Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HIV Tracking Technology Could Pinpoint Who's Infecting Who

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the yet-you-say-you-were-in-burma-at-the-time dept.

Biotech 203

Daniel_Stuckey writes "No man is an island, but evolutionarily, each person functions like one for the HIV virus. That's according to Thomas Leitner, a researcher working on a project aimed at creating technology for tracking HIV through a population. The technology, which is being studied at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, may allow people to identify who infected them with the virus, a development that could have major implications in criminal proceedings. "If you're familiar with Darwin's finches, you have a population of birds on one island and they keep moving and evolving as they spread to other islands so that each population is a little different," Leitner said. "With HIV, it's the same. Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form of the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it evolves this way.""

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sorry, but... (5, Informative)

broginator (1955750) | about 8 months ago | (#45481313)

whom*

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Talderas (1212466) | about 8 months ago | (#45481407)

Yep.

Who's infecting whom.

Re:Sorry, but... (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 8 months ago | (#45481641)

Unless they were talking about identifying who infected The Doctor.

Re:Sorry, but... (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about 8 months ago | (#45482147)

You can't infect The Doctor.

Re:Sorry, but... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#45482261)

He is probably immune, the H in HIV stands for Human, and while it might have originated in other terren primates, it would not be suited to a Gallifreyan's DNA

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482643)

In the case of the Doctor in Star Trek, the H in HIV would be "Hologram".

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482849)

No. In the case of the Doctor in Star Trek, the H in HIV would be "Human"... As in "I'm a human doctor - not a hologram!"

Re:Sorry, but... (2)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 8 months ago | (#45482187)

Unless they were talking about identifying who infected The Doctor.

Who are y'all talking about? Doctor Whom?

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482149)

At least they didn't say "whom is infecting who." I'd much rather see "who" when it should be "whom" than "whom" when it should be "who"; you see faux intellectuals make that mistake here all the time.

Re:Sorry, but... (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#45482253)

Whom are you to be so condesenting?

Re:Sorry, but... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 8 months ago | (#45482327)

The sentence 'him is infecting he' makes perfect sense to some people.

Re:Sorry, but... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#45482071)

Almost as bad as this in the body:

Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form the the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it evolves this way.

HID Tracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481321)

Wow, I first read that wrong. I saw "HID Tracking Technology Could...". I looked down at my company badge (which uses HID) and started thinking about tinfoil...

Hopefully (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45481327)

I really do hope we're past the point that any major governments are populated with people that view AIDS as a "gay plague", because otherwise, I can easily see petty local leaders using this research to arrest sick people and charge them with murder.

Re:Hopefully (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481459)

It would primarily open up the option of a person who was infected to sue (or maybe even get a criminal charge against) the person who they caught it from.
Even with the current levels of treatability, most people don't like the idea of having to take a dozen immunomanipulative drugs daily with the knowledge that each day the expensive bundle of exotic chemicals grows slightly less effective at keeping them reasonably healthy.

Re:Hopefully (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481767)

Of course those who infect others should be penalized if they know they are ill.
It should be almost equal to murder.

Ill person should be obligated to inform others about it.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482111)

First of all,

HIV is more manageable these days than diabetes in the vast vast majority of cases. The medications work. That's why we're using them.

Second of all,

Someone with HIV is not necessarily "ill" and doesn't necessarily know that they are HIV+ in the first place. Which would make it rather more difficult to tell other people that they're positive, too.

Third of all,

Anyone who has unprotected sex these days should be considered to be implicitly or even explicitly acknowledging their risk by even engaging in the act in the first place. Which essentially means that you cannot blame anyone but yourself for being infected unless you can prove that you were coerced or infected through violence of some other sort.

Only you can stop stigma.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482265)

It's almost like you didn't read the GPs qualifier.

if they know they are ill

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482721)

Of course those who infect others should be penalized if they know they are ill.
It should be almost equal to murder.

Ill person should be obligated to inform others about it.

If the penalty is worse if you KNOW you're ill, then poor people who can't afford medicine have an incentive to NOT get tested. Or they'll use a less effective black market test just to protect their medical privacy.

There should be no law which punishes knowledge. Take for example some patent laws which punish infringers more if they knew about the patent... it encourages might-be infringers to do less research.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481479)

It is a crime in the US to knowingly infect another person with HIV. That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Re:Hopefully (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45481533)

Yeah, I know that. But unknowingly doing so can still be a target for the bigots out there.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45481893)

But unknowingly doing so can still be a target for the bigots out there.

How do you "unknowingly" give someone HIV? It's the most studied disease of our times, the mechanisms of transmission are well known even to the layman, as are the risk factors. The best you can say for someone who unknowingly transmits the disease is that they were criminally negligent.

I don't engage in any high-risk behaviors, never have unprotected sex outside of long-term monogamous relationships, and I still get STD tests before starting new relationships. This isn't rocket science people.

Re:Hopefully (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45482075)

Startling fact: many people haven't had access to affordable healthcare and have to take gambles with their lives sometimes.

Re:Hopefully (1, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45482257)

Startling fact: You can get a free HIV test virtually anywhere in the United States.

Second startling fact: You're free to take gambles with your own life. You're not free to take gambles with the life of another, which is exactly what you're doing if you're having sexual intercourse with someone while you have an unknown HIV status.

Re:Hopefully (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#45483041)

That argument makes no sense at all because HIV tests have been easy to get for free for a long time now.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482173)

Apparently it may as well be if you think that believing your "long-term monogamous relationships" are monogamous means that they are, or that your partner couldn't have been positive when you got together. Just so you know, there's a window period during which no test can detect the virus, but the person is still very much able to pass it to you.

Essentially, it isn't just "high risk" behaviors that put you at risk. We are all of us at risk. Period. Just like you can't say with certainty that you'll never get a headcold for the rest of your life because you wash your hands. Or that you will never be killed in a car wreck because you know you're a good driver.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482267)

Just so you know, there's a window period during which no test can detect the virus

That window period is down to ~12 days with modern technology. Here's a novel concept: Wait a few weeks between sexual partners. It won't kill you.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482577)

so it is still 12 days where it goes undetected which means your argument is moot.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482213)

Preemptively calling me a bigot (or as you more accuratly mean, given you original post, homophobe) because I view giving someone AIDS unknowingly as wrong, only goes to show your own personal bigotries; i.e. you're intolerance for something that can be construed as anti-gay, despite the authors intent.

When I say unknowingly giving someone AIDS makes you a douche bag in 99% of cases I mean it because:

If you're going out and sleeping with multiple partners (be they male, female, homo or hetro relations) without protection and having yourself tested for VD/STD/STI/etc inbetween... YOU ARE WRONG and no different from a plague bearing rat.

I see nothing wrong with that statement... well I guess you could call me a bigot for my intolerance of dangerous sexual practices, if you must...

Please understand that I only speak up to educate and encourage safe sex. Please, enjoy your body as you see fit but don't become a victim when you don't have to.

Caveat: I'm not American, I understand you guys have a lot of issues around sex and I'm sorry if you suffer because of it.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482309)

It's almost like you assume that immediately after being infected that you're able to tell that you're infected. Instead of possibly years later. Or that partners don't cheat on unknowing partners.

AKA a douche.

Re:Hopefully (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45482429)

A tremendous, short-sighted douche.

Re:Hopefully (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45481825)

Pretty sure its a crime to infect anyone with anything intentionally.

Re:Hopefully (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#45482523)

Pretty sure its a crime to infect anyone with anything intentionally.

My mom intentionally infected me with chicken pox. Her friend's kid had chicken pox, so she took me there so I would get it too. There was no vaccine at the time, and since chicken pox is generally mild in children, but can be a serious disease for adults, it is better to "get it over with" while you are young.

Re:Hopefully (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481701)

It IS a gay plague.
Face it.

Re:Hopefully (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#45482003)

I'd argue the benefits outweigh the risks with this particular development. If your version of HIV is found spreading, then, yeah, you should probably face some legal consequences. Meanwhile, if there's a politician and voters out to just go gaybashing, they can and do do that already, they don't need to bring complicated things like scientific facts into it.

Re:Hopefully (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45482649)

Not in the US. Why HIPAA. We have so much privacy especially in HIV cases, that it will take an act of congress to allow sharing of data.

The extra regulations for HIV is due to the public and governments view of AIDS as a disease for the bad people in the world.
Due to its initial high rates among Gay, and Drug users, then spreading to Sexual promiscuous people... All the stuff that your local minister tells you is quite evil and you are going to have to deal with the wrath of god for.

Now this is a public health problem, and it expends beyond just the normal "Sinners" of the world.

Re:Hopefully (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 8 months ago | (#45483125)

I think what they will find if they do this research large scale is lots and lots of people who infect one or two others, and a relatively small ( 5% ) number who infect lots and lots of people. Either because they don't know they're infected or they don't care. Showing how the network of infections is laid out can lead to better prevention, better diagnosis, and even better treatment since some strains of HIV respond better to some drugs than others.

Two reasons I don't care about this (-1, Offtopic)

Velex (120469) | about 8 months ago | (#45481401)

(only care enough to leave this here)

#1: Somehow, despite being homosexual and/or trans or whatever, I don't have AIDS/GRID. Amazing!

#2: My genitals were mutilated and I suffered all that physical pain that forced me to effectively chose impotence as the solution so that now I'm protected from AIDS/GRID and don't need to worry about it, right?

So, my question is, why should I trust the idiots in the medical profession who think that #1 is because I'm a mentally ill psychopath and that I'm even more mentally ill because in #2 I wish I had been intact and hadn't known 19 years of genital pain?

Karma to burn, etc. Thought this would be better than spending my mod points on this thread.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 8 months ago | (#45481453)

Is there some reason you are crying out for attention? That's your real issue.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481585)

Didn't you read his post? He's gives two good reasons. He even numbered them for you!

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482025)

OK. "Is there some reason he is crying out for attention in this particular thread?"

This isn't a thread about genital mutilation or medical incompetence, it's about HIV. Unless you were infected with the latter while someone performed the former on you, there is no obvious reason to make the awkward leap from "HIV" to "genital mutilation" other than "Hey, I really want to tell you all about my awful genital mutilation experiences."

I wonder if GP goes into driverless car threads and says "yeah, driverless cars will reduce the number of awful car wrecks, which look JUST LIKE MY GENITAL REGION!". Or maybe in rocketry threads we might get "Of course, that big phallic rocket looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE ANYTHING IN MY UNDERWEAR!"

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45483091)

Don't be too hard on him, it's a sore point.

He has a bumper sticker that reads, "Ask me about my genital mutilation"

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45481491)

While I can understand residual anger at the profession of the person who did that to you, it's not actually the case that doctors are malicious or generally ignorant.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45481875)

it's not actually the case that doctors are malicious or generally ignorant.

I disagree. I think the majority of doctors, just like any profession, don't have a clue what they are doing. You have to search around to find anyone competent. I've lost count of the number of times I've had problems that bugged me for years... until I walked into the right doctors office and the doctor knew exactly what to do and cured me within weeks. The biggest problem with healthcare is the incompetence of our medical professionals. When you can have 2 hospitals in the same city, sitting less than a mile apart and one has a survival rate for heart surgery that's double or even triple the other hospitals, somethings Fing wrong. That sort of disparity happens in every town in this country and it's criminal that it's allowed to continue. They are literally killing tens of thousands of people with their incompetence.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

odigity (266563) | about 8 months ago | (#45482603)

Don't worry, I'm sure our wonderfully competent amnd benevolent federal government will step in and take over everything and make it better. Because poor quality is always to be blamed on the free market, not past interference by our wise and saintly government. Or at least that's what I was conditioned to believe in school. (A government service.)

Or maybe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4 -- The Death of Healthcare, Part 1

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#45482605)

I think the majority of doctors, just like any profession, don't have a clue what they are doing.

A big part of the problem is their effort to maintain their mystique. While working as a coder, I check the docs, or look up a problem on Stackoverflow a dozen times a day. Medicine is way more complex than coding, but I have never seen a doctor whip out a laptop and say to a patient "Let me just Google those symptoms!" because they want to maintain the illusion of omniscience. So they just "wing it" instead, and often get the diagnosis wrong.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45483111)

Not to be too contrary, but when I recently picked a new primary physician, we were talking about my Zantac use for acid reflux. This guy went to the laptop he always keeps in the examining room to look up maximum dosage, and possible ill-effects. He found what he needed, and advised me to cut back to avoid negative effects on vitamin absorption that may occur at the dose I was using.

He's a keeper.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482625)

You can compare the survival rates or any other statistics only if both hospitals have the same or similar enough number and type of cases. Otherwise the comparison is made difficult and you need a real statisticomagician to get to the truth. This is not to say that the difference you talk about are not criminal - I am sure some of them are a result of criminal negligence possibly.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481525)

I can't figure out whether you're serious or not, but you certainly can get HIV even if you're "impotent".

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 8 months ago | (#45481675)

I don't get your post. Do you think there's any relation between aids, tracking its spread vectors, and homosexuality?

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481703)

Really? You can't catch it, so it doesn't matter?

That's like me saying: All those people who suffer from genital mutilation don't matter, because my genitals are just fine, thanks.

The world does not revolve around you. Have some fucking compassion.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (3, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 8 months ago | (#45481817)

My genitals were mutilated and I suffered all that physical pain that forced me to effectively chose impotence as the solution so that now I'm protected from AIDS/GRID

The bad news is - no, you are not protected from AIDS.

You are just less likely to catch it voluntarily.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 8 months ago | (#45482183)

Do you get transfusions or donate blood, or did you do so before the tests improved? Do you share needles, or have you had surgery where a surgeon accidentally cut their hand, even wearing gloves?

AIDS requires the exchange of intimate body fluids, but it can still happen by accident. And given how quickly it spread originally from a very "active" gay man, the risk of a surgeon accidentally infecting patients or a hooker engaging in unsafe practices is still a real epidemiological tracking reason to want to track the source of an AIDS cluster.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45482503)

Do you get transfusions or donate blood, or did you do so before the tests improved?

How do you get HIV (or any other blood-borne disease) from donating blood?

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 8 months ago | (#45482413)

Cool story bro, but I think you typoed "reddit.com" in your address bar.

unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 8 months ago | (#45481423)

If both the vector and recipient have dozens of varieties due to internal mutations, it would be hard to legally connect the two.

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (2)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 8 months ago | (#45482019)

You're right, there can be a large amount of difference even between co-infecting strains. However, there's quite a lot of potential variant sites - you can sort of think of it as a large multi-dimensional problem, which thousands of axes in which you can see variation. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

You can use some pretty simple formulas to estimate what the "infecting" strain looked like for any given person, as well (even if there are multiple separate infecting strains, possibly occurring at distinct times).*

While this approach won't be perfect (there _will_ be both false negatives and false positives), it's a fairly straight-forward application of available information. I am very worried about some law enforcement agency maintaining a database of HIV users, and running a blind search for any new infected patients. If they restrain themselves to only testing reasonable suspects (as additional evidence), this may be okay.

The AIDS-panic never really went away for a lot of people - I'm afraid that improper application of these modeling tools could easily bring it back.

*Full disclosure, I co-authored a paper on some preliminary work for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716075 [nih.gov]

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about 8 months ago | (#45482515)

If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?

~Loyal

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 8 months ago | (#45482563)

Shit. I meant B and C, thanks for catching that!

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about 8 months ago | (#45482965)

If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?

~Loyal

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 8 months ago | (#45482981)

They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that. :X

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#45482055)

Nonsense. HIV has 9200 base pairs in its genome [wikipedia.org] . 12 mutations in the recipient aren't likely to completely overlap with 12 mutations the donor contributed.

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 8 months ago | (#45482543)

"legally"?
Who cares about "legally"? ...

Today on "Maury" (cue music): "Are YOU the infecter?"

(louder music, blurred images of people arguing)
Belinda slept with both HIV-positive John and HIV-positive Marc!! Never used a condom!
(Audience: Boo!!)
After the break, we'll tell you which one is responsible for her infection!
Or is there another person involved?
After the break! Stay with us!
On Maury!
(cue music)

niggers did it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481481)

I blame the niggers fucking monkeys.

Re:niggers did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481527)

I blame the niggers fucking monkeys.

At the risk of replying to a troll ac, they could just as easily gotten it from eating monkey meat.

grammer (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | about 8 months ago | (#45481503)

Who's infecting whom.

So I could sue someone.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481583)

...who gave me a cold?

Isn't America wonderful? Look how closely entwined the Legal and Medical professions have become...

If I had to guess (1)

redmid17 (1217076) | about 8 months ago | (#45481595)

I'd say it's the people with HIV infecting the people who did not have HIV. I don't think you can get it twice

Actually, you can become infected more than once.. (4, Informative)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 8 months ago | (#45481649)

Re:Actually, you can become infected more than onc (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45483205)

Ah so is this the "super AIDS" I've heard so much about?

Screw the criminal landscape (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 8 months ago | (#45481611)

I wanna get PAID. The implications will be far more profound in the tort law landscape as this technology is extended to be able to pinpoint the identity of someone who gave you any generic disease.

Think big. Think HPV, Hepatitis, Herpes, and the whole range of STDs.

Imagine the payout if you can prove that a wealthy person gave you the HPV that caused your cervical cancer? Imagine the payout your family will get if you die from it.

Trial lawyers are absolutely salivating over this, and I would not be surprised to see lawyers "investing" in this technology.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#45481693)

In Canada and several other countries I can see this being useful. Since, deliberate infection of incurable diseases is criminal, and infecting someone with a disease that causes death is also criminal. No tort coming into this at all.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45483159)

Laws that criminalize certain acts do not preclude the victim from *also* suing the perpetrator.

In fact, a guilty verdict in the criminal case strengthens the civil case.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape (1)

Shados (741919) | about 8 months ago | (#45481739)

Think bigger.

The common cold. Next time I'm under for half a week or more, I want to know who's the asshole who didn't wash their hands before taking the subway...

You are messing with unintended consequences big t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482277)

Rhinoviruses are a major force in human genetics. If you eliminate the common cold, you will fuck over the entire race harder than you can possibly imagine. You may even realize the (up till now mythical) "devolution" process the old eugenicists used to worry so much about.

Re:You are messing with unintended consequences bi (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 8 months ago | (#45482667)

Why does everybody always assume that the unintended consequences of an action will be:

1. A net negative
2. *More* negative than the intended consequences
3. Non-mitigable

Also, why do multiple browsers put red-squiggles under "mitigable"? It's a real adjective.

Also, my imagination is capable of encompassing species-wide extinction and also species-wide eternal slavery to parasitic mind slugs. I don't think there's any way that eliminating the common cold could fuck us over worse than those outcomes.

And we'll all discover (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481623)

That the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero. It's the gay community and the african american community insistence on keeping things "down low" that fosters the spread of the virus. Same thing in Africa. Apparently it's a thing to use leaves to dry out a woman prior to intercourse. The tearing causes the spread of the virus.

Re:And we'll all discover (1)

adamstew (909658) | about 8 months ago | (#45482283)

the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero.

Incorrect.

The rate of actually acquiring an infection from an infected source by insertive anal (gay) intercourse is 6.5 in 10,000 exposures. The rate for Insertive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 5 in 10,000 exposures. The difference there...1.5 cases in 10,000 is pretty inconsequential.

It is different for the receptive partners. Receptive anal (gay) intercourse is 50 infections per 10,000 exposures. The rate for receptive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 10 per 10,000 exposures. Receptive gay sex is 5 times as likely to transmit the disease as receptive vaginal sex...but when it's 10 per 10,000 vs 50 per 10,000, it's still within the same order of magnitude.

(Source, the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html [cdc.gov] )

Re:And we'll all discover (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about 8 months ago | (#45482569)

it's still within the same order of magnitude.

You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.

~Loyal

Maury Povich has a new lease on life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481631)

And you sir... are not the donor...

Niggers infecting other niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481635)

Niggers infecting other niggers.

But it will be race-anonymized of course.
Because truth is less important than political correctness.

Grammar (4, Funny)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 8 months ago | (#45481673)

Surely you mean who's infecting whom? Let's get our priorities straight: grammar first, world-changing health improvements second.

Just one problem... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481681)

HIV isn't the cause of 'AIDS', and 99% of the people on Slashdot don't even know what 'AIDS' is...

Indicator disease + HIV = 'AIDS'
Indicator disease - HIV = Indicator disease.

You should try doing some research. How can 'AIDS' cases not have increased by a huge amount since the 1980s, since all other STDS have risen year upon year?
Just like the 'man made global warming' scam, HIV and 'AIDS' is a massive scam created by Robert Gallo and all the other fraudulent 'researchers' who benefit from the continuation of this myth, as well as the drug companies.

Try reading 'The trouple with Nevirapine' and get back to me.

Re:Just one problem... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 8 months ago | (#45481885)

Ok, "Skeptics".

Will you get angry with me if I call this arsehole a "denier"?

Personal info? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#45481881)

So we are going to post everyone's names and addresses ( and photos too) on the web of who is infected? Its for the kids remember.

Will just drive people underground and make them afraid to get tested.

Re:Personal info? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#45482451)

What's funny is for a while it was taboo to even list that a patient had HIV on medical records (doctors did it anyway). It's a condition that's had lots of privacy barriers thrown around it in the US, because we want to protect these people from persecution.

As if I'm going to brutally beat and/or stab someone who has AIDS, because I really want to die slowly from a scrape I got on my knuckle while punching the living shit out of someone until they're bloody hamburger.

I've always said that we need the opposite: Bracelets. At least make them list STDs on their license. Make people carry some form of mandatory identification, they're screened every year, and we list all their current STDs. Bracelets are plainly visible in the populous; drivers' license are de-facto ID and must be shown to some people, but can be refused to most; a separate ID has only one use, and can be refused at all times--either you assume the risk or you don't have sex with someone who won't show his coverage.

Yes this means dumb people will hook up a lot more without protection, meaning they're exposing themselves to more risk: that STD test may be wrong, too early, or pre-infection, especially when you start having unprotected sex with everyone who was clean 8 months ago. The risk is reduced if you stamp the chip, so you can go to the clinic every 2 weeks if you want and have a history of "CLEAN" dated Thursday, and Saturday be fucking someone who was "CLEAN" Friday. The device could even have a push-button LED (or OLED date display) that goes RED for infected and GREEN for clean, and you could get treated for bacterial (ghonnorhoea chlamydia etc) and then re-test 3 weeks and 6 weeks out to get it cleared (2 recent CLEAR from known-curable infections required to green again).

Make a paper trail du joure standard. Everyone will be tested every year. You will have ID that has medical information on it, we can check it, and we know if this was last year's test or if you've updated it recently. We can then decide if we want to hook up with these two hot cheerleaders or if they seem slutty and haven't been tested in 11 months and probably fucked 3000 guys since then and have picked up a few riders.

Re:Personal info? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#45482501)

bracelets? why not go full retard and make them wear, oh, I don't know, how about some 6 pointed stars on their sleeves?

I think it was done before, though...

Re:Personal info? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#45482613)

Yes, then people would know to beat them until they bleed into a scrape, so that they could then contract HIV from them and get their own sleeve wear. Soon we will all be able to own star sleeves!

Re:Personal info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482673)

without the LEDs tho which was much less appealing.

Re:Personal info? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#45483039)

As if I'm going to brutally beat and/or stab someone who has AIDS

You may not, but some will. They will also discriminate at work due to lack of understanding and irrational prejudice. They might deny infected citizens housing or not let them eat in a restaurant or enter a grocery store.

Labeling anyone in public is a potential effective death sentence, regardless of the particular disease. This isn't the something as typhoid where you can be infected just from being in the same room, unlike HIV where you are safe. And even then the person should just be isolated until the risk passes, not be broadcast all over the news they had it.

Re:Personal info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45483179)

Bracelets. At least make them list STDs on their license. Make people carry some form of mandatory identification, they're screened every year, and we list all their current STDs. Bracelets are plainly visible in the populous; drivers' license are de-facto ID and must be shown to some people, but can be refused to most; a separate ID has only one use, and can be refused at all times--either you assume the risk or you don't have sex with someone who won't show his coverage.

I never thought it was possible to make "Papers, Please" a sexual innuendo.

We already know the answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45481969)

HIV Tracking Technology Could Pinpoint Who's Infecting Who

We already know the answer. It's shit stabbers (shirt lifters, chutney ferrets, woolly woofters, etc) infecting other shit stabbers (ever notice how you don't see old homos? This is part of the reason why, drug use being most of the rest of it), with some additional HIV infection courtesy of intravenous drug users (chod-nobbers are overrepresented in that demographic too).

Crabby Patties (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 months ago | (#45481971)

How about a test to show who gave who crabs. That's always a controversial topic, or so I've been told.

And the ACLU will be suing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482059)

in 3....2......1.....

BTW- Does anyone who doesn't engage in dangerous activity (i.e. promiscuous unprotected sexual activity and/or IV drug use) still get AIDS? I mean other than unsuspecting spouses whose significant other does evil?

Re:And the ACLU will be suing... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45482781)

"Yes. Ask me how I know." - Isaac Asimov's ghost

How to ruin your day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482305)

If you feel you have an unbearable surplus of faith and optimism in the human race today, simply browse these comments at -1. You'll soon be clenching your teeth and wishing incurable diseases on random internet bigots and morons!

Glad to be of service.

Re:How to ruin your day (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45483245)

Dumb people!? On MY INTERNET!?!?

Not Right Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45482533)

"With HIV, it's the same. Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form the the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it is intelligently designed and modified this way."

There, fixed the summary the right way.

And yes, I did intend the double meaning in the title and my comment.

What is "the HIV Virus"? (3, Funny)

Yakasha (42321) | about 8 months ago | (#45482751)

I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.
FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>