Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Maine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, PScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs reportBorder town hospitals straddle care and costsItaly doctors save baby with smallest artificial heartObesity not always tied to higher heart riskToo many people get angioplasties, study suggests
Leave a Comment:
...and the lie continues.
Apparently 4 other people understand your comment better than I do. What lie?
Probably, but it is important to keep in mind that if you have multiple partners or your partner is (or could be) infected hormonal birth control is not your best option. Condoms are the preferred method to avoid STD's such as HIV and then still you could get HPV. So, be careful who you sleep with and use a condom unless you monogamous (and so is your partner) and neither of you have HIV.
First of all, hormonal contraception is for the prevention of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, not HIV infection. Noone promotes the use of hormonal contraceptives as a preventative to HIV infection. Second, the only real preventative when it comes to sexually transmitted disease is abstenance. Condoms are the fall-back measure that is mostly helpful, however, they are not 100% effective. Using drama and fear to inflame people does not help your or the religious right's case against hormonal contraception. If you have nothing useful to contribute to secular society--go away.
mongoose is apparently on a different wavelength from the rest of us as we seem to not be picking up his telepathic statements.
Mongoose, you're right. Everything is a lie. See CROI: HIV Progression Not Affected by Hormonal Contraception printed on 2/12/09 and peer reviewed. So, what happened to all that intense research? Could it be who is funding the research that determines the outcome? Like our pharmeceutical companies? Start thinking people. Look everything up and start making connections.
HIV studies is Africa?? Golly, wonder why they picked Africa?
Uh, George? This may come as a shock to you, but Africa has the highest HIV infection rate in the world.
Hey Toasty - why always the women what happened to condoms? Yes and all the responsibility has been placed on the women - who spreads this disease the promiscious men - condoms for all the men or else - leave these women alone they are trying it's the rabbits you have to worry about
Barbara, I don't see the word "woman" mentioned once in Toasty's comment. Nor do I see a judgement statement about hormonal contraception, condoms or anything else. All I see is someone answering George's trolling question, which does seem to be full of implied bigotry.
I do agree with you that the men are the bigger problem in most of these countries. Dual promotion of hormonal contraception and condom use would be beneficial. Changing the promiscuous attitudes is another thing altogether and it would be easier to change the sexual practices.
I have a bit of an issue with the sensational title of the article, b/c anyone who does not read the text might think that the use of OCP's somehow magically increases your risk of getting HIV. Amen to OldSarge's comment in the preceding thread (#1.3).
Maybe the problem is not with the men. Maybe the solution will come from the women.
Another irresponsible crap study gets published for folks who are going to have a hard time sorting out the fact from the fiction.
owen: I don't see anything crap about the study. I see a problem with a sensational title that implies a magical association b/w OCPs and HIV. A better title for the news article might be "Hormonal Contraception, HIV Risk, and Sexual Practices in Africa" That's wouldn't get as much attention though, so of course the news writer went with the sensational version instead.
Exactly, the reason that the risk is higher is because they aremore likely to have sex and less likely to use condoms. It has nothing to do with the hormonal contraceptives themselves.
It's a crap study. They all are. Do your research.
Is today STD fetish day?
When are they coming out with hormonal contraceptives for men? Ya think the guys are gonna line up to buy 'em? No, because they're not idiots, only a woman is stupid enough to believe that having sex is the most important thing on earth and worth jeopardizing her health, the quality of her life and to put up with some moron she couldn't just say no to. Wake up girls and smell the coffee. The entire feminist movement has taken advantage of your self respect and sold you a bill of goods for their own profit. Who do you think is making money off your iuds, pills and abortions? Billions of dollars are made off of making women believe that if they're not having sex they are worthless. Guess what? It's having sex with multiple men who use you and dump you that makes you feel worthless. Sex is not the way to get a man. Try using the word NO and they'll follow you on their knees to the ends of the earth. If he hasn't proposed to you after six months, dump him. Either he's in love or he ain't. Don't sell yourselves so short. Men don't sell themselves short to anyone.
This sounds like some idiot journalist with no science background went to a little meeting somewhere and heard about some poorly designed study and drew her own conclusions.
This is problem #1 with journalism today. Unfortunately, not only does it undermine journalistic integrity, but it is doing wonders to break down the respect the populous has for science.
How do you know that this article was written by a woman? The author is listed as MyHealthNewsDaily.
I don't see anything poorly designed about the study. I see a problem with a sensational title that implies a magical association b/w OCPs and HIV. I agree with your sentiment about the irresponsibility of the journalist's approach. A better title for the news article might be "Hormonal Contraception, HIV Risk, and Sexual Practices in Africa" That's wouldn't get as much attention though, so of course the news writer went with the sensational version instead.
Keep in mind the idea of the "responsible journalist" of yesteryear is just so much nostalgia. The journalist may be ethical, but throw in the editors and executives of the newspapers/magazines/online news outlets and you get sensationalism. We would do better to instill our children with a sense of skepticism about what they read in the news, than to pine for a news source we can trust 100% of the time.
Science today is merely manipulating statistics. Look at who is funding the study, will ya please wake up America!!! OMG.
Who in the bleep would participate in that study????
You do realize that is how every single FDA study works, right? If you sign up there is usually a 50/50 chance you will get a placebo or "sugar pill" over the drug that may save your live. Unfortunately this is the only way to get the required data. you have to mathematically proof significant statistical evidence that your drug is more effect then a placebo. In order to ensure that patients respond the same way some are given a placebo without their knowledge. Its good science and provides good data. Data without which we would not be able to develop effective drugs. Millions of people sing up for these trials every year. But yes, it does not appear fair. Science is cruel and hard, but thank it, it has likely saved your life more then once already.
Agreed! In order for that study to work some non-infected person would have to be exposed to an infected person (if you know what I mean) and then you may have an increased chance of getting it or a normal chance of getting it. No thanks!
Right, but this is not quite the same thing. They're not testing out a new drug to see if it helps, they're looking for a trial where randomly selected individuals are given a drug that may INCREASE their risk of contracting a deadly virus.
Dr: "Mrs. Smith, now that we've confirmed that your husband is HIV positive, have you decided whether you're going to continue to have a sexual relationship with him."
Mrs. Smith: "Well, of course I am, he's my husband till death do us part."
Dr: "Excellent - would you be willing to participate in a study in which randomly selected participants will receive hormonal contraception, which may double your risk of contracting the virus from your husband?"
Mrs. Smith: "ummm...."
that's why you have to do a retrospective study on this sort of thing. you can't ethically do a double blind randomized controlled trial (RCT)
Gray matter has it almost right. When there are no proven alternative you do a placebo study. When there are proven effective options you have to do standard of care in one case and the new experimental drug/treatment in the other arm if you want to do an RCT. Otherwise you're stuck with less powerful types of studies like retrospective studies.
A blind birth control trial is stupid because if your birth control may or may not be a placebo you're going to back it up with a condom and other non-hormonal birth control methods because if you are asking for birth control in the first place you are probably trying to avoid getting pregnant. If my doc asked me if I wanted to participate in a study where my birth control may or may not be a sugar pill, regardless of what they were studying I would laugh in his face.
It also increases breast cancer. See Nurse study, but the AMA determined the benefits outweighed the risks. Benefits? What benefits? Benefits to who? Pharmeceutical companies for pills and medical insurance for oncology.
Thanks for issuing another panic-inducing headline that is misleading, alarmist, and though it has no relevance to my patient population, will buy me thousands of hours of wearying work convincing them one by one of that irrelevance. I and my fellow gynecologists salute you...I won't specify how.
I can sympathize with what you said and agree with you. It is ridiculous for more than one reason and alarmist.
I find it interesting this came out just as bills are being discussed and introduced regarding the use of hormonal birth control and the debate over when life begins. Interesting timing in my view, and making some women feel less safe with their choice of using those methods is interesting.
ram - also isn't it interesting that Willard met with Huckabee who is trying to get rid of the birth control pill - and Mitt said sure - this guy will say anything anytime anywhere - you don't like white shirts I will burn mine, you don't like loafers I hate them also - maybe simplistic but this guy would agree that donuts cause cancer - what a whuss
"measre"? Somebody forgot to edit this article properly.
The debate over when life begins? This is 2011 not 465 AD. We know exactly when life begins. This country is filled with morons who can't think straight and believe every stupid theory put forth. No one knows how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, write in script--just zombies zoned out on screen time. No one can think, analyze do research or read or remember anything. I know you really don't know the answer to when does life begin so I'll tell you. Human life begins at the moment of conception--go ask the turkey baster doctors. They know--that's how thety make their money.
n
Um, isn't it a moot point when one of your partners has HIV?
One of your partners? What are you a cat?
One of your partners? What are you a cat?
Unmarried, giggity.
This is the stupidist "research" I have seen. If you aren't using hormonal contraceptives you are probably using a barrier method like a condom or diaphram which would limit your exposure to infected body fluids.
You don't have to be a scientist to figure that one out.
But you do have to read the whole article.
The cultural behaviors aren't the same there as they are in some other parts of the world, and it isn't just using hormonal birth control that would raise the risk. I am suspicious of this...now reproduce your results elsewhere and we will see.
If one partner is infected they need to be using a condom anyway to lower the rates, and I find it hard to believe that correctly used condoms didn't lower the rate of transmission. That doesn't make sense.
In terms of HIV protection: Condoms, yes. Diaphragms, I wouldn't trust as far as they can... slip from your fingers, fly across the room, and land in the one corner with a big tumbleweed of dog hair, just when you need them most.
Right. You're obviously as sharp as a marble.
leaving religion out of this there is a reason that we should be monogamous. When you do that the risk of any of these STD's drops dramatically. Promiscuity has always increased the risk from ancient times until today. Tht is why the cycle of sexual revolutions goes up and down. when it goes down society gets lax and pretty soon start screwing around and boom here we go again. Things have changed some now though it use to be that Women always were the controlling factor but now a days women are just as bad as men in the sleeping around department. All the drugs and contraceptives etc are ging to fix any of these problems until women learn to keep their legs together and men lern to keep it stashed until they are at home. I really don't see those days ever coming back. The more educated we become the more like a Box of rocks we become.
Um, AIDS is bad, mkay? So don't get AIDS, cause if you get it, it's going to be bad, mkay?
You've got to figure that this is an entirely different culture over there. Many of the people over there don't really see monogamy in the same ways that others do. Not every culture vilifies those who choose to be in an open relationship and have been living like this for generations upon generations. Before you start saying one thing or another, also remember that HIV/AIDS has really only been visible and talked about since the 80s. It's a pretty big struggle for people who are traveling out to the farther out areas and talking to them about sex and disease, especially considering how difficult it is to get to these areas AND be trusted. Just because you show up with medicine and prophylactics doesn't mean you'll be immediately trusted.
Mr. Mackey? Is that you?!
Besides a ridiculous premise - consider the alternative to "the pill".
A pill for men.
If I were a conspiracy nut I would say this is just one more way to preach against birth control. Oh wait, I AM a conspiracy nut and I do think this is one more way to preach against birth control.
I had the same thought.
Call me crazy, but I find these results suspect. After all, "whether condoms were used" is a self-reported parameter that can't be concretely verified - unless the researchers were watching all the couples having sex...
Plus they don't know if they were using them correctly. I've heard of people doing things that significantly decrease the effectiveness of a condom, and they have no idea they are doing it wrong.
They are twice as likely to get HIV because they DONT USE PROTECTION because they are not as worried about getting pregnant.
It's common sense and you dont need a study to figure it out.
The HUGE finding is that these people were using condoms and using hormonal birth control and HIV infection went up for both sexes.
They are saying the hormonal birth control caused a change in chemistry that upped HIV transmission despite condom use...that is the hypothesis.
I personally would not shrug this off or scoff at it...the implications are huge.
It says a lot for the results of poor condom use education. So naturally, the teabaggers over here want to ban all instruction of condom use...
I am just guessing here, but is it possible that a lot of the women who get the injected birth control feel liberated by the fact that they cannot get pregnant and become extremely active sexually with many, many, many more men than a woman who is not using birth control? Thus increasing their risk of catching HIV?
If I were a bug chaser and wanted to catch HIV, I would just fly to Africa and have sex with a half dozen women. The odds are, I would catch it. Africa is a dangerous place to go hog wild sexually in my opinion.
And I am a black man saying this.
Well, Reginald. Let's see. The CDC report on MSM activity states that HIV is rampant in the homosexual community. They are not worried about getting pregnant. They don't use condoms and they are going hog wild. So, I guess you're right about the women. The answer is less contraception and more self-respect. Why is everyone such a psycho about sex. People have lost their minds. Must be medications.
"Hormonal contraception may increase the risk of HIV infection (sic) and in women."
An Interesting headline. As I read the article, I could just as easily justify the headline that reads: "Married couples using Hormonal contraception may have sex twice as often therefore double the risk of passing along HIV." I know it is not as catchy, but it makes just as much sense based on the data presented in the article.
I really wish science reporters were given the time to think about and research what they write before it is published. There would likely be much less confusion in the general public about scientific matters.
You're going to blame the messenger?
This is another distraction. In the USA and the rest of the industrialized world women contract HIV infections from recreational IV drug use and / or sexual intercourse with male recreational IV drug users. The media is deliberately trying to distract attention from the fact that male / male sexual intercourse, recreational IV drug use, and sexual intercourse with male recreational IV drug users cause almost all the HIV infections in the USA and the rest of the industrialized world.
You know why male/male intercourse is a more common transmission than male/female? The lack of condom usage. Gee, that happens to be the biggest reason that HIV transfers from male/female sex... You know, Bob, this isn't rocket surgery.
Toasty. Think again. Homosexual sex is NOT intercourse. It is anal penetration. So, now what is it about homosexual sex that breeds HIV?
Bob--there is no such thing as male-male sexual intercourse. Many homosexual males are sexual intercourse virgins. Homosexual sex is anal penetration--e-coli and such. See the Sept. 2010 CDC report on MSM HIV in the United States.
What a poorly written article. The study (which is only partially quoted here in the article) said that it thinks that hormonal birth control could have a bigger chance of passing on HIV, but doesn't mention anything about how the study was done. They skewed the facts in order to make a better story and didn't even bother trying to explain the area in which the study was run. Were the couples using condoms and oral/hormonal birth control taken out from the study? Were they included and if so, which second form of BC were they using- hormonal or oral?
Hormonal BC might make it slightly more likely that someone could catch HIV, but it's seemingly only by a very slim margin. The article played up the scare factor while downplaying the facts of the matter. Yellow journalism at its finest, I see.
For those who want a sensationalism free summary of the story, here it is:
The study focused on a group of couples in Africa where one of the two was HIV positive and were using an oral or hormonal contraceptive. The study did take into consideration whether or not condoms were used, but the article doesn't state whether or not the couples that also used condoms were eliminated from the study or what type of "consideration" they were given. They also don't bother mentioning the type of sexual environment the couples were living in since trust me, that makes a HUGE difference. Nor do they bother mentioning the percentage of women carrying HIV, which could also make a big difference. They just say that one of the couple has HIV. They found that a woman who is taking hormonal BC might have a slightly higher chance of getting HIV, but downplay that this was only by a slim margin and that it might have no impact on the transmission and that this is not an absolute thing. (Yes, they downplayed it. The article has a title that makes it seem like it's an absolute thing.)
Basically put, the study can be summed up thusly: 'Someone did a study to see if types of non-condom birth control impacted the transmission rate of HIV. There was a slight difference, but we're not sure if that was a fluke or not. This is only one of the first studies so we'll have to repeat it several times in order to see if there's any correlation or not. There's nothing really definitive here."
If anyone is curious, the reason I mention that the area and economic status is a factor is because health groups are still fighting to get adequate education to all of these areas. Some of the cultures in these areas are also pretty different from what you would find in the US. The article doesn't mention this at all. They also don't mention whether or not the couples are monogamous (some cultures don't put as high of an emphasis on monogamy as others in Africa do), whether or not the HIV infected partner travels (also a biggie), or any of a multitude of factors that could impact the study. They also don't mention how the information is collected. Even when they agree to give out data some areas don't want to inform everything.
This is not the only article reporting this news, Boodle.
There are quite a few very dangerous complications when a woman is on hormonal birth control. It appears this may be one more. (And with a strong science background, I am not some conspiracy theorist. I work in medical research.) When one takes the time to really read about the effects of hormonal contraceptives on women's bodies throughout numerous trials the science is concerning.
My husband and I use natural family planning. It is NOT the rhythm method and it is JUST AS EFFECTIVE as the pill. In fact, since I will soon be donating stem cells from my marrow to a patient with leukemia, it is imperative that I do not get pregnant for a while. Google NFP. The Couple to Couple League is a really good group that teaches courses on the subject. I love actually knowing my body and not being a slave to a bunch of unnecessary artificial hormones and chemicals.
So, just curious. How many kids do you have?
Christine, go take a course on how your body works. Underline words and phrases like hypothalmus, estrogen, progesterone, cysts, ovaries, x and y chromosomes, sperm lives 72 hours in your body, egg, menstruation, fertility, cycle. It takes two to tango--don't be the dumb one. Figure it out.
Yea right, this idiot alert has dulled me completely....if its not one thing its another bs discovery, who gets paid to prove and then disprove scientific facts???? I want that job! The latest war on women is drink more coffee it has anti-breast cancer qualities, then this weekend it was - coffee reduces anxiety on women, drink at up to 5 cups per day....omg...what a bunch of male bullsht....its truly not funny but down right tiresome. Stop playing around with women's lives, health, hormones and body, get with real programs do your science research jobs to find a real cure not just organizing K runs collecting unfathomable amounts of cash that no one sees in any documentary to prove it actually takes place, worse yet is giving false hopes, thats the crime of major proportions.
Lorida, look up breast cancer links to abotions and to the pill. You seem like a wise woman--one of the few.
What a stupid story. Everyone knows that contraception is not a risk factor in determining HIV infection. Why do you think that all those commercials say it does not protect you from HIV? Useless waste of the ink on the page.
Do you know how hormones work? Do you know why this study makes sense? Do you know what the connections are No, you don't, but you talk anyway.
Cause and affect - It is 10,000 times more likely that this is an affect of ignorance and not the affect of a drug that increases the virility of HIV.
In Africa, condoms (although unpopular) are known to be for "Safe" sex. Safe = No Babies & No AIDS. It is irresponsible to tell someone in Africa that if they get an injection or take a pill that they can have sex without a condom and not get pregnant. If they have HIV or AIDS and their partner is uninfected - the man should always be wearing a condom, which would mean there is no reason for hormonal contraception.
The study itself was probably highly unethical - especially if there was any sort of language or cultural barriers that occurred between the patients, those administering the drugs, and the drug companies providing them.
I like this quote: "The results held even after researchers took into account factors that could affect the HIV transmission rate, such as the whether the woman was pregnant, and whether condoms were used."
- So when the Pregnant Couples - Couples for whom neither drugs nor condoms were effective contraception. (**Probably because they received a PLACEBO**)
and
Couples that USED condoms were "Accounted for" (Read: **Removed From The Study.**)
So...
The remaining Non-Condom-Wearing, Drug-Getting, HIV-Infected, Sex-Having Couples were TWICE as likely to transmit HIV to their partners than the remaining
Non-Condom-Wearing, Placebo-Getting, HIV-Infected, Sex-Having* Couple counterparts.
I would suspect that most of the remaining placebo group didn't have sex. Especially considering that the placebo group would have been 99.99% more likely to get pregnant and thus be eliminated from this portion of the study.
Generically - assume 40% got pregnant (Placebo, no condom, eliminated from control group) another 20% wore condoms (Eliminated equally from control and treatment groups) - 60% of the control group would have been eliminated along with 20% of treatment group.
So what is left... 80% of the non-condom-wearing, drug-getting, sex-having, HIV-infected couples vs 40% of the non-condom-wearing, placebo-getting, sex-having, HIV infected couples. If both groups transmit HIV at the same rate - what will be the ratio of HIV Transmissions witnessed among the control and treatment groups....
80:40= 8:4= 2:1= 2/1= 200% Shocker, my funny math produced a Senario in which twice as many people who used hormonal contraception transmitted HIV as those who did not use any contraception at all.
Charles Morrison - who is cited in this article also signed on to a study in July 20101 that said combined oral contraceptives did not increase HIV Transmission Rates and heightened rates of transmission were witnessed in women aged 18-24 that used depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) but not in older age groups.
So young, (18-24) sexually active, HIV-Positive women that receive a contraceptive shot and don't use condoms or get pregnant but DO have sex - are twice as likely to transmit HIV to their partners when compared to women in all other age groups (Excluding HIV positive women that get pregnant and/or use condoms, but Including women that don't have sex at all.) Yeah that sounds about right.
1.
Mattinnov-
I very much doubt that there were placebos used in this study. It was probably an observational study, done through interviews.
Useless.