Political Crossfire Forums

[learn to swim]

Mandatory HIV testing is wanted

[learn to swim]

Physicians & General Public Favor Mandatory HIV Testing. Views Support Findings of Recent Medical Report


FLEMINGTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 16, 2005


Results of a new national survey of 864 physicians and 1,339 members of the general public revealed that a significant majority of both groups believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population.

The national e-survey was conducted by HCD Research during February 12 -14, as part of its continuing investigation of the social, political and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 3% at a 95% confidence level.

The survey revealed that among the general public:

-- 63% of Americans believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 60% indicated that the associated health care benefits of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 40% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns of those representing the general public who were not in favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 76%

Job/employment issues 71%

The least frequently reported social concerns were:

The cost of testing is too high for public funding 52%

Difficulty in marriage and other social relations 51%

Inadequate access to medical and psychological counseling 46%

Among the sample of physicians:

-- 64% believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 59% reported that the associated health care benefits of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 41% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns by physicians who were not in favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 84%

Job/employment issues 77%

The least frequently reported social concerns were:

Difficulty in marriage and other social relations 48%

Inadequate access to medical and psychological counseling 44%

The cost of testing is too high for public funding 34%

"Physicians are a distinct group who share similar education, income and status in society, and it is intriguing that their views reflect those of the general public on serious and evolving health care issues such as this one," noted Glenn Kessler, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, HCD Research.

According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, health experts recommend that virtually all Americans be screened routinely for the HIV AIDS virus, much as they are for cancer and other conditions. In addition, the report cited recent federally funded studies which determined that the cost of routinely testing and treating nearly all adults would be outweighed by a reduction in new infections and the opportunity to start patients on antiviral medications early in the disease progression.

HCD Research is a marketing and communications research company headquartered in Flemington, NJ. The company's services include traditional and web-based marketing and communications research. HCD Research also developed readmylipz.com, a political ad testing web site for the 2004 Presidential campaign. For additional information on HCD Research, access the company's web site at www.hcdi.net or call HCD Research at (908) 788-9393.

For more information or to schedule an interview with Glenn Kessler, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, HCD Research, please contact Vince McGourty, M&M Communications, Inc., at 908-638-5555 or vinmcg@earthlink.net.

story link

[Diogenes]

I have never understood why AIDS hasn't been treated as a public health threat like other serious diseases. Political Correctness, maybe?

[psholtz]

As I've (many times) before, first get yourself educated on what (exactly) HIV and AID$ really are, then you can have a discussion about constaining liberty viz "mandatory testing".. :roll:

http://www.duesberg.com/
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pduesberg.htm

[superchick]

Can you say Magic Johnson?

[learn to swim]

Magic Johnson

[psholtz]

btw, you spelled "mandatory" wrong on the first post.. :wink:

[learn to swim]

psholtz wrote: btw, you spelled "mandatory" wrong on the first post.. :wink:

What are you talking about? :shifty: :lol:

[Janis]

New Deadly strain of HIV.

If your infected with this strain of HIV. Within months its full blown AIDS. The man in question has been reported to have been with hundreds of other men.. Mandatory testing is a good thing in respect to the impact HIV has on society. The legal problems it would have on a persons life need to be addressed.. With this new strain, you most likely would be in the hospital before the test was given and the results returned. It is only a matter of time, that this hits heterosexuals.

I'm no prude, but this is the best argument for teaching abstinence more to teenagers. I don't have a problem with sex ed, but as a part of the curriculum they should be taken to the AIDS wing of a hospital to see what the consequences of irresponsible and unprotected sex can be..

They think STD's are something you can fix with medication. They should be shown pictures of herpes and shown testimonial videos of those infected, so they can hear first hand that unprotected sex results in real ugly lifetime illnesses. Not to mention pregnancy. They also should be given that realistic doll that they give to girls and boys to take care of. It is a real eye opener when they have to get up in the middle of the night and change it.. Consequences are not emphasized enough when it comes to sex ed..

Quote: Saturday, February 12, 2005 Posted: 0417 GMT (1217 HKT)

(CNN) -- Health officials in New York City are alarmed after a man infected with a highly drug-resistant strain of HIV progressed to full-blown AIDS within months of diagnosis.

That raises the possibility that a hard-to-treat variant of the virus could be spreading among gay and bisexual men who use the drug methamphetamine.

"This case is a striking reminder that the risk of getting infected with HIV has not gone away," said Dr. Jay Dobkin, director of the AIDS program at Columbia University.

"In fact, risky behavior may be even more dangerous now since there is a change of infection with a virus we may not be able to treat," Dobkin said in a press release from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The department has issued an alert to doctors and hospitals to check other newly diagnosed HIV cases to see if they are also infected with the drug-resistant variant.

Health officials also are monitoring laboratories for additional cases.

"This case is a wake-up call," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said in the release.

The man, in his mid-40s, had not previously been treated for HIV. He was diagnosed last December and his infection appeared to be recent, health officials said.

He reported having multiple male sex partners and unsafe anal sex, often while using a crystallized form of methamphetamine, known as "crystal meth."

The man's HIV strain proved to be resistant to three of the four available types of antiviral drugs used to keep HIV in check.

While patients being treated for HIV do develop drug resistance, finding such resistance in someone who has never taken HIV drugs is "extremely rare," according to the city health department.

Even more alarming to health officials was the fact that the patient has already progressed to full-blown AIDS -- something that typically takes more than 10 years after initial HIV infection.

"In this patient's case, onset of AIDS appears to have occurred within two to three months, and at most 20 months, after HIV infection," the health department's statement said.

Noted AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York, said the case "is alarming."

"While this remains a single case, it is prudent to closely watch for any additional possible cases while continuing to emphasize the importance of reducing HIV risk behavior," Ho said in the health department's press release.

Public officials have long expressed concern that gay and bisexual men were abandoning safer sex practices, particularly the use of condoms during anal sex, that successfully reduced the spread of AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s, before antiviral treatments were available.

Contributing to their concern is the increased popularity of crystal meth, which can impair judgment and heighten sexual sensation.

"The rapidly growing crystal meth epidemic in New York continues to play a significant role in facilitating the transmission of HIV," said Dr. Antonio Urbina, director of HIV education at St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Center in New York.

"Health care providers must be especially vigilant in not only recognizing and diagnosing HIV infection, but also in recognizing the signs and symptoms of crystal methamphetamine use in their patients," he said in the health department's release.

More recent..

Quote: ABC News
New HIV Strain Shakes Up New York Gay Community
Reuters

Feb 17, 2005 — By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A potentially virulent strain of the HIV virus found last week in a New York man has the gay community worried about a new deadly epidemic, and activists battling a scourge they believed was contained.

The patient found to have a treatment-resistant and fast progressing strain of HIV was a user of crystal methamphetamine — a party drug increasingly popular among some gay men that critics say encourages unprotected sex with multiple partners.

The news sent a shudder through the ranks of AIDS experts who have warned of the potential for disaster among gays using the drug to fuel sex parties that can last for days.

"The meth underground in the gay community is the perfect petri dish for AIDS transmission," Peter Staley, a founder of advocacy group ACT-UP, told Reuters on Thursday.

"Politically this is a shot in the arm we needed to get the message out that the meth epidemic in the gay community was on an inevitable course risking the spread of disease."

Posters on telephone booths in gay neighborhoods proclaim that being crystal free is "Sexy," and a new round of public service ads funded by the city is in the works.

Community centers are brain-storming over ways to reach out to gay meth-users who advertise for partners on the Internet — where the code "pnp" alerts possible sex partners that one is interested in "party and play," a euphemism for meth and sex.

Word of the possible new strain, which is still being analyzed, shattered a complacency brought on by advances in treatment that kept AIDS at bay for many in the past decade.

"It's a poignant reminder that HIV disease is still with us," said Dr. Jack Dehovitz, director of the HIV Center at the University Hospital of Brooklyn. "In the treatment era since 1996, people haven't really been thinking about HIV as much. People are living productive lives."

"PNP" AND BAREBACKING

Patrick McGovern, head of Harlem United Community AIDS Center, described the attitude as "prevention fatigue."

also posted in News and Current events forum...

[psholtz]

The reason these HIV strains are treatment "resistant" is b/c HIV doesn't even cause "AID$" in the first place...

Please see the links I posted above, before spreading any more disinformation, paranoid, fear, doubt and uncertainty..

thanks! :-D

[ToonArmyIsComing]

So how would they use the results of this test? Would it be used to discriminate?

[hector]

janis wrote: New Deadly strain of HIV.

I'm no prude, but this is the best argument for teaching abstinence more to teenagers.

They think STD's are something you can fix with medication. They should be shown pictures of herpes and shown testimonial videos of those infected, so they can hear first hand that unprotected sex results in real ugly lifetime illnesses.



I'm all for mandatory testing. I'm sure you can see that in the time the public has known fully about Hiv/Aids that there are still enough irresponsible people who let it go thinking nothing of it while still having multiple partners as shown by the number of people infected. As for school teaching I believe that most of the schools are making an honest attempt at educating their students about the dangers of Hiv/Aids, but I think the problem is with the teachers actually getting into the students minds about the problem. I myself am a student in high school and have seen first hand the teachings in school that are going on. Some of the problems with the lessons not working have to do with other students getting caught up with social status and reputations and other things that are bound to happen while in school. Not to look down on teachers by any means but most of these problems are looked past by some teachers because they believe the student is learning what needs to be learned in class not thinking about whether or not the student will apply there knowledge in the world outside of school. So yes school teachings could without a doubt be stronger in there message but I think this will need to be done by student to student kid to kid talks. Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"
I would very much appreciate feedback on the subject and hear others views or opinions about mine.

[psholtz]

hector wrote: janis wrote: New Deadly strain of HIV.

I'm no prude, but this is the best argument for teaching abstinence more to teenagers.

They think STD's are something you can fix with medication. They should be shown pictures of herpes and shown testimonial videos of those infected, so they can hear first hand that unprotected sex results in real ugly lifetime illnesses.



I'm all for mandatory testing.
Except that again, for the third time on this thread, there's no scientific proof whatsoever that HIV has anything to do w/ immune system dysfunction, much less w/ the random collection of 30-some odd diseases that are collectively termed 'AIDS':

http://www.duesberg.com/
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pduesberg.htm

[cap'n queasy]

How are you going to enforce it? No ones testing me for anything.

[Diogenes]

hector wrote: Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"
Agreed. When I was in a junior high health class (all boys), a student teacher reacted to an off-color remark by one of the students by getting up from the desk, closing the door, and proceeded to give us a very frank talk in blunt language. The lecture was not on the approved list for the school and was completely off the record. The normally rowdy room got very quiet while he spoke, and no one complained later (or gave the student teacher a hard time for the rest of his tour). We were just shocked that an adult would be so candid with us. And I still have a vivid recollection of that lecture 50+ years later.

[Janis]

Diogenes wrote: hector wrote: Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"
Agreed. When I was in a junior high health class (all boys), a student teacher reacted to an off-color remark by one of the students by getting up from the desk, closing the door, and proceeded to give us a very frank talk in blunt language. The lecture was not on the approved list for the school and was completely off the record. The normally rowdy room got very quiet while he spoke, and no one complained later (or gave the student teacher a hard time for the rest of his tour). We were just shocked that an adult would be so candid with us. And I still have a vivid recollection of that lecture 50+ years later.

Back then the kids didn't go home and tell Mommy and Daddy, even if one of them had an axe to grind. If a teacher is straightforward and real, they do gain respect. Plus the PC police weren't around back then.

These days the students know all they have to do is tell and the teachers job would be in jeopardy. Teachers today can't be that blunt without thinking in the back of their minds that is would end up coming back to bite them in the ass. It does take away from the openess involved in getting through on a real human basis on some really important personal issues..

Some really know how to manipulate the system. Their own parents get threaten with calling the authorities if they don't get their way these days.

hector wrote:
Quote: Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"

Diogenes just proved your point.. I can't see someone like a "Mr. Mudgett" (real name) who wore bow ties and spoke in proper English always, teaching that class :lol: Good Lord, he was a good teacher, but wearing a bow tie and telling dry jokes was just asking for it.... Used to turn beet red and get so mad when the kids would heckle him... He was one of my friends father and I felt so bad for him..

[Sparkalinda]

As has been suggested already, Testing to what end? What will be done with those who test positive?

If they are being tested because they are a danger to society then lets test alcoholics as well. There are an estimated 18 million of them who kill approximately 17.5 thousand people (2002) per year in traffic accidents.

If it is the cost to the medical system you are worried about, how about all those smokers, those with poor diets leading to heart disease of which there are over 50 million with this current condition in the USA.

In 2003 it is believed (depending on who you ask) that between 300,000 to 900,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS in the USA a country with approximately 300,000,000. We are talking about between 1 - 3 % of the entire population. Do you really think testing 300 million people for a disease which effects no more than 3% of the population is a good use of cash? I think not, when there are far more serious health concerns in your country which effect far more people than a scant 3% of the population.

[Tracker]

Sparkalinda wrote: As has been suggested already, Testing to what end? What will be done with those who test positive?

If they are being tested because they are a danger to society then lets test alcoholics as well. There are an estimated 18 million of them who kill approximately 17.5 thousand people (2002) per year in traffic accidents.

If it is the cost to the medical system you are worried about, how about all those smokers, those with poor diets leading to heart disease of which there are over 50 million with this current condition in the USA.

In 2003 it is believed (depending on who you ask) that between 300,000 to 900,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS in the USA a country with approximately 300,000,000. We are talking about between 1 - 3 % of the entire population. Do you really think testing 300 million people for a disease which effects no more than 3% of the population is a good use of cash? I think not, when there are far more serious health concerns in your country which effect far more people than a scant 3% of the population.

Great post and good points.

I'm looking forward to a test to confirm the genetic propensity for swallowing government propaganda and religiowhacko crap, hook, line and sinker. We should just steralize these folks before they have the chance of creating more brainwashed Scheople who go to church and vote for 'Conservatives.' :lol:

As for testing to what end -- what will happen to those who test positive for HIV?

Good question: first, they will have a large red letter tattooed on their foreheads. THEN, they will be rounded-up and turned into Soylent Green Crackers.

For speedier outcomes, infecting everbody would do more good, as wars would end and vital resources diverted to survivbility and finding a real CURE -- like, today.

[Tracker]

And another thing -- :lol:

Quote: the opportunity to start patients on antiviral medications -- from article

This Survey was obviously funded by the Pharmaceutical companies. The 'framing' of each question makes it obvious. "To improve the overall quality of healthcare?" What a joke! Most people can't even afford healthcare to begin with. Good grief.

Hector wrote: I'm all for mandatory testing. I'm sure you can see that in the time the public has known fully about Hiv/Aids that there are still enough irresponsible people who let it go thinking nothing of it while still having multiple partners as shown by the number of people infected. As for school teaching I believe that most of the schools are making an honest attempt at educating their students about the dangers of Hiv/Aids, but I think the problem is with the teachers actually getting into the students minds about the problem. I myself am a student in high school and have seen first hand the teachings in school that are going on. Some of the problems with the lessons not working have to do with other students getting caught up with social status and reputations and other things that are bound to happen while in school. Not to look down on teachers by any means but most of these problems are looked past by some teachers because they believe the student is learning what needs to be learned in class not thinking about whether or not the student will apply there knowledge in the world outside of school. So yes school teachings could without a doubt be stronger in there message but I think this will need to be done by student to student kid to kid talks. Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"
I would very much appreciate feedback on the subject and hear others views or opinions about mine.

Excellent post, Hector.

Feel free to add some paragraphs to your posts ... :hi: (makes it easier to read.)

As for 'most kids' this ... or 'most kids that' ... well, unless you are a mind-reader, you really don't know what anybody else thinks. Sweeping-generalities are no different than 'labels,' which accomplishes one thing: 'division/divisiveness.'

If society were really concerned about sexual education and 'health,' then we'd encourage youth experimentation to overcome the mystery and learn REAL WORLD skills. 'theories' don't cut it -- obviously.

'Mandatory' anything is less Liberty, Freedom, Life and Pursuit of Happiness. Who needs that? Follow the money -- the only folks that benefit are drug-pushers, e.g., pharmaceutical companies.

[Janis]

Hector wrote: I'm all for mandatory testing. I'm sure you can see that in the time the public has known fully about Hiv/Aids that there are still enough irresponsible people who let it go thinking nothing of it while still having multiple partners as shown by the number of people infected. As for school teaching I believe that most of the schools are making an honest attempt at educating their students about the dangers of Hiv/Aids, but I think the problem is with the teachers actually getting into the students minds about the problem. I myself am a student in high school and have seen first hand the teachings in school that are going on. Some of the problems with the lessons not working have to do with other students getting caught up with social status and reputations and other things that are bound to happen while in school. Not to look down on teachers by any means but most of these problems are looked past by some teachers because they believe the student is learning what needs to be learned in class not thinking about whether or not the student will apply there knowledge in the world outside of school. So yes school teachings could without a doubt be stronger in there message but I think this will need to be done by student to student kid to kid talks. Possibly younger teachers who can relate to the kids and befriend them and get that message through to them because there is more of a trust and friendship bond between the teacher and student and not the traditional "just another boring teacher preaching about stuff that will never happen to me mentality"
I would very much appreciate feedback on the subject and hear others views or opinions about mine.


Yes, great post.

Tracker wrote:
Excellent post, Hector.

Feel free to add some paragraphs to your posts ... :hi: (makes it easier to read.)

As for 'most kids' this ... or 'most kids that' ... well, unless you are a mind-reader, you really don't know what anybody else thinks. Sweeping-generalities are no different than 'labels,' which accomplishes one thing: 'division/divisiveness.'

If society were really concerned about sexual education and 'health,' then we'd encourage youth experimentation to overcome the mystery and learn REAL WORLD skills. 'theories' don't cut it -- obviously.

'Mandatory' anything is less Liberty, Freedom, Life and Pursuit of Happiness. Who needs that? Follow the money -- the only folks that benefit are drug-pushers, e.g., pharmaceutical companies.

Tracker, one thing we agree on "theories don't cut it"!

But don't you think that giving students REAL WORLD skills includes seeing up close the risk of being sexually active and not responsible is. Visits to hospitals and videos of AIDS, herpes and other sexually transmitted disease patients would be an important tool in getting kids attention.

The school system is handcuffed to speak openly in giving clinical, real explanations of the dangers involved once you become sexually active. The more information you give, the better off the child will be. A choice not to have sex is one that should be talked about as much as the talk about protection. Abstaining from sex is a choice as much as any other choice when it comes to kids. Sexual acts don't have to be encouraged, there is plenty sexual energy out there.

You won't get a sexually transmitte disease if you don't have sex with someone who has not been tested.

Having sex at a young age is not something the girl (most of the time) does because she is just horny. It is because she wants to be like everyone else, feels left out or is desperate to keep a boyfriend who is pushing it. Both sexes need to be taught the important and the consequences of having sex. It is in everyones best interest.

Mandatory testing is too much of an invasion and that will never be an issue. Not because it is a big conspiracy, it is just too intrusive.