Comments on: Master Class: HIV Transmission http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/ Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:41:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: peripheries http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/comment-page-1/#comment-459 peripheries Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:32:10 +0000 http://www.peripheries.org/?p=1347#comment-459 It is not that I would disagree with you, but a lot of good science is currently based on correlation and association, or the use of surrogate markers. Look at all the <a href="http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas" rel="nofollow">Genome Wide Association Studies</a> looking for genes involved in metabolic diseases such as obesity, or mental disorder or even HIV. It's not the study that is good or bad but what one does with the results. And even when there is causation, it is not always universal, it depends on the model and for example, a lot of study done with mice are not valid in human. And as for the use of surrogate indicators, just look at the use of GDP to measure development. Back to your initial point, you will remember the <a href="http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/CB3AEAB0-8910-4B75-A6B1-3AEBB1413D2A.asp" rel="nofollow">Swiss statement </a>about non-infectiousness of PLWHA under treatment and the following debate it triggers. As you said "the risk is negligible" but that's a subjective judgement. It is very complex and I am sure you know and understand that. I think we both made our point and will have to disagree on how we perceive risk. It is not that I would disagree with you, but a lot of good science is currently based on correlation and association, or the use of surrogate markers. Look at all the Genome Wide Association Studies looking for genes involved in metabolic diseases such as obesity, or mental disorder or even HIV. It's not the study that is good or bad but what one does with the results. And even when there is causation, it is not always universal, it depends on the model and for example, a lot of study done with mice are not valid in human. And as for the use of surrogate indicators, just look at the use of GDP to measure development.
Back to your initial point, you will remember the Swiss statement about non-infectiousness of PLWHA under treatment and the following debate it triggers. As you said "the risk is negligible" but that's a subjective judgement.
It is very complex and I am sure you know and understand that.

I think we both made our point and will have to disagree on how we perceive risk.

]]> By: [him] moderator http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/comment-page-1/#comment-458 [him] moderator Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:53:36 +0000 http://www.peripheries.org/?p=1347#comment-458 Good science deals with causation and not correlation. Hepatitis C is a poor surrogate for HIV acquisition and transmission risk as it is much more easily transmissible through nonsterile injecting equipment and hardly transmissible at all through unprotected sex. No risk is ever zero, but the risk of HIV transmission through tattooing is negligible. It is time for informed choice AND time to put this myth to rest. Thanks for the discussion. [him] moderator <a href="http://him.civiblog.org" target="_blank">http://him.civiblog.org</a> Good science deals with causation and not correlation. Hepatitis C is a poor surrogate for HIV acquisition and transmission risk as it is much more easily transmissible through nonsterile injecting equipment and hardly transmissible at all through unprotected sex.

No risk is ever zero, but the risk of HIV transmission through tattooing is negligible. It is time for informed choice AND time to put this myth to rest. Thanks for the discussion.

[him] moderator
http://him.civiblog.org

]]> By: peripheries http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/comment-page-1/#comment-457 peripheries Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:40:46 +0000 http://www.peripheries.org/?p=1347#comment-457 I fixed the link, you can also visit the <a href="http://www.avert.org" rel="nofollow"> Avert website</a>. The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa27.htm" rel="nofollow">CDC </a>which you quote also recommend following standard procedures. You are right that so far it is only an asssociation, not a correlation, but this is oftne the case in science. Hepatitis C has been showed to be transmitted through this way. I have myself a few tattoos and I can assure you that I would not get one if I was not sure that the equipment is squeaky clean! The risk is not zero. Again, it is up to people to decide, as said, there is no scale of risk associated to each of these factors because there is no fixed risk. It is a question of informed choice. I fixed the link, you can also visit the Avert website. The CDC which you quote also recommend following standard procedures. You are right that so far it is only an asssociation, not a correlation, but this is oftne the case in science. Hepatitis C has been showed to be transmitted through this way. I have myself a few tattoos and I can assure you that I would not get one if I was not sure that the equipment is squeaky clean! The risk is not zero. Again, it is up to people to decide, as said, there is no scale of risk associated to each of these factors because there is no fixed risk. It is a question of informed choice.

]]> By: peripheries http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/comment-page-1/#comment-455 peripheries Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:39:24 +0000 http://www.peripheries.org/?p=1347#comment-455 Anything that potentially allows another person's blood to get into your bloodstream carries a risk. If instruments contaminated with blood are not sterilised between clients then there is a risk of HIV transmission. This is particularly relevant in setting where the practionner is not a professional and conditions of work are far to be clean, such as amongst detainees (see <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547624?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum%5C%22" rel="nofollow">PMID: 11547624</a>). Group circumcision performed during coming of age ritual would fall into the same category. Anything that potentially allows another person's blood to get into your bloodstream carries a risk. If instruments contaminated with blood are not sterilised between clients then there is a risk of HIV transmission. This is particularly relevant in setting where the practionner is not a professional and conditions of work are far to be clean, such as amongst detainees (see PMID: 11547624). Group circumcision performed during coming of age ritual would fall into the same category.

]]> By: [him] Moderator http://www.peripheries.org/2009/07/02/master-class-hiv-transmission/comment-page-1/#comment-456 [him] Moderator Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:34:54 +0000 http://www.peripheries.org/?p=1347#comment-456 Although the link is broken it probably points to one study that shows and association between being in jail, getting a tattoo, and HIV seropositivity. Association is not causation. Over thirty million people have been infected through unprotected sex, use of nonsterile injecting equipment, and being born to seropositive mothers. Is there a single case report of one person being infected through receiving a tattoo? No. It is time to put this myth to rest. [him] moderator <a href="http://him.civiblog.org" target="_blank">http://him.civiblog.org</a> Although the link is broken it probably points to one study that shows and association between being in jail, getting a tattoo, and HIV seropositivity. Association is not causation. Over thirty million people have been infected through unprotected sex, use of nonsterile injecting equipment, and being born to seropositive mothers. Is there a single case report of one person being infected through receiving a tattoo? No. It is time to put this myth to rest.

[him] moderator
http://him.civiblog.org

]]>