‘Dormant’ HIV has ongoing skirmishes with the body’s immune system

ScienceNews ^ | Oct 5, 2023 | John Carey

[fwdude]

For two decades, the dominant idea in HIV research has been that antiretroviral therapy effectively wipes out active viruses that cause devastating infections but leaves behind a reservoir of infected cells seemingly invisible to the immune system — until treatment is stopped. Then the virus comes roaring back.

Now two new studies reveal that the virus continues to put the immune system through a workout. Some infected cells churn out bits of viral RNA and protein that elicit an immune response, researchers report in the Sept. 13 Cell Host & Microbe.

While not infectious, those damaged viral particles appear to weaken the immune system. The discovery provides a possible explanation for what allows the virus to reemerge with such vigor when people stop taking antiretroviral drugs.

[fwdude]

Oops! God will not be mocked. Nor will His Judgements be derailed.

[fwdude]

So much for the fake narrative that HIV-infected individuals live “as long as” uninfected people. How do you live as long with a defective, worn out immune system?

[RummyChick]

Magic Johnson is a mystery.

[fwdude]

Who knows what debilitating health hell he goes through off stage?

[Secret Agent Man]

Magic Johnson can afford top tier medical treatment.

[daniel1212]

Antiretroviral drugs, which are much paid for by taxpayers, as is HIV treatment which sodomy is mainly responsible (about 80% of new HIV cases among men, and primarily responsible for over 700,000 American deaths), and with drugs for this ending up in minute amounts in the water supply.

The point being, not that compassion should be neglected by non-gov sources, but exposing a double standard. Deploring smoking is political correct, and it is bad, and its effects are overtly warned of , and insurance companies penalize such, but a sodomy is promoted, and those who object it, even on moral and or medical ground, are maligned, and insurance companies are forbidden to penalize such.

If a consensual Christian practice - lets say the Lord's supper - was shown to be responsible for 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men - - despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population - and 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe," then it would be treated as the plague.

God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with. <

Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47

[fwdude]

Antiretroviral drugs, which are much paid for by taxpayers, as is HIV treatment which sodomy is mainly responsible...

True, but the new tip-of-the-spear is in these drugs for UNinfected men who willfully expose themselves to HIV in high-risk, immoral activities. And WE are saddled with the tab, because "preventative care" is supposed to be at no cost to the patient (how can you be a patient when you aren't infected?)

[Ronaldus Magnus III]

About six months ago I started noticing these commercials touting a new AIDS treatment/prescription that touted ‘undetectable’ virus results. The scenes were obvious invitations to start ‘dating’ again. The other obvious, unmentioned aspect is ‘undetectable’ by today’s standard. As this article makes clear, once you have it, it is there.

[markman46]

Yep so have I, only problem as research is showing is hiv comes back.

[StormEye]

"Who knows what debilitating health hell
he goes through off stage?"

That's the truth.
Probably any serious and real health
trouble from his AIDS is kept concealed
from the public.

[Penelope Dreadful]

I used to care about those queers with HIV/AIDS - really, deeply had compassion for them. Now eff ‘em! The bunch of Sodomites deserve everything that they get, and I could not care less. The perverts have helped bring this country down the tubes, and the lot of them could croak, and the sooner the better.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Think about it. Once a buggerer gets HIV/AIDS, Big Pharma has a customer for life. So, of course, the message is, “Sodomize your little pea-picking hearts out!”

[daniel1212]

but the new tip-of-the-spear is in these drugs for UNinfected men who willfully expose themselves to HIV in high-risk, immoral activities. And WE are saddled with the tab, because "preventative care" is supposed to be at no cost to the patient (how can you be a patient when you aren't infected?)

The CDC estimates indicate about 20 percent of the U.S. population – approximately one in five people in the U.S. – had an STI on any given day in 2018, and STIs acquired that year will cost the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in healthcare costs alone. (https://www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/prevalence-2020-at-a-glance.htm) 

"STIs and their complications amount to about $16 billion annually in direct medical costs. HIV imposes the largest financial burden, costing $12.6 billion in direct medical costs, followed by HPV at $1.7 billion, chlamydia at $156.7 million, gonorrhea at $162.1 million, and syphilis at $39.9 million." (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/STI-brief.pdf) 

And based upon a lifetime from 2015 to 2020 (study published in  4-21) then NIH research  stated:

"We estimated an average lifetime HIV-related medical cost for a person with HIV of $420,285 (2019 US$) discounted (3%) and $1,079,999 undiscounted for a median 3-year diagnosis delay and 3% base dropout rate. Our discounted cost estimate was $490,045 in our most favorable scenario and $326,411 in our least favorable scenario."

"Discounted costs are highlighted throughout because they represent economic costs that take into account time preferences of individuals and society and the opportunity cost of funds." The Lifetime Medical Cost Savings from Preventing HIV in the United States

    

And as reported Mar 27, 2023,

  Medicaid is the largest source of insurance coverage for people with HIV in the United States, covering an estimated 40% of the nonelderly adults with HIV, compared to just 15% of the nonelderly adult population overall...Medicaid accounted for 45% of all federal HIV spending in FY221 and it is the largest source of public spending for HIV care in the U.S. In FY22, the federal government spent an estimated $13 billion on Medicaid services for people with HIV...Medicaid enrollment among people with HIV has grown over time  (https://www.kff.org/hivaids/issue-brief/medicaid-and-people-with-hiv/)

Before the Affordable Care Act, most individuals living with HIV were ineligible for Medicaid unless they had very low incomes, or were deemed permanently disabled due to an AIDS diagnosis. Starting in 2014, under the Affordable Care Act, states can receive federal Medicaid payments to provide coverage for the lowest income adults in their states, without regard to disability, parental status, or most other categorical limitations. (https://www.medicaid.gov/about-us/program-history/medicaid-50th-anniversary/entry/47641) 

Costs associated with engaging in sodomy also can include those for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) [which was] at more than $1,700 for 30 tablets (https://mosaicscience.com/story/hiv-prep-truvada-prevention-sti-std-lgbtqi-gay-condom-pride/).

The cost for  PrEP medication was about  2,000 a month, and which "Most health insurance plans, including Medicaid, cover." (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/stds-hiv-safer-sex/hiv-aids/prep) Under the Affordable Care Act, PrEP must be free under almost all health insurance plans. (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep/paying-for-prep/index.html) The rule says insurers must not charge copays, coinsurance or deductible payments for the quarterly clinic visits and lab tests required to maintain a PrEP prescription. (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/prep-hiv-prevention-pill-must-now-totally-free-almost-insurance-plans-rcna1470) 

For any Medicaid insured HIV-negative adult 18 years of age or older patients, lab testing and prescription medication costs are 100% covered. (https://www.louisianahealthhub.org/teleprep/) 

In 2017, around 61,300 people were actively taking PrEP.

(https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/western-central-europe-north-america/usa) with the rate of PrEP users per 100,000 population in 2018 being 68. (https://aidsvu.org/local-data/united-states)

A few states have their own drug assistance programs that cover out-of-pocket expenses for PrEP. Some will also cover the costs of doctor visits and lab tests. Requirements to qualify for these programs differ by state. (https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-is-prep-how-to-get-it-for-free-truvana-descovy) 

"Despite biomedical advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention with antiretroviral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the burden of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains high [1]. MSM are a high‐priority risk group for PrEP use based on their behavioral and biological risk factors [2, 3]."

[Between 2017 and 2019] "of 3508 sexually active, HIV‐negative MSM, 34% met indications [condition that leads to the recommendation] for PrEP. The proportion with current PrEP use was 32% among MSM meeting indications and 11% among those without indications." 

"PrEP is a key part of HIV strategy globally. In the United States, PrEP is available through multiple mechanisms including national and state health insurance programs covering health care costs for those with low income, private insurance plans, programs for those without health insurance and copay assistance from the drug manufacturer or US states [5, 6]." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8488229/#:~:text=Results,11%25%20among%20those%20without%20indications)

The Ready, Set, PrEP program makes PrEP medication available at no cost for qualifying recipients who lack prescription drug coverage, and  are tested for HIV with a negative result, and have a prescription for PrEP. (https://www.getyourprep.com/)

EDIT: "the federal government has announced that almost all health insurers must cover the HIV prevention pill, known as PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, with no cost sharing — including for the drug itself and, crucially, for clinic visits and lab tests...This means...Truvada or Descovy, the two approved forms of PrEP, should now be totally free for almost all insured individuals....when taken daily, the tablet reduces men’s risk of contracting the virus from sex with other men by more than 99 percent...PrEP use remains largely limited to white gay and bisexual men...

Gilead readily provides PrEP for free to lower-income people who lack health insurance, but the pharmaceutical company does not cover the associated clinic visits and lab tests...Since this spring, Truvada has been available in a generic form with a list price as low as $30 per month. By comparison, Descovy’s list price is currently $1,930 and Truvada’s is $1,842.... (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/prep-hiv-prevention-pill-must-now-totally-free-almost-insurance-plans-rcna1470)

Which raises  raises private insurance rates and or taxes for all who pay them.  

[moovova]

And...they can give blood now.

[fwdude]

And...they can give blood now.

I watched, in eager anticipation, for the recorded outcomes of incidences of HIV-infected would-be donors once the first loosening of restrictions for homosexuals was announced (from lifetime to 12 month deferral period.) Though they dismissed the uptick as "insignificant," this did not take into account that even with the looser requirement, very few sexually active "gay" men qualified as donors even then.

The change in HIV cases in blood donors went from 2.6 cases per 100,000 donors to 2.9 cases per 100,000 donors after the 12-month deferral period for homos was instituted. Again, this was with nearly ALL homosexuals still failing to qualify for the new loosened requirement. Not insignificant by my standard. Consider also that some HIV-infected donations went undetected, but didn't result in infection because the blood was used for unrelated research, expired before being used and was discarded, or was incidentally used on other HIV-infected people, eluding detection.

Now, with the new insane, politically-driven requirements, I'm wondering if any sharp spike in HIV donors will even be reported, or even tracked. My guess is that any such data will be deep-sixed for political expediency.

[moovova]

I located an FDA document (May 2023), making donor recommendations. It's a PDF, if you're comfortable with downloading it. Of particular interest...starting on Page 8, items 1-15. The recommended deferrals are onerous to assess. Imagine the intrusive questionnaire an individual has to fill out just to give blood. Will people be honest? Heck, will people even remember the particulars of their recent hookups? There appears to be improved testing for HIV, maybe the donors that pass on tainted blood will be filtered out better. You're probably familiar with all of the below.

"https://www.fda.gov/media/164829/download

Here's the short FDA article if you'd rather start there.

Recommendations for Evaluating Donor Eligibility Using Individual Risk-Based Questions to Reduce the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products

I found the above while reading a JAMA article that scares the heck out of me, discussing the individual donor questionnaire above. Absolutely crazy.

Redefining Blood Donation—Path to Inclusivity and Safety

[moovova]

Sorry, second article link was bad...

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recommendations-evaluating-donor-eligibility-using-individual-risk-based-questions-reduce-risk-human

[fwdude]

The complaints about deferring people on PrEP or PEP is absolutely INSANE. These people are on PrEP exactly BECAUSE they are, by definition, in a very high-risk group for HIV infection. Taking the medication doesn't change that.

Consider also that those taking PrEP feel bullet-proof and, as a consequence, expose themselves to much more risky sexual situations that they would have otherwise. The PrEP group has been proven to be at much higher risk for other dangerous STD's because they forego other secondary safety measures, such as condoms. So, instead of HIV, screeners have to be concerned about early syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia infections, many of which are quickly becoming antibiotic resistant.