'Living condom' could block HIV

[Khephra]

'Living condom' could block HIV


10:12 09 September 03

NewScientist.com news service

Genetically-modified vaginal bacteria may be able to serve as a "living condom", secreting proteins that protect women against HIV, suggests a new report.

The bacteria have already been used to cripple the virus in test tube experiments. Now the researchers are verifying whether the unmodified parental strain - a natural component of the vaginal microbial flora - can successfully colonise the vaginal tissues of rhesus macaque monkeys. And the researchers have launched a company to study the potential of the approach.

"We are working on production, delivery and efficacy simultaneously to try and bring this to the clinic as soon as possible," says research leader Peter Lee of Stanford University in California.


more...........

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994141

[bleedingheart]

1. no thank you....how about we create a bacteria to grow

over a man's penis....???

[Blue_Chill]

3. No thanks

but thanks for the offer.

[private_ryan]

13. we already have that, it's called a condom

this is something extra and if you don't like it have your lover wear a condom or risk getting AIDS.

[damnraddem]

30. We have. Many of them.

We just didn't intend to.

[mark0rama]

2. Not to pooh-pooh scientific research, but...

notice that this (1) leaves gay men out in the cold, and (2) in hetero situations, leaves the responsibility to women.

[Blue_Chill]

4. hmm

They are probably looking at women beacause in straight sex women are more likely to crontract the disease then men. Also while the US may have liberated women most of the world does not, thus they will not be able to force a man to do anything. Allowing women to help themselves is the smart way to go.

[bleedingheart]

5. yeah but women already flora in their vaginal canal

...this could potentially prove to be a fetility nightmare as well as perhaps trigger yeast infections if the native flora are imbalanced as a result.

[Zorba607]

8. agreed

disrupting the balance of the natural flora is a serious concern, but I think that by using a modified naturalling occuring bacteria they're trying to ensure that a niche isn't left open. If the HIV disruption confers no competitive advantage for the bacteria then it seems likely that a natural balance could be maintained. I'm sure this has been a consideration, we'll see if theory holds out in practice. Either way, this has tremendous potential.

[bleedingheart]

10. No doubt it will be of great benefit and with developing countries

in Africa and Asia having such a hard time keeping AIDS under control this could be a tremendous lifesaver..

[DulceDecorum]

14. Why is it

that whenever the US or Europe does not want something, they immediately assume that the females in Asia or Africa do?

What are they?
Some cross between guinea pigs and rhesus monkeys that can be used for Mengele experiments?
Unfeeling "natives" who should be grateful for the toxic droppings of the Western pharmcuetical killing machine?

How about leaving them out of discussions like this?
If they want in, they can and will speak for themselves.

[catpower2000]

16. I disagree with your assessment...

Women in Africa are literally dying by the MILLIONS. Women and girls (very young girls) are being raped by AIDS-infected men because there is a folk remedy that says if you have sex with a virgin, you will be cured of the disease.

There are no condoms in Africa. There is no medication. There is no birth-control. There is no health-care. There is no money. They are dying faster than they can be buried.

And no, they can't speak for themselves. They simply don't have the power, the political clout, the opportunity. We must speak for them, because it's our duty as the most powerful nation in the world to help (NOT to bomb them, Chimpy. To HELP.)

Cat

[bleedingheart]

18. I am not saying that we should use people like guinea pigs

if anything I would like to see this whole technology tested thoroughly before it is used anywhere...

Catwoman2000 has also made some very good points.

[damnraddem]

32. Nonsense! Most drugs and devices are developed for ...

the developed world. If this is developed and proves to confer its major benefits in the underdeveloped world, that is great.

And who said that this would not be wanted in the U.S. and Europe?

[InkAddict]

69. Come now, haven't we learned it's not about the cure

it's about the $$ - the profit for the patent holders?

one more word: mutation

[NickB79]

21. Fertility

Being fertile isn't really much good when you're infected with HIV.

[bleedingheart]

28. That makes sense but ... this is supposed to be a preventative

treatment so the person using this method would hopefully not be infected.. (although it would be useful to already infected people as well since it could help prevent being infected with different strains of the virus).

[juajen]

70. Yep,

don't want nobody messin' with my flora or fauna. Just stay the hell outa my jungle.

[Stuckinthebush]

6. Yes, I think a feminist argument could go both ways on this one

Traditionally, the feminist argument surrounding medical advancements for contraceptives was that the male dominated medical world looked at the female as the problem, therefore, all contraceptive devices except the condom were designed for the female. I think there is much validity in this argument.

However, this type of scientific advancement regarding the spread of HIV can be argued as empowering for women - especially in non-western settings.

[Doug Decker]

43. Do you have any statistics or data to back...

up your assumption that "beacause in straight sex women are more likely to crontract the disease then men"? How did the women become infected if not from men?

[transeo]

60. I think what they're saying is

that women are more likely to catch HIV from men than vice versa, thus it makes sense for women to be empowered to protect themselves.

The receptive partner is at higher risk in hetero or homo encounters. This is due to the fact that HIV can get into the receptive partners blood stream through more routes than it can the insertive partner. This is not to say insertive partners are not at risk, because they definitely are, just that is is riskier to be the receptive partner. Rather than relying on the insertive partner to use a good condom, this allows women to take the matter into their own hands. They shouldn't have to, but unfortunately they do.

:hi:

[Ediacara]

12. yes it does

but this approach could be used to create better real condoms which is really a fantastic idea.

[NickB79]

19. Well, HIV kills far more heterosexual than homosexual people

Worldwide, HIV is NOT a gay disease; just look at Africa where almost everyone dying of AIDS is heterosexual. So it would make sense to focus on heterosexual prevention and research more intensively. And in places like Africa, it could hopefully be a cheap and long-term solution for women seeking protection. One visit to the doctor and you have protection for months, maybe years if the bacteria can survive that long. The alternatives right now seem to be reusing condoms, or no condoms at all where they are hard to get or where the men refuse to wear condoms due to cultural practices.

[toopers]

22. With Gay men seeking out HIV . . .

I am not sure what we could do to keep them from catching it. Also, you have got to start somewhere. Hopefully, this is a stepping stone to making it impossible to catch HIV in the future. However, I think the best way to beat HIV is through education.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&ncid=594&e=1&u=/nm/20030909/hl_nm/health_sex_dc

[Doug Decker]

25. If you read the entire article...

please note this part:

snip

Admitting she had no figures to support her claim, Parker said her research consisted of several years of interviews with a large number of sexually active gay men.

snip

In other words, this researcher is using anecdotal evidence, that in her opinion, supports this argument.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that individuals would intentionally become infected with an overwhelmingly terminal illness.

[toopers]

26. I did read the entire article . . .

her information comes from personal interviews with gays. Believe me, I am skeptical of this kind of "study", but this is not the first time I heard of this issue. There have been several reports such as this over the last 8 months that I have seen. This one just happened to be timely (I read it today on my portal) and easy to find.

[Doug Decker]

29. Well, look at the issue from a common...

sense stand point. Do people want to get cancer, or heart disease, or clogged arteries? People smoke, eat fatty foods and McDonalds, so are those people trying to get a terminal illness?

Of course not.

This is the same issue that is brought up every few months, that gays want to get HIV. This is illogical, but if repeated enough, maybe some people will believe it.

[toopers]

31. Unless the researcher is trying to spread false information

then there may be some validity to the interviews he/she has had. Why do you want to quickly dismiss this issue as BS when it is probably true, but just not wide spread?

[damnraddem]

34. What is 'probably true'?

That someone tries to get HIV? That several do? That several people might get kicks out of claiming to an interviewer that they do?

Even if the practice exists, if it is not widespread, then what is its relevance to the current discussion?

[toopers]

37. We do not know how wide spread the practice is.

Unfortunately, attitudes that immediately dismiss information like this as BS keep research from being started. The one thing you can't dismiss is that "levels of unprotected sex have increased". This would support the findings of the interviewer.

[demdave]

38. There is no common sense when it comes to sex and death.

This exists and you only have to look into the subject to find info.http://www.miamigaylesbianfilm.com/2003/films/thegift.htm


http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/viewpoint/051799vi.htm




http://www.examiner.com/pj_corkery/default.jsp?story=n.pj.0124w


Don't deny the truth just because it is counter to your opinion.

[toopers]

39. Thanks for the links.

I could not remember the name of the movie you identified.

[Doug Decker]

40. Sorry, but the researcher's OPINION, based on her interviews,...

is not the truth. Neither are movies that claim to support this assumption.

I guess, based on your analysis, the Arnold is really the Terminator and a robot from the future.

Nice try, but you don't prove your case with movies or the opinion of one researcher. If you have some statistical data that proves your case, present it, otherwise, don't confuse opinion with fact.

[demdave]

42. I did a quick google just to get a few links to get you started

I refuse to drag you kicking and screaming all the way to reality. It is just to far from denial. Every gay publication has covered this sorry phenomonon over the last 2 years. Try searching under gift givers...or barebacking.

If you don't know the difference between science fiction and a movie that tries to explore the thoughts of people who make what appears to be contrary to common sense decisions, stay away from the theaters. We don't need anymore Jedi knights.

[Doug Decker]

46. If you think you know reality, then you must be pretty...

smart. Wow, from now on, I'll just wait until you tell me the TRUTH and I'll not have to question it or find out for myself.

How wonderful we now have someone on DU with the TRUTH.

Thanks.

[demdave]

47. Try addressing the facts instead of just flaming:)

pun intended

[Doug Decker]

49. Fact s are a funny thing. You think your opinion is a fact...

and I prefer statistical or hard evidence to back up claims.

Look, you have a right to your opinion on any subject, but don't just assume that others will believe it.

[toopers]

50. Please find the statistical data

that shows that this does not occur instead of providing your opinion.

[NickB79]

53. Proving a negative?

Prove it DOESN'T occur? Thats like Bush's claim for Iraq to prove they don't have WMD, it's stupid and almost impossible. When you make a claim, it is your burden of proof is to prove it, not for the other side to disprove it. So far, antecdotal evidence based on interviews with gay men is not hard, scientifically verifiable proof of a large, "we want HIV" camp in current-day gay life.

I'm sure there are gay men who have intentionally had sex with HIV-infected partners to contract the disease. And I'm also sure there are straight men that want to contract HIV as well. That doesn't mean that anywhere near a majority of them actually do those things. That's as bad as the Bible-beaters who claim all gay men are child molesters because a few priests felt up altarboys, or that all priests are child molesters. So far, no one has presented peer-reviewed evidence, published in a respected scientific journal, to support the claims that large numbers of gay men are actively seeking to become HIV-infected.

[toopers]

55. Who used the word "majority" in support of this

before you used the word "majority"? Who said that we were talking about anything close to a majority? Again, I have identified the researcher and his/her conclusions. Demdave identified other interviewers which came up with similar results/conclusions. I never said that there was an article published in a scientific journal. The point is that you have several different interviewers coming with the same answers. Instead of dismissing this as "hogwash", you might want to actually look into it and do a true scientific study, which will undoubtedly rely on interviewing potential subjects who frequent bath houses, spas, and other sex clubs.

[NickB79]

56. Look at the original title and sentence of your first post

"With Gay men seeking out HIV . . .

I am not sure what we could do to keep them from catching it."

That does seem to imply that you are talking about gay men in general, not a specific minority or subset of the gay population. That's why I used the word "majority."

"you might want to actually look into it and do a true scientific study, which will undoubtedly rely on interviewing potential subjects who frequent bath houses, spas, and other sex clubs."

When someone does an actual, published study of this, I am sure they will rely on interviews and testimonials of gay subjects. But like I said, no one has presented those PEER-REVIEWED studies for publication yet. When they come out, then we can have a more rationale discussion about this.

[toopers]

58. It sounds like you came to a conclusion

without any sound research to back it up. BTW, The British Association for the Advancement of Science is a fairly well recognized scientific organization that has been in existence since 1831. While it does not seem that a formal paper was presented, the fact that the researcher got any air time with this group would support his/her credentials and indirectly the methodology for collecting the data.

[toopers]

51. He did not assume anyone would believe it.

That is why he provided sources for his opinion. Just out of interest, what kind of statistics do you want?

[toopers]

45. Asking pointed questions and getting specific answers

is not an opinion. While I do not have a copy of the survey/questions, there is no doubt in my mind that this activity occurs. As information, interviews are a reliable source of data. As well, all conclusions of research are based upon the opinion of the researcher and the way the researcher interprets the data. The fact remains that the researcher conducted hundreds of interviews (which makes it statistically significant) over several years to come to the conclusions that he/she discussed. As well, these conclusions are supported by others who gathered similar information in other areas of Europe and the US. Since the same conclusions have resulted from different research studies, we know that the findings are valid. Finally, the researchers conclusions were supported, though not directly, by the fact that levels of unprotected sex is on the rise in the gay community.

Please don't proceed with a closed mind. You may hurt those closest to you.

[Doug Decker]

52. Taking that information and formulating an assumption is

an opinion, not a fact.

Sorry, but you haven't proven your point.

Do some people take actions that are against there own health? Obviously they do, but that doesn't mean it is as widespread as this article claims.

Can you back up any of your claims with reliable data or urls?

snip
As well, these conclusions are supported by others who gathered similar information in other areas of Europe and the US. Since the same conclusions have resulted from different research studies, we know that the findings are valid. Finally, the researchers conclusions were supported, though not directly, by the fact that levels of unprotected sex is on the rise in the gay community.
snip.

These are your words - do you have any data to back them up?

[toopers]

54. Demdave provided links to a couple of other publications

and a movie on the subject that supported the conclusions of this researcher. All seem to be conducted independently of each other.

Just so you understand I will repeat myself, all conclusions are the opinions of the individual drawing the conclusion. some conclusions, such as the one presented, are based upon facts gathered through interview process, other conclusions are based upon facts gathered in controlled environments, such as a lab. You can disagree with my conclusion and the conclusion of researchers, but then you have to completely discount the data that was collected. You are free to discount the data.

[Doug Decker]

41. What truth do these movies tell you that you didn't get from...

D.C. 9/11?

[demdave]

44. I linked one movie and 2 articles. Do your own google.

I only posted links from gay publications. I think. It is too much trouble to try to inform people wearing blinders what is going on in their own communities. This activity is openly discussed and debated in gay publications. Perhaps you should expand your reading.

[Doug Decker]

48. So I guess that every word that you quote is the TRUTH...

and anyone with different information is just wrong. How comforting for you to have all the FACTS and the rest of us are all wrong and don't know anything.

Thanks for the TRUTH.

[demdave]

57. "so are those people trying to get a terminal illness? Of course not.,"

This was the only comment that I responded to in this thread. Your blanket assertion that it was a myth and never happens. I believe I have proven my point that it does. It has been researched, documented and written about in major gay publications. If you think they are all in on some weird anti-gay self-hate conspiracy, so be it. I have never said what percentage engage in this bizzare behaviour, other than to assert that it does exist.

You have turned this into a personal attack and seem to be inordinately defensive in your position. You have my sympathy is their is some reason for you to personalize this discussion.

[Doug Decker]

61. I see why you refer to this as a personal attack...

and I apologize as that was not my intent.

My point was about the article cited was using anecdotal evidence, not statistical or what I would refer to as good science.

Let me give you an example and I hope this will make it clearer.

Yesterday, I saw Candy Crolley (sp) on CNN and she said Bush is a "popular war time president".

Now, can we prove or disprove that statement? Yes we can, by reviewing polls of GW since the war and even before, we can see that the trend of the polls indicates that GW is anything but popular, based on these statistical models that we all agree are reliable.

What Candy said is an opinion, but the facts, the truth, lie in the compilation of many polls over a long period of time. My favorite is http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/.

Just like an article about Parker's research or a movie or even an article in a gay publication, which unless that are backed up with a study or some reliable data from a reputable orgination, are still just opinions (even if loosely based on some type of interviewing).

That said, I do understand that safe sex is not working (numbers of infected are rising), but instead of blaming anecdotal evidence, we should examime the data from CDC or other reputable orginizations to determine the real causes for the increases in HIV status. That would really help.

This is the logic I was trying to express (I hope I did).

[toopers]

62. I agree with your statement and it supports my argument completely!

There have been multiple polls/interviews that support the researchers statements. In fact, the researcher is not really coming to his/her own conclusions, she is in a sense repeating the answers that respondents gave to her questions about whether people were having unprotected sex in an attempt to contract HIV. As well, several other interviewers from other areas of Europe and the US have met, spoken, interviewed, polled others in the gay community and received similar answers to their questions and that support the answers that this researcher received to his/her questions. The fact that a science journal did not conduct the survey does not make the information less valid. However, the information was presented to a reputable science organization which should add to the validity of the information in your eyes.

Interviewing subjects is not necessarily "anecdotal". In some cases interviews are the best, and only way, to collect information and facts. Since the article does not give a description of the interview process, to immediately determine that the information is "anecdotal" is jumping to conclusions.

If an individual says, "I had unprotected sex in an attempt to catch HIV", then that is not an opinion, rather it is a statement of fact. I agree, that you may want to further question the subject, as well as his/her friends to determine if his statement is true, but it is certainly not the opinion of the researcher that he had sex. It would be the researchers opinion to judge whether the statement was true or false.

Instead of immediately dismissing the information, which was "compiled over many interviews over a long period of time", I would look more closely at the information obtained.

[Doug Decker]

63. No, it doesn't, because the researcher doesn't publish her work...

for the scientific community to peer review. If it was good, well done research, she would be happy to publish. Researchers live to publish.

Your assumptions are guesses at WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAID, not what was actually asked and answered.

There is extensive documentation in the scientific community on how research is carried out to ensure reasonably accurate results. This doesn't pass the smell test for that type of research.

We should be able to review her work, and statisticians and peers in the same line of research could check her information and draw similar conclusions. That is what is required for proper scientific analysis.

Saying the researcher "compiled over many interviews over a long period of time", is not sufficient for this type of data. Sorry.

[toopers]

65. Sorry, I was using your own terminology.

As well, you were playing the "what might have been said" game as well since you were so quick to dismiss the data. Too bad you fail to make any points. It might be wise for you to read the "extensive documentation" on how to conduct research before dismissing someone's findings.

[Doug Decker]

66. Thanks for the advice...

your post makes no sense to me. You don't seem to be familiar with how research, except maybe internet polling, is done.

[toopers]

67. Being in the scientific field

I am very aware of how data is collected. I guess that is why I am so dismayed by the fact that you would so quickly dismiss the data as false without further review and study.

[Doug Decker]

68. As a scientist, you know very well...

that assumptions based on interviews require statistical modeling to determine if the data collected is useable.

I could go ask many people questions, but the answers need to be analysed in a controlled way.

Evolution is an assumption based on evidence gathered in the field relating to organisms over a long period of time. Creationism is an opinion, based on faith.

Do you agree with this?

[damnraddem]

33. But they might well be happy to relate a lot of b.s. to a Nosy Parker ...

who kept asking them questions about this.

[Ellen Forradalom]

7. First the Living Bra

now the living condom.

[peterh]

9. Will it taste different??

:silly:

[damnraddem]

35. Finally, someone with a practical orientation!

thanks for starting to ask the important questions!

[booksenkatz]

11. I was wondering if

the "living condom" was simply "ribbed for her pleasure" taken one step further. Can't explain my thought processes as I opened this thread... a prehensile condom...?

[stickdog]

15. Can we genetically modify these bacteria to clean up after us as well?

How about blocking urinary track and yeast infections?

Disabling sperm?

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. aww, poor monkeys

I'm sure the medical experiments on these monkeys are absolutely horrible.

:mad:

[fertilizeonarbusto]

20. they are

so's aids.

[demdave]

23. Spoken like a person who makes assumptions without the facts.

Tell me exactly what is so horrible about the experiments on the monkeys in this particular study.

[damnraddem]

36. Yeah, all that sexual activity.

I just bet they get soooooooooooo tired.

But I don't care if the research is horribly painful to the monkeys, if it saves human lives.

[private_ryan]

64. I wouldn't volunteer to take their place though

n/t

[lebkuchen]

24. Finally. Schwartzenegger has a platform

but what does HIV have to do with the CA economy?

[Ganja Ninja]

27. If only Babs had some of this stuff.

OK So it's not meant for birth control but it's the thought that counts.

[study_war_no_more]

59. Remember the movie the "Groove tube"

He He Hey seriously at least these guys are doing something I am not offended at all.

[frank frankly]

71. no thanks!

time to go native, everybody!
very scary product