Sex And HIV: Behaviour-Change Trial Shows No Link

[PaulKing]

Sex And HIV: Behaviour-Change Trial Shows No Link
The East African (Nairobi)
March 17, 2003
Posted to the web March 19, 2003
By Paul Redfern, Special Correspondent
Nairobi

A UK funded trial aimed at reducing the spread of Aids in Uganda by
modifying sexual behaviour appears to have had little discernible
effect.

The trial, carried out on around 15,000 people in the Masaka region,
involved distributing condoms, treating around 12,000 victims of
sexually transmitted diseases and counselling.

However, while the trial led to a marked change in sexual behavioural
patterns, with the proportion reporting causal sexual partners falling
from around 35 per cent to 15 per cent, there was no noticeable fall
in the number of new cases of HIV infection, although there was a
significant reduction in sexually transmitted diseases such as
syphilis and gonorrhoea.

The trial results, which were reported in the British medical journal
The Lancet, have already aroused some controversy.

The team leader of the trial, Dr Anatoli Kamalai, acknowledged that
there was "no measurable reduction" in HIV incidence with "no hint of
even a small effect."

But the research team's view is that the spread of HIV was already
declining in the area and the trial might not have been big enough to
detect any additional change.

There is, however, another view which has recently been put forward
which claims that inadequately sterilised needles across Africa have
led to a greater rate of HIV infection than sexual contact.

It is a view put forward by a mainly American group of scientists,
including Dr David Gisselquist, who told the Times of London that
"Results from the Masaka study add to the already long list of
findings from other studies that don't fit the hypothesis that most
HIV in African adults is from sexual transmission.

"These results from Masaka are similar to results published earlier
from a similar study in Rakai, Uganda, where interventions that
reduced STD prevalence had no impact on HIV incidence." However, such
a view is by no means mainstream in the latest thinking on the spread
of HIV in Africa.

Most scientific research still believes that HIV is mainly spread by
sexual transmission and that people suffering from STDs are
particularly prone.

The trial was the first systematic attempt on a large scale to assess
whether modifying sexual behaviour and better management of other
sexual diseases could cut the transmission of HIV in Africa.

In a commentary in The Lancet, Judith Stephenson and Frances Cowan of
the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London
acknowledged that "many people will be disappointed by the lack of
reduction in HIV incidence, despite an apparently appropriate
intervention that reduced other STDs and was implemented on a huge
scale with great care and commitment."

The two researchers suggest that it might have been "the right trial
and the wrong time" - when HIV incidence was falling and when there
were already substantial reductions in risk behaviour.

Copyright © 2003 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed
by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200303190482.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/printab...303190482.html

[Roxysbayou]

Interesting article. After reading your post on the effectiveness of condoms, I am wondering if that information played a role on the outcome of this experiment. :p

[PaulKing]

A number of studies reciently have started to cast doubt on AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease. The studies get lettle media coverage probably as they are worried about undermining 'safe sex' campaigns. A study on sexual transmission conducted by the CDC a few years ago showed it was all but impossible. The Wall Street Journal ran it as their cover story after the CDC refused to distribute the study.

The problem with the CDC is it has a social agenda not just a health agenda and Robert Gallo has a major share of both Elisa and WB Test patents.

This paragraph from the CDC says a great deal: -


"The power of such a method to force changes in cultural values is based on careful manipulation of fear. Ideally, health promotion messages
should heighten an individual's perceptions of threat and his or her capacity to respond to that threat, thus modulating the level of fear...What is not
yet known is how to introduce fear in the right way in a particular message intended for a particular audience. Acquiring that knowledge will require
planned variations of AIDS education programs that are carefully executed and then carefully evaluated".

Pages 267-8 and 373.- 1989 National Research Council/CDC Internal Report


This article may also be of interest. To takes a very unconventional position but was peer reviewed in a respected medical journal.


Is There Evidence AIDS is Sexually Transmitted?

According to Dr. David Rasnick, the facts don't support the hypothesis. Check out his letter from the British Medical Journal online:

Sex Has Nothing to Do With AIDS

David Rasnick, Visiting Scientist, UC Berkeley
rasnick@mindspring.com
January 20, 2003

I challenge [doctors] to come up with the names, even one will do, of the persons documented to have shown that AIDS or HIV is sexually
transmitted. I know of no such study.

In fact, the scientific, medical literature is full of evidence that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted. It is only assumed that they are.

The results of the world's best scientific study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of antibodies to HIV was
conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al. 1997:
Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7).

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al. did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners becoming HIV-positive from years
of
unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. I repeat?NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became positive during the 10- year
study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that the HIV-positive sex partners
in their study must have become positive through sexual intercourse before
entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual intercourse 1,000 times with
HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding,
HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual contacts before becoming HIV-positive.

Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or
vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A.,
et al., Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 1994. 7: p. 1169-1184).

Given these figures and that the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that one million Americans have antibodies to HIV raises an enormous
problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women in the USA, that means that on average an HIV-negative
woman would have to have random sexual intercourse 140,000 times?and a man eight times
that number?in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Below are additional examples in the literature that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted.

- None of the husbands of HIV positive women became antibody positive to HIV over a three-year period. (Lancet ii: 581 (1985), Stewart et al.}

- No transmission of HIV was observed between couples in which all of the women were HIV positive and in which at least 100 sexual contacts
occurred. (JAMA 259: 3037 (1988), Padian et al.)

- After a mean of 3-1/2 years of unprotected intercourse, with an average of 50 sexual encounters per year, only one hemophiliac wife became HIV
positive. (American Journal of Medicine 85: 472 (1988), Kim et al.)

- No transmission of T-cell abnormalities from hemophiliacs with AIDS to their spouses. (JAMA 251: 1450 (1984), Kreiss et al.)

- "The number of American and European heterosexuals who have had sexual relations with a prostitute, who have no other admitted risk factors
(such as drug abuse), and who have subsequently developed antibody to HIV can be
counted on the fingers of one hand. Sex with a prostitute is not even listed as a risk category by the American CDC." (Rethinking AIDS,
Root-Bernstein, 1993)

- "Non-drug abusing prostitutes have no higher risk of AIDS than other women." (AIDS: the second decade, report from the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 1990)

The same is true for prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), and Athens. (Klinische Wochenschrift 65: 287 (1987),
Luthy et al.; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 98: 697 (1986), Kopp &
Dangl-Erlach; Lancet ii: 1424 (1985), Brenky-Fandeux & Fribourg-Blanc; British Medical Journal 297: 1585 (1988), Day et al.; Scand J Infect Dis
21: 353 (1988), Hyams et al.)


Hope this information is of help.

Best wishes,

Paul

[Roxysbayou]

PaulKing, I wish that you would check out the introductions section of the board and tell us a little more about yourself. I am sitting here reading your posts, and to be honest...I'm not sure that I believe them. Maybe parts of them...where are you finding this information? Sorry I haven't pulled up the links, but this seems like a pretty dangerous theory to me.

[PaulKing]

I have included links and sources with most of the material. I am not asking you to accept it or not but it all comes from highly respected sources.

The media is highly censored (self censorship for the most part) and major articles from leading medical journals are given no coverage.

For example when Luc Montegnier said he now believed HIV to be benign, it was only reported in the Miami Herald on page 83.

The articles are to provide to give a wider perspective on the subject NOT to be accepted on face value.

Best wishes,

Paul

[Flori_DAMAN]

Originally posted by Roxysbayou
PaulKing, I wish that you would check out the introductions section of the board and tell us a little more about yourself. I am sitting here reading your posts, and to be honest...I'm not sure that I believe them. Maybe parts of them...where are you finding this information? Sorry I haven't pulled up the links, but this seems like a pretty dangerous theory to me.

It is a common parlor game. You take a bunch of dissassociated facts and use lots of big words, and draw a conclusion that has no more meaning than if you said nothing. The key word is "agenda". The CDC has an "agenda".

Every board gets its share of this stuff.

Everyone knows the basics of std's, and to try to make it political or some sort of conspiracy is ludicrous and against all serious medical and social impact studies that have given rise to the concern in general of std transmission.

I could have written a much scarier scenario when I was a junior in high school.

Personally I take each sentence and challenge the validity. If you do that you will find a lot of stuff that aint valid.

John.

[PaulKing]

I seem to be doing a great job of offending you. I am REALLY sorry. The articles are from solid sources, as you can see, and I am not saying they are right but simply that they provide a alternative perspective useful in
formulating an informed opinion on the subject.

I personally believe that information from serious sources can never be dangerous but a blinkered or censored view can. Remember that for over one hundred years (and as late as 1920) it was thought that Scurvy was
sexually transmitted as it affected sailors (gay sex and prostitutes) for the most part. A doctor proved it to be otherwise in 1856 but was laughed at and the sexual myth persisted in America for nearly another seventy years.

Please don't be angry with me and ignore these posts if they really upset you. You may be right that these scientists and doctors are completely wrong. In any case it is not worth getting angry over.

Very best wishes,

Paul

PS. I will post a bio shortly.

[Flori_DAMAN]

Originally posted by PaulKing
I seem to be doing a great job of offending you.
Very best wishes,

Paul

PS. I will post a bio shortly.

Who are you addressing here Paul? No one has the job of offending anyone here. Sometimes people try but we are a tough bunch to rattle really, lol.

And please skip the bio if at all possible. We really don't need them because many of us are professionals on this board and we rely on our own interpretations of data. It is common to post an URL to reference any statistical or informational material, so the reader can just read the posters opinion or conclusion without having to spend lesiure time drudging through dry data. Bio's don't really prove much, as anyone can cut and paste anyone elses if you really think about it.

I don't beleive anyone is angry, at least not me. One that disagrees with your sources, style, or drama isn't necessarily angry with you. Hey, the net is full of college students that imply they are doctors and the fact that you are a real doctor isn't necessary to prove, because this isn't a medical research site.

John

[austxmark]

Interesting thread. I do agree that the CDC has a political agenda as well as a health agenda. I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that HIV transmission be looked at carefully. I think HIV is transmitted sexually I am just not sure of the degree of transmission. It is a fact that there are thousands of people who have been repeatedly exposed who do not seem to get HIV as well as people who seem to get it easily. I think we might try addressing the data, rather than attacking the poster.

[teknurse]

I'm sorry, I don't have any studies to back up my belief that AIDS and HIV can be transmitted via sexual encounter, but I do know that there is no way to be able to explain the spread of aids solely due to needle swapping. I mean, come on here, maybe the exaggerated the risk of transmission in order to err on the safe side, but your facts would tend to invalidate almost every case of sexual transmission in the states. Not to mention the fact that I don't believe that GAY men swap needles more than any other group. Again, I don't have any fancy studies, or any research grants, but common sense has to play a role here. If it smells like shit, and looks like shit, it's probably shit, I don't need a chemical analysis to verify it. It just 'IS'. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate an alternate point of view on just about anything, but you might as well try to convince me that the world really IS flat even though everyone else says it's round.


Allen&Tami

[Flori_DAMAN]

rest assured the world is neither flat nor round, its kinda egg shaped,

John

[Regularguy]

FloriDAMAN, your reply to Paul's was non-subsantive. Instead of reading the links, and finding potential flaws, you espouse hyperbole and you attack your discussion opponant for "using big words". Is that your most eloquent, well reasononed, researched response?

Technurs,e your mind seems quite made up even though you admit you don't read anything. Interesting position, but at least you are honest about your methodology.

As to Africa, that nation doesn't remotely fit the western epidemiological model, but the slogan created by the homosexual AIDS activists; "But What About Africa?!" was a clever slogan deisgned to democratize the disease when the few critically thinking scientists and researchers as well as some of the populace started to ask questions when the alleged heterosexual AIDS epidemic never materialized in spite of repeated insistince it was. It has been as effective as their other disinformation when they bastardized Kinsey's landmark 1948 study by claiming he said that about 10% of the population was homosexual.

As to Africa, you will find incidences of increased seroprevalence where female circumcision, ritual scarification, infibulation and clitoridectomies are performed. Also you will find that hospitals lack the funds for proper steam/pressure autoclaves to properly sterilize surgical instruments-many are just rinsed in water. As to syringes, since they cannot afford throw-away syringes like used in western countries, they often re-use syringes till they are so dull they no longer puncture the skin. If you look at syringe construction, you will notice a very soft. spongy rubber tip to the inside depressor. When it bottoms out from finger pressure, it compresses substantially, when finger pressure is released, it decompresses and causes a vaccum in the syringe tip, withdrawing fluid which is usually bood. If a patient is seropositive, a substantial viral load can be withdrawn.

The British have a standing joke about going to African hospitals in auto accidents-"you may survive the accident, but not the hospital stay". Also, many Africans in comparison to western countires practice anal sex as a means of birth control, and their work force is remarkably migratory unlike western countries more or less table family units.

Additionally, due to African mores, many African dialects don't even have a word for homosexuality, it is so taboo. Who would admit to a practice for statistical aqusition when thatpractice is so despised that the language omits reference to it?

[Roxysbayou]

Get off your high horse, Please! It will take a hell of a lot more than a couple of guys on a message board to sway the thinking that has been instilled in us since birth. I prefer to search out my own literature because what you are feeding me is one sided. I still wonder what your motivation is. I don't see where either poster here was unsubstantial. I think that you are just a bit pompous!

[teknurse]

Ok, I feel like I was attacked here unnecessarily. I appreciate your stance on the conditions in Africa, and I agree with most of them. I merely stated that I didn't agree with everything the original poster had to say, or the facts presented per se. I might add, if you're going to try and rebuke someone for the use of polysyllabic words, you should invest in a spell checker. I don't know about anyone else, but I never intended for this discussion to be a competition on who could use more words from an Oxford dictionary. Jeez.

Allen&Tami

[Flori_DAMAN]

INeweecTuallie speekin,

i Thinck this conpherzation has detewioated

john