why does this only work for heterosexuals?

[Swifto]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

[Times Roman]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

This is a curious article. Here are some thoughts:

HIV / AIDS was descimating the gay commuity FIRST (forget about IV drug use community for now). This may be a clue. There may be something about the way the gay community performs sex, that makes the virus easier to transmit. Otherwise, I imagine it would have hit the hetero community harder, since, and after all, there are more hetero than gay. And since there are significant Bi orientated individuals, the spread from one community to the next should have happened, more or less, at the same time.

But the comment "the way.... performs sex" doesn't seem to hold up, since in reality, whether oral or anal, these acts are performed by both communities.

My other thought is that men, if given the opportunity, are probably much more promiscious than women (in general)? And in the gay community, at ground zero (i'm assuming San Francisco), the men had access to many multiple partners within short periods of time. (I remember the stories my friend told me about her gay brother, now deceased). So the velocity of transmission was much greater than in the hetero community.

But it's not like that anymore.... male orgies in gay bath houses... sometimes 20 or more participants. So now the velocity has decreased in this community.

after reading the article, it could be that the study only focused on heteros, and therefore the "hetero" qualifier.

I have a hard time believing the WHO has a political agenda that would extend to the gay community.

[Pac Man]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

Could be onto something. Much like the way some STDs only affect women and men are carrier, it could be the altered strand that effects male to male contact.
I'm no scientist though but that's my theory

[Times Roman]

I can only assume the transfer of the HIV virus is different from male/female, when compared to male/male, female/female?

I'm not sure the mortality rate of those infected with HIV is less than 5 years either, thats AID's isnt it?

I have no doubt they already have a vacince for HIV and/or AID's limiting its transfer and perhaps even deactivating it in those already infected.

I am inferring from this statement that you are suggesting there is something in the wings, already approved for use, yet due to bigotry or whatever, doesn't make it available?

If this inference is true on my part, I would suggest that the Economics of having a drug like this, the profit motive would be too great to just sit on it.

Why?

1) The pharmaceutical industry is extremely competitive. First one out wins market share
2) R&D cost would be HUGE! The shareholders would demand (including the board and executive staff, who are also shareholders) on a return on their investment.
3) With R&D costs so huge, and corporate espionage liike it is, this vaccine or whatever would be patented. Once patented, then public knowledge.

In a capitalistic economy, it makes no dollars and sense to sit on something like this.

Trust me! If anything, it is the FDA holding back the pharmas. But FDA only controls USA pharma's. Germany, Japan and a few other countries are battling it out for the race to see how will come out with it first.

Conclusion? Anything that is "available" is already out there.

Unless you are talking about meds that are still in trial. But we do have to be careful with that. Trials take time.

I know people are dying. Death is inevitable. And remember, HIV/AIDS is not the fault of the FDA. But if the FDA authorized something prematurely resulting in widespread deaths, then this IS something they would be responsible for.

Bottom line? This is a lose/lose situation. for the people with HIV/AIDS, and for the FDA. They get blamed no matter what they do.

(But i still do NOT like the friggin FDA!!!)