HIV protection?

I guess it is a break through, but 30% protection is a pretty low number I think. 70% protection would be much better.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/ts_nm/us_aids_drug

So this is supposed to be instead of condoms? Why? does it still allow conception?

I am not to sure. It sounds like it still is in the testing stages. I still think 30% is crap.

Considering where the research is taking place and the massive numbers of women who contract HIV, I'd say 30% is way better than the previous figures which were almost zero thanks to the fact that using a condom is not very high on the list of priorities for people in the area.

Of course, someone would still have to be responsible for using the cream.

but would they use this?

Yeah well, that's the question isn't it.

If I were to base my guess on historical points, I'd say no, but maybe with education...it really would be wonderful if it could happen.

Ali, I thought about that. Eh. 30% of women in rural Africa is a start. The reality is that unless they get to a 70% or 80% range I am not sure that it will have much effect in a place where HIV is so rampant. Who knows. I guess it is a start.

If they're not using condoms, why would they use this? Is it cheaper? you only have to apply once? what? is it just because the men object to condoms? And if so, why not so more on the development of the "femidoms"?

My guess would be so women can take control of the issue since the men refuse to do so.

yah, so... femidoms?

I have no idea, other than an availability issue. Maybe they should combine the two like the old diaphram use.

Aren't they researching all sorts of things like that to try and curb the spread of HIV and AIDS in communities such as these?

It'll be interesting to see whether women are more responsible about protecting themselves and others than men have been so far. I don't really know if they will be. I think ignorance has no preference for gender.

If 30% is 30% then it's better than some treatments and diagnostics we currently put a lot of stock (and money) into...

Good reading.

HIVe protection. He has none:

30% doesn't insure shit!

This was a very interesting article. Heard it on NPR today.

Gene therapy offers hope of cure for HIV

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/gene-therapy-offers-hope-of-cure-for-hiv-1607227.html

Chris Rock: They ain't curin' shit. The last thing they cured was polio. There ain't no money in the cure, the money's in the disease.

(paraphrase, probably)

Since being given a bone marrow transplant two years ago, he has not taken antiretroviral drugs to control HIV and has had no resurgence of either disease. He is believed to be the longest HIV-free survivor who was previously treated with antiretroviral drugs.

Remarkable.

Dr Hutter said a bone marrow transplant would be too risky as a routine treatment for HIV and too difficult to find donors with the right genetic make-up. But a modification of the approach using gene therapy to render a patient HIV-resistant could work, he said.

Even a costly treatment could be worthwhile. The price of treatment with antiretrovirals in Europe is €70,000 to €80,000 (£63,000 to £72,000) a year compared with a one-off cost of €20,000 to €30,000 for a bone marrow transplant.