifesaving drugs, and almost no money on diseases that afflict hundreds of millions of poor people, such as malaria. It is a matter of simple economics: companies direct their research where the money is, regardless of the relative value to society. The poor can’t pay for drugs, so there is little research on their diseases, no matter what the overall costs. A “me-too” drug, for example, which nets its manufacturer some portion of the income that otherwise accrues only to the company that dominates a niche, may be highly profitable, even if its value to society is quite limited."

[Felt 35]

I finally got my annual HIV test. Had initially given up on the two “want to be upmarket hospitals” in Phuket due to their “special policies” regarding HIV tests, but now it turn out I have to go even if for another reason.

Wife come back on Sunday after a long weekend back home in North East. She did not feel well Monday morning so she decided to see the doctor. I told here to take a full check up when she first was at it.

She choose to use Mission Hospital because that it’s the only hospital where she eventually can use the insurance she have through here workplace. It was reasonable THB 1900,- for a full check included a HIV test which on the bill show it alone costTHB 300,-

The test went well except for one thing, it turned up she had Dengue Fever.

The doctor there told here he also recommend nearest family members to check for Dengue.

I went away today, not been to Mission Hospital since they still had some foreign doctors there, probably a kind of missionaries about 10-12 years ago. It was a bit hectic and crowded to my taste, but well that is probably one of the reason its cheaper than the other hospitals.

I had with me a copy of the results from my wife’s positive Dengue blood test and asked for the same test, plus a HIV test. My test went well, all negative.

The bill however is another story. My wife paid THB 1900,- for a full check up. I the beloved Farang paid THB 1300,- for two blood tests.

Not a big deal money wise, just a reminder about how equal things are here, or maybe it was a “message” from the hospital as “You should go to the upmarket ones” !

Merry Christmas to everyone.

[mommysboy]

My comment was not meant to upset anyone with personal experiences, for that I apologise.

There are millions of foreigners visit Thailand each year and have encounters with local working girls, there is a probability that a number of them do so without protection either by choice or by accident, yet the cases of contraction are spreading to other nations is extremely low. There are other nations, such as philipines, that have much worse safe sex practice than Thailand but have historically low levels of contraction. The chances of getting with heterosexual encounter is statistically very low.

For that reason, I have never quite understood some of the sweeping statistics that come out of Thailand. Nor in 10 years have I ever met anyone here that has the infection. For those that do, I have nothing but sympathy and good wishes but rightly or wrongly, I believe that statistics are often inflated to draw attention or funding or other motive.

I agree.

I think the science is less than watertight.

But that does not mean AIDS is not a reality, and that there isn't a small risk of contracting it in Thailand.

Shame on these health agencies.

[mommysboy]

One of the weaknesses of an open forum is that some people will claim to be experts in a particular field of science. As membership in TV does not require one to prove his or her's academic credentials, such claims must be taken with that in mind. There are times when claims by "experts" are just so at odds with published studies and accepted protocol, that it necessitates pointing out the unsubstantiated claim to prevent trusting readers from accepting inaccuracies and references taken out of context.

QUESTION:

Can anyone give an explanation of how any organisation can quote a number of infected people 'who dont know it?'

I am a qualified pharmacologist and am frankly at a loss as to how anyone can arrive at a number of unknown infections - i.e. how do they know?

Gee. You tell me since you are the self described pharmacologist. The math and conclusion criteria are the same as that used for other illnesses. Most people are not tested for cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure and yet we predict the likelihood of disease in the same manner as that done for HIV. Most people are not screened for colon cancer, and yet we predict the proportion of the population that has cancer.

QUESTION:

The risk is real but massively overblown - condoms and the lubricants etc is a billion dollar industry. The red cross, UN etc are funded by somebody.

Yes it is a large industry, but so is toilet paper and kleenex. I suppose you don't need to wipe your ass either. Lubricants have nothing to do with this subject. Condoms are used not just for HIV prevention but to prevent unwanted pregnancies and transmission of bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. Any funding put into condoms usually pays off by reducing the costs of treatment for those that would otherwise become ill from the non use of a condom. As a pharmacologist, you will probably have come across the cost benefit models in one of your first year courses at the MSc. level, assuming you even completed a masters or a doctorate.

For the record - the micropores in latex are actually larger than the HIV retrovirus particles - bet you don't hear that kind of information too often.

Furthermore - google recent reports re the UN being slammed for their massively manipulated stats on % infections per country.

Dont be negligent, but dont be fooled....

The reference to the micropores is your undoing. The Carey et al study from 1994 that looked at leakage from condoms was run again under more rigorous methods by Voeller et al in 1994 and did not share the same conclusions. More importantly, I suggest you go to your Cochrane reports (you are a pharmacologist so you should have access to the database) and read the Weller & Davis literature review from 2004. All of the studies point to the same conclusion that features prominently in US CDC and WHO positions;

Reference: Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission.

Authors Conclusions: This review indicates that consistent use of condoms results in 80% reduction in HIV incidence. Consistent use is defined as using a condom for all acts of penetrative vaginal intercourse. Because the studies used in this review did not report on the "correctness" of use, namely whether condoms were used correctly and perfectly for each and every act of intercourse, effectiveness and not efficacy is estimated.

No one has ever claimed that condoms were 100% effective, but all studies to date show that access to testing, education and condom use reduce HIV transmission. That was demonstrated over a decade ago in Thailand.

As for the issue of micropores, well yes, there is a chance a condom can be defective. While there may be micropores that allow leakage, the HIV can't make it through as those micropores are smaller than HIV. There is always a chance it can happen. However, for those of us not into playing the odds with our lives, we'll go the condom route.

Wait a minute GK this is a bit much I mean are you an expert on the virus? Granted you are extremely well read poster, whose postings are often cogent and accurate, but all too often you take the official line rather too easily IMHO, and this is a subject area with numerous experts now questioning studies.

I don't think you should have rubbished the OP quite so quickly. For one thing HIV is a peculiar sort of science it seems to me, and the figures quoted do seem way too high at a time when UN are indeed slashing estimated AIDS figures. OP is right therefore to raise an eyebrow.

I think you are right about the condoms though. Mandatory.

[allan400]

I see discussions about rumor that some people give blood in order to be tested for HIV for free, and without need to ask specifically for it.

Just want to say, that please be aware that HIV can't be discovered in the blood for the first few days/weeks, and some tests actually fails to see the HIV virus. So if you are not sure that you are passed the "window" period, and have done any unprotected sex, then it's very irresponsible to give blood like that.

[animatic]

Well I tend to lean toward the CDC's thoughts on the matter.

As I posted many links to CD above.

[zorro1]

I still don't know anyone who knows anyone who isn't gay that has HIV. Anybody here have a straight friend with it?

[mommysboy]

I still don't know anyone who knows anyone who isn't gay that has HIV. Anybody here have a straight friend with it?

One day we may be able to have a sensible discussion on this topic but I fear that with biased moderation and rather blinkered postings by senior members who ought to know better that will not be possible.

Like it or lump it there is considerable controversy surrounding this subject.

Usually it's trolls and abusers that effectively end threads. Not in this instance???!!!!

[animatic]

I still don't know anyone who knows anyone who isn't gay that has HIV.

Anybody here have a straight friend with it?

One day we may be able to have a sensible discussion on this topic but I fear that with biased moderation and rather blinkered postings by senior members who ought to know better that will not be possible.

Like it or lump it there is considerable controversy surrounding this subject.

Usually it's trolls and abusers that effectively end threads. Not in this instance???!!!!

I do and he died last winter.... crying shame too.

[mommysboy]

I still don't know anyone who knows anyone who isn't gay that has HIV.

Anybody here have a straight friend with it?

One day we may be able to have a sensible discussion on this topic but I fear that with biased moderation and rather blinkered postings by senior members who ought to know better that will not be possible.

Like it or lump it there is considerable controversy surrounding this subject.

Usually it's trolls and abusers that effectively end threads. Not in this instance???!!!!

I do and he died last winter.... crying shame too.

People can get so trigger happy with this subject that they can even reply to the wrong thread.!!!

And yet like it or lump it there is considerable controversy surrounding the subject. I don't know see anything like this regarding other serious ailments. Nor do I see experts in any other field so resoundingly turn on convention.

There is now a growing body of people who do at least call for a revision of the facts and also recent reports, not the least of which is the UNAIDS own statistical revision and press announcement that AIDS does not constitute a mainstream heterosexual threat. Yet I think it's important to point out that farang sex in Thailand is frequently not mainstream in the ordinary sense and would never advise not wearing a condom.

As a keen poster on many topics I am drawn to this area due to the possibility of error which is also borne out in my own experience. I also read with interest about other ideas that explore the lack of credibility of scientific evidence, the fallibility of the test particularly in tropical climates, and the possibility that studies have got it badly wrong.

I see no reason why these matters can not be sensibly discussed.

And I would appreciate arbiters acting either as referee or player, but not both.