I thought it might be interesting to get some comments on today's
press conference presenting the news of Magic Johnson's acquired HIV
virus.  I found it refreshing (especially after the Justice Thomas fiasco)
that the media did not overly pry into his personal life to determine
exactly how it was acquired.

87 responses total.

What would be the situation if he contacts someone during the play who has
an open wound (scratch) on the skin? Does sweat contain the virus, it is body
fluid, and comes from inside???

Sweat does not, I don't think. And it's a moot point, as he's retired.
And I don't think the chance of his sweat getting through the other person's
and into his bloodstream would be worth worrying about.

Why do people get it from their dentists or surgeons?

Any speculation on how he got it?

 Apparently, his doctor released a statement today that he got it from
"heterosexual activity."  

        IF this is true, he is a pretty rare individual. The Chief Physician
of the Infectious Disease Branch at some (major) hospital in DeTroit was
interviewed today on the radio, & he indicated that it is rather difficult
for an infected female to pass the virus on to a male through "normal"
sexual activity, unless the male has some sort of open sore on his pee-pee.
 
  I'm sorry that Magic Johnson got it, but no more sorry than I am for 
everyone else that has it.  Today, I'm thinking more about the 3500+ people
that died during the monsoon in the Phillipines a few days ago.
 
 Johnson seems to have a positive attitude (unlike that cranky old 'ACT UP!'
dude on Nightline last night...) which will probably help himself & others.
 
  But I don't understand why the media is martyrizing him as if he was the
male version of Mother Teresa, & just died from being struck by lightening.
  He is/was a great professional basketball player who was able to market
himself & make millions of dollars. It is a sad reflection of our society that
so many people worship him because of that.
 
  HOW he became HIV infected certainly IS a legitimate issue. He has addressed
it slightly by telling people to practice safe sex. I'm sure he'll address it
further in the future, and I hope he'll expand his ideology to cover making
RESPONSIBLE decisions as to who to have sex with, & not just say "wear a 
condom."

I tend to agree with over-extensive media coverage.  One day should have
been enough, but all I could hear today was personal responses among his
friends and aquaintences, as well as every other person on the street.  
Sure he is a decent fellow and supports a lot of worthwhile causes, and
I was impressed with him during the press conference, but let's get on
with things.  

Seems to me, how he got infected is none of your, or anyone else's, business.

re #4:  Did the doctor mention transmission through "abnormal" heterosexual
        activity?

        The SAD part about it all is that it's all of a sudden a "we don't care
how we got it" attitude in the media.  Anyone read Mitch Albom today?
Reprehensible.

This is a tragic time for all of mankind, those who have this dreader disease 
and those who might contract it.  My prayer is that the world will finally
focus on killing off the the disease not the poor souls that are suffering
from it.  
 
Magic is yet another victim of a blind killer who knows no limits and could 
take any one of us at any time.  

When a plane crashes, we go to a great deal of trouble to determine the precise
cause so we can prevent it from happening again.  Why is it any different here?
If Magic intends to put himself forward as a "spokesman" for AIDS, and to
preach "safe sex" to kids, then being open about how it happened would see,
to go with the territory.

A lot of the "we don't want to know how he got it" jazz sounds to me like a
head-in-the-sand refusal to acknowledge the basic fact that actions have
consequences--in this case, specific known actions have predictable
consequences.  There seems to be a general feeling that people should be able
to do anything they want, any way they want, as much as they want, but then
be spared from the predictable consequences of their actions.  It's not like
Magic was just walking down the street when this nasty virus jumped out of 
nowhere and infected him.  He *did* something that esposed himself to the
risk.  Surely the way to help others avoid his affliction is to say: Don't
do what I did.  --which requires telling what he did.

        AIDS is killing tens of thousands of people every year.  A lot of
people are hoping that Magic Johnson's publicity will help them to educate
other people who are living lifestyles that put them at risk of
contracting the disease.  A lot of people look up to Magic Johnson,
because of his athletic ability and charisma.  It is unfortunate, perhaps,
that they don't look up to medical professionals, and don't listen to
them, as much.  What really matters, though, is that they DO listen to
someone.
        If publicity of Magic Johnson's unfortunate circumstance will help to
control the spread of AIDS, then all the publicity is worth doing.

As a high-profile "thing to avoid", I suppose how he got it is relevant.
It is certainly important as a STATISTIC. 
How he personally was infected by the virus is unimportant. If HE got it
through accidentally sharing blood with someone at a team meal, or through
homosexual or heterosexual relations, or as a curse from god, doesn't make
that any more of a likely cause than it was before. I mean, he didn't get it
in any novel way, I'm sure.
If he got it in some way that people have been overlooking (or denying, as
heterosexual contact) then it would be useful for him to come forth with 
that and open the eyes of the uninformed or plain stupid.
If he contracted it through homosexual contact, I'd much rather he DIDN'T
tell us that, because it would be terribly damaging to everyone. People would
jump back on the "god's curse on homosexuals" bandwagon, and he'd be 
lauded as "a great guy WHO MADE ONE MISTAKE AND GOT PUNISHED FOR IT". Ugh.

        I guess I'm just uneasy that whatever way HE got exposed will leap
to the forefront of "things to avoid", and that may or may not be good.
        I'd prefer it be left open, so people will be careful to avoid ALL
dangerous stuff.
        And at the same time, he doesn't get his personal life any more dug
into than neccessary. (yeah, yeah, he's a celebrity. Big deal)

How can someone determine if the infection *was* caused
by sexual contact?

How can they say that a men can't get AIDS thru heterosexual contact unless
he has an open wound on his sex organ?

To my knowledge, the thin skin (surface of eyes, inside the mouth, openings
and insides of sexual organs) are permeable for the virus. There was a case
of a nurse in an AIDS clinic in NY, she got some blod in her eyes and got
infected.

In other words you don't have to have an open wound to have it transmitted
and I remember a number that condoms protect only about 50%. The structure
of the rubber has bigger wholes than the virus, and as the rubber is
stretched, and moved, the virus can travel thru one whole to the other.
They have chemical additives that is supposed to detroy the virus on contact,
but they can be 'washed' away during intercourse. So condoms do not
protect in my opinion. They might still be better than none, but the risk is
higher than russian rullet.

I will go even further and say that the 'officials' don't give the whole
story, since it would be a mess to handle the results. In my opinion,
these type of viruses (including the virus for hepatitis) can be transmitted
even thru sneezing (in the spayed fluid, virus does not have any contact with
air, and as it lands inside you <lungs, nose, mouth> it will travel
into your blood stream. Don't panic, this is my personal opinion, and
*no* 'official' person or researcher will admit that it can happen that way.
It sounds awfully logical to me although.

   I don't think there is any sort of a coverup Moustafa, for the simple
fact that if it did vector in some novel way, a lot more people would be
infected by now.
   I don't think the statement that condoms are permiable to the hiv virus
are correct, at least for *latex* items.  I've not yet heard any reliable
information that says that a latex condom with Nonoxinol-9 is not a good
preventitive measure.
   If the hiv virus could be spread through air contact, doesn't it make
sense that a *lot* of people would be effected by now?  Thsouands upon
thousands of people claiming that they hadn't engaged in any risky
behavior at all?  The very fact that people aren't dropping like flies
because of AIDS is proof of that, I think.
   It still takes direct human-to-human contact with bodily fluids to
communicate AIDS.

Contact to bodyly fluids was the main point, in form of little drops in the
air. The little drops would not cover the virus for minutes, but for
5-10 seconds I think.

I remember 'officials' telling that there was no virus in the saliva, wrong
statement these days. How do dentists and surgeons pass it to clients?

Will sweaty hands pass it, since it is body fluids and contact. There are
always cracks in the skin.

And I think, people will drop like flies at the rate the epidemic is spreading.
I don't remember the numbers, but there was something about college students
and that the rate was someting like 1/20 or 1/4??? (I just don't remember).

I don't want to be misunderstood, wearing no condom is like playing russian
rulett with a all-loaded gun. But I think the condom protection is nowhere
near 90%. Nonoxino-9 may kill (actually corrupt) the virus on contact,
but you can't warrant that all viruses will come in contact with nonoxinol-9
before they touch the other skin. There are so many of them.

Then again, I always think that governments do coverup to prevent panic,
deaths they can deal with, but no panic. Probably most of you remember
my responses to the chernobly item on m-net.

Take it easy..

Um...you think the doctors and dentists drooled on their patients?
And 1 in 4 college students are HIV-Pos? Or even 1 in 20?

        Man, get yourself to the library and read some medical journals.

        (the whole point to using latex condoms is that they are NOT 
permeable. "sheepskin" condoms are, latex are not. There is no reason
for tiny holes in latex.)
        
        Geez, talk about alarmist. I mean, it's good to be cautious, but, 
really, check out a medical journal or two. Or even any newspaper from 
the last couple of daus.
        Sweat? Cracks in the skin? Sneezing?

        According to the AA News, today (and yes, they're full of crap, but
they don't usually make up their own stats) there are 1500-2000 people in 
Washtenaw county that are HIV-Positive. If all of the things you're 
concerned about (or, heck, any of them) passed the virus, we'd ALL be 
infected in a matter of days.
        Anyone want to define "bodily fluids", for these purposes, for us?

        (how come we got all these law types and no med types? Where's 
Denise when you need her? NC, damn...)

Actually, he is right -- the "holes" in a latex condom are large enough
for the HIV virus to pass through.  The odds of this happening are, obviously,
much smaller than the odds for passage without a condom.  If you avoid
partners in high risk groups, and consistently use a condom, your chance
of contracting AIDS through normal heterosexual intercourse are near zero.

Actually, there are certain groups of people who simply can't handle
the facts.  Facts only get in the way.  A few examples: AIDS has come
in very handy for those folks who've always thought of sex as something
dirty, and wrong, and have never really enjoyed it much anyhow.  Now they
can feel "safe" rather than inadequate.  AIDS also lends a precarious
comfort to many homophobics and has given them reason to hope "natural
selection" will eliminate the mistake.  And for those unfortunate few who
for whatever pathologic reason need to see danger everywhere, well, AIDS
is a nightmare come true.  I'm surprised nobody has mentioned mosquitos yet.

But I've been told by someone reading over my shoulder that this response
would be much more effective if I did indeed share some facts.  
Some facts:

High risk for AIDS contamination:
     * Blood
     * Semen
     * Cerebral Spinal Fluid
     * Lymphatic Fluid

Extremely low risk (many experts say no risk) for contamination:
     * Oral Secretions
     * Vomit
     * Urine
     * Stool

No risk:           
     * Perspiration
     * Tears

Ack! s\cerebrospinal\cerebral spinal

What makes the lymphatic fluids not mix with tears? I thought they were
kind of extract of mycosa, but there must be also a lot of lymphatic
capilars around the surface of eye. If the virus can go thru the eye surface
into the body, how come the virus inside the body can't come out and mix
with the tears????

And what about the virus in saliva, whether or not you brush your teeth,
you always have some kind of wound in your mouth that bleeds at the latest
when you have some suction in your mouth such as when kissing. I know,
'bad' won't be able to kiss again, he may try different styles of kissing
with minimal suction. The skin inside your mouth is much like the skin on the
surface of the eye or inside the lids, or inside genitals of both sexes
for that matter. So even if you didn't have anything bleeding or open,
inside your mouth the skin is permeable for the virus. It is like an always
open wound related to this matter.

I forgot about the mosquitos, I don't know if the ?acid? they inject before
sucking would destroy the virus.

As for perspiration, it is made inside your body where the virus can travel
anywhere it is flushed to. The acid content of sweat might do something to it.

As for libraries, whose libraries and research are you going to rely on?
Government?? I suggest you don't rely on my thinking, there is no lab available
for me to check these questions. I can't realy give you anymore than the
questions in my mind combined with the stuff I heared over the past few
years *from the government*, and their case doesn't make too much sense.
Actually, that is not correct, it makes sense to me, but not their way.
I happened to be very critical to some things based on past experiences.
You don't have to adopt it. But try to answer these questions if you like.

Do you think that kissing would transmit the disease?

Do you think oral sex would transmit the disease?

Do you think if someones spit gets into your eye (while talking) that you
would acquire the disease?

How do surgeons and dentists pass it to their clients, or get it from their
clients? Obviously they don't always pass it, it seems to be a small
percentage, but is it when they sneeze, or accidentaly injur their hands?

Can pets get it (fleas or mites) and pass it back to humans? Or fleas only
for that matter?

I am not trying to make your day, but this is making my day for sure.

The Alarmist    (someone has got to alarm, wish that it is false)

The doctors who I listened to on NPR talking about mandatory AIDS testing
all agreed that it took a goodly amount of fluid transmission to contract
the virus.  That's why I was surprised about the blood in the eye bit.
Still, the cases related to dentists point to wounds on the hand as the
cause, and how much fluid transfer would you expect there?

Nobody seems too worried about mosquitos.  It seems the virus doesn't 
travel about that way.  You don't hear about people getting other viral
diseases from mosquitos like herpes or warts.

Should we follow the surgeons lead in the condom using world and 
"double glove" ;)

Some environments are more hostile to the virus than others which
is why there are varying levels of risk from cross contamination.

What really intrigues me about this AIDS concern is how some
people will blather on about how it's no longer safe to kiss
someone or be on the sidelines of a basketball court, yet these
same folks will sit around at the corner pub, munch on a high-fat
burger, drink beer, and drive home.  Once home, they may even
retire to the Lazy Boy in a basement recreation room where they've
never tested the Radon level, mostly because they're afraid of
what the test results might tell them.  All well understood,
documented real risks, but risks requiring a change in *their
own*, personal habits.

It's so much easier to think of a homosexual, dying of AIDS, as
getting what he deserved than to think of your father, who has a
history of cigarette smoking and who is dying of lung cancer, of
getting his dues.  Natural selection can be quite subjective,
can't it?

Whoops - apparently I was wrong about the absolute permeability of latex - 
I was indeed thinking of the relative or effective permeability.

        I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "government coverup" bit. Don't go
to a "government" library? Sheesh.

        While it's true that Bush and the rest were happy enough having it 
treated as a "gay disease", to get them off the hook for not funding any
research (and actually cutting center for disease prevention funding for 
next year), the thought that they're controlling the media and muzzling 
every doctor and researcher that's had anything to say is, simply, paranoid.

        (my heartfelt thanks, Mary, for your comments)

        Now, as I understand it, two things have to happen in order to transmit
the virus. It has to be passed (in one of the likely or possible fluids) and
it has to be "accepted". Someone spitting on you, even if saliva carried the
virus, which is in doubt, wouldn't transmit it, unless it landed on something
that was permeable. Mainly mucous membranes, or open wounds. In order to get
infected from kissing, I'd think you'd need both people to have open wounds, 
and a ton of luck to keep the blood from being swept away by saliva...
        
        We've got the list of fluids, now where do these fluids have to "get"
in order to transmit the virus? I sort of assumed you had to get them in 
YOUR corresponding fluids, or on mucous membranes. 

        re: mosquitos - the only way a mosquito could pass the virus would be
by "leaking" some contaminated blood it was already carrying into someone 
else. Mosquitos do not generally do this. The diseases they DO transmit, they
carry themselves. They don't carry HIV.
        (bleagh...tripped on my own tongue, there)

It hasn't been safe to have careless sex for ages before Aids came out;
there are a fair # of not real pleasant STD's out there, and an
increasing number of them are resistant to the normal methods of
treatment.  Natural selection is working far faster on them little
buggers than it is on us big creatures.  Indeed, our current methods of
treatment bear an astonishing ressemblance to the methods we use breed
hardier plants.

So far as the risks of catching AIDS from random contact, it's been
grossly exagurated.  Plenty of other diseases spread far more readily.
Hepatitus (yes I know I've mis-spelled it) often takes only one
needle-stick, and it's 50% fatal.  If I remember the odds right, if you
ever have a choice between a needle stick with AIDS or Hepatitus, go for
AIDS instead.  Blood contact is by far the most serious problem with
AIDS.  It's apparently quite possible to have hundreds of "normal
heterosexual contact" with a person with AIDs and not get it.  The
situation is actually a bit more complicated -- there seem to be other
factors that encourage the spread of AIDs.  Repeated exposure (the more
intimate the better) is just one factor.  Another factor is viral
infections - including STD's - this seems to have a distinct bearing in
the matter.  Yet another factor is apparently genetically related - if
you are black, you may well be at greater risk of catching AIDs.

If you engage in any of the risky behavior, you certainly ought to
change your habits.  If you aren't a member of any high risk category,
and don't have any of those risky behaviors, you are probably better off
worrying about more immediate hazards to your life, such as smoking,
diet, and automobiles.  If you care about AIDS, you certainly ought to
have compassion for your fellow human beings and support AIDS research.

re#22:  I completely agree with your statement, Mary.  Just pointing out
one error, AIDS is not a form of Natural Selection, because as far as we
know it AIDS isn't affected by any genetic traits in the victim.  It 
therefore select for any traits.    Just being picky about word use...

Re #25 I think Mary was being sarcastic.

Re #24 You're right about the needle-sticks, marcus. Hep is a VERY hearty
virus, while HIV is a wimp. HIV is actually pretty hard to transmit by
needle-sticks. Now that hospital workers have managed to build up a
data base (by accident), it appears that the likelihood of HIV transmittion
by a fresh, infected needle is about 0.3%. Really small. But, if you do it
repeatedly, like junkies do, the odds really add up.

Mary was being sarcastic.

I'm still curious what you have to do to "accept" the virus, as it
were. Where do the fluids have to get? Only into the bloodstream? On
mucous membranes?

 'Knowledgeable people,' including current friends of Earvin Johnson have
indicated that he has had a rather active libido (aka he was a slut) over the
years.
 
  I hope that in addition to simply preaching the use of condoms, he'll also 
preach monogamy.
 
    Anyone with an I.Q. of at least 100 hasn't really learned much about 
HIV/ARC/AIDS as a result of Johnson speaking out.   He hasn't said anything
that we haven't heard or read hundreds of times before.  Nonetheless, I guess
he has caught the attention of the group that for whatever reason has one of
the highest risks -- young blacks.
 
   Ot is great that Johnson is getting a lot of support, but he's only a
'hero' playing basketball, as far as I'm concerned.

For a person to become contaminated by the HIV virus there must be direct
contact with the contaminated fluid either through broken skin or mucous
membranes. Examples of mucous membranes are the inside of your eyelids,
the lining of the vagina, labia, rectum, and both the male and female urethra.
The lining of the inside of your mouth and nose is mucous membrane.

Broken skin can be as benign as a hangnail crack, a burst pimple, or
sloughed skin from a sunburn. Deep cuts or open, weeping sores, and
vaginal and rectal membranes are some of the most hospitable routes 
as they provide a rich vascular environment.  This virus doesn't
do well when exposed to air, low pH, heat, and many other factors.
Outside of the body it is really very fragile which is why in vitro
research on the HIV virus is so challenging.

Factors influencing risk of contamination include such things as how
advanced is the disease in the person doing the infecting, the cumulative
amount of exposure, the route of contamination, the general immune response
of the exposed person, and other factors.

Does that help, Brian?

Do you know the typical incubation period, with or without AZT?

   In answer to the 'can AIDS be passed through the air' alarm:
Diseases that are passed by air are things like the common cold,
and flu.  They have a certain pattern of spread, one which AIDS
does not show.  Although there might be a very miniscule chance
of it being passed through air, it seems to be 0.  If it were
passed in the same way as influenza, we would already have lost
millions of people.

   As for 'natural selection' -- when new diseases first hit a
population, they are often very virulent and incurable.  The
diseases themselves mutate so that they don't kill their hosts:
it's maladaptive for them to do so.  In fact, there are already
some less virulent strains of AIDS going around.  Eventually,
those strains will drive out the virulent ones.  
   Second, some people will be more resistant to the less
virulent viruses, so the human population will be subject to
natural selection as well.  For an excellent overview of how
plagues have worked throughout history, read "Plagues and
Peoples", by McNeill.  It was written before AIDS, and 
outlines a theory of epidemics which AIDS fits.  Unfortunately,
the theory leads one to expect that we will be seeing some
more plagues in the near future (from Africa and from the
South American rainforest).

I think the passing it thru the 'air' mechanism was not clear enough,
it is not the air that carries the virus, drops of body fluids are carried
by the air onto the surfaces where they can go into the body. Since the drops
would dry in (guess) about 1/2 minute, the time for possible exposure
is very limited, however, it is not limited if you get that air within
that time frame. I think this is very different than the flu. The timeframe
for the flu virus is much much longer, since it doesn't seem to be destroyed
just being in contact with air.

That paragraph about natural selection of virus and humans is very interesting.

I would like to emphasize that natural selection isn't always a good
selection.

And last, but not least, what I wrote about government has nothing to do with
republicans, I would write the same way even if democrats have been in power
in this time-period. It has to do with how any system works, humans determine
that outcome.

Yes, thank you, Mary.

And Tim, re: why Magic Johnson gets such a big outpouring of support over 
some random person - Of course some people consider him more important to
them than a random person. He's provided them with years of entertainment,
spectacular entertainment at that, whereas the common person has given them 
nothing. It is only natural to care more about his health and passing (from
the basketball scene, at least) than that of a random person. He will be 
missed much more by many people. 
        That doesn't make him a better person, or more important in an 
absolute sense, but his loss will have a much greater effect.

With many diseases, it turns out contact with one disease organism is
not enough.  The body's natural defenses most often wipe the intruder
out before it ever has a chance to do any harm.  It may take an influx
if hundreds, or even thousands, of disease organisms before enough of
them can manage to survive long enough to gain a toehold in the body and
spread.  Even with direct blood contact, AIDS is apparently remarkably
hard to catch -- hep, given the same chances, does a lot better.  It's
very probable that it would take something like a minor miracle to catch
it via aerosol droplets.  Aerosol droplets are far smaller, and long
before evaporating, the ph balance can vary wildly, depending on
atmospheric co2 and other factors.  The planet Jupiter may well pose a
greater public health menance.

Hmmm... I've seen the reports on the effectiveness of condoms with the HIV
virus.  Seems that the major transmission paths lie in the T-4 white blood
'helper' cells that have been infected by the HIV virus, but not lysed yet.
Which basically translated means white blood cells that are killed and just
acting as 'bags' for the virus particles.  White blood cells are in great
abundance in both lymphatic fluid and semen.  Seems those 'holes' you cite
being in the latex rubber, proposing that the latex is thin enough, let a 
very few HIV virii through, but are not large enough for the un-lysed white
blood cells to. Hence the high efficiency rate of condoms.

Assuming that none of those bags had burst!

To my knowledge/memory banks, the white blood cells are the first known cells
that are hospitable to the virus, but they are not the only ones. I remember
reading something that "mast cells" (I believe they are a certain kind of
skin cells that are also involved in allergies somewhat) are also hosts for
the AIDS virus. I believe you find mast cells on mycous membranes which also
exist around ?most? inner organs. Mast cells are also the ones reacting to
polen (actually destroyed somehow in the process) causing allergies. I
believe they are somehow part of the immune system, but they are stationery.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this, my knowledge is pretty shakey on
mast cells.

Get your terminology right.  Look up 'lysed' in a dictionary. 'Bag Burst'
Infiltration by a virus into a cell doesn't necissarily mean replication or
transmission.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss