Share No Insulin Pens

Every junkie knows it's unwise to share needles, but somebody needs to tell that to diabetics. Sharing insulin pens puts people at risk for infection with blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis viruses and HIV. And here's the kicker: Infection can occur even if an insulin pen's needle is changed.

Insulin pens are injector devices that contain a reservoir for insulin or an insulin cartridge. They're designed to enable patients to self-inject insulin and are intended for single-person use. But sharing is what some diabetics are doing. Not smart, folks. Check it:

In 2009, reports of improper insulin pen use in hospitals led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue an alert to health care workers (duh!) to remind them that pens are for single-patient use only. But despite the warning, there have been continuing reports of patients put at risk through inappropriate reuse and sharing of insulin pens, including an incident last year that required notification of more than 2,000 potentially exposed patients, said the Centers of Disease Control (CDC).

The CDC's recommendations:

• Insulin pens containing multiple doses of insulin are meant for use on a single patient only, and should never be used for more than one person, even when the needle is changed.
• Insulin pens should be clearly labeled with the patient's name or other identifying information to ensure that the correct insulin pen is used only on the correct patient.
• Hospitals and other facilities should review their policies and educate staff regarding safe use of insulin pens and similar devices.
• If re-use of an insulin pen occurs, exposed patients should receive immediate notification and be offered appropriate follow-up, including blood-borne pathogen testing.

The recommendations apply to any setting where insulin pens are used, including health care facilities, assisted living or residential care facilities, health fairs, shelters, detention centers, senior centers, schools and camps. Be safe, diabetics--share no insulin pens. Nuff said.

Genetically Engineered Pathogens Wisely Under Wraps

You've heard of genetically modified foods? How about genetically modified pathogens? H5N1 to be exact--bird flu, made in the lab. Anybody else get the heebee jeebees from that notion?

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a strongly worded statement today warning against the dangers of the U.S. government-funded pathogenetic engineering information getting into the wrong hands and exposing the world to a potential bioterrorism threat. WHO said it was "deeply concerned about the potential negative consequences" of the study.

"This is not the kind of research that you would want to have out there," WHO's top influenza expert, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

On the flip side, WHO concerned that all credible scientists should have access to the information. Huh? The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week asked scientists at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin-Madison to refrain from publishing full details of their work on how to make the H5N1 virus more easily transmissible between humans.

H5N1 rarely infects humans and usually only those who come into close contact with poultry. But among those infected, up to 60% die, and scientists are closely watching the virus for any signs it is becoming more easily transmissible from human to human.

The WHO and the scientific community are concerned about the steps the NIH has taken toward censorship. Many are concerned that this move will keep important information out of the hands of those who may need it, particularly in Asia where preventing a pandemic is of the utmost importance.

Dr. Fukuda reports that WHO has not yet received copies of either group's research, and he states wisely if not ironically, "I'm hoping that we are privy to as much of the details as possible, but like anybody else one of the questions for us is what kind of information do we need to know."

Exactly--conundrum 101. It's a dangerous venture designing pathogens in the lab, but the information gathered, I am certain, will be valuable if need arises to thwart a pandemic. However, there is always an inherent risk when you play with fire; we should know this in the post-Cold War nuclear era. So with plus comes minus, and our need for knowledge can create the very thing we fear--a bird flu pandemic, in this case, but caused by accident or through malicious intent.

If I told you, though, that we can't escape conflict, would it have meaning? Listen, I've got no problem with the scenario as it exists. The U.S. government funding research to understand H5N1 seems as reasonable as doing so for HIV. Naturally, because of the sensitive nature of the information, it must be classified. It would be a fantasy to think that while we have this powerful knowledge and technique called genetic engineering that we wouldn't use it. I've said time and again, genetic engineering is here to stay. What is important is using it wisely.

Somebody is going to try genetically engineering whatever can be imagined--may as well be under the system that's based in checks and balances (and before you start with the conspiracy stuff, please think of which nation or organization you'd rather have the information). In that regard, I think the U.S. government and NIH have done right by censoring this information. Can't get nuke building info easily--it shouldn't be any different for sensitive pathogenic information. Good job U.S.A.

Invasive Procedures Overseas Not Smart

It appears as if I must close out 2011 by warning people against getting invasive procedures overseas. Yesterday breast augmentation, today tattoos. Yes, tattoos are invasive--and if you're planning on getting one overseas because the price is right, reconsider. Australian officials claim that a recent tattoo receiver likely caught HIV from the ink-needle of an artist on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.

Australian health authorities recommended that people who had recently been tattooed on the island, known for its white sandy beaches, partying and nightlife, should consider being tested for HIV and other blood-borne viruses (and I'm personally even more afraid of hepatitis).

"All the evidence points to a tattoo received recently in Bali as being the source of the infection," Western Australia's Department of Health said in a statement dated Friday.

"This case demonstrates the very real health risk in having this type of procedure done overseas," said Paul Armstrong, the department's director of communicable disease control.

No shiitakes! Dang people, what's with the utmost trust in others that makes you think humans are above using dirty tools on you? That's just foolish. Forget the ignorance and differences in standards of many third world countries--but some people just don't care. One reason we take things as simple hygiene for granted in the western world is that we've gone through the pain of experience over the last century to understand the cleanliness/godliness thing. In other words, we've got to be clean by law, and any violation is met with punishment and shutdown. Can we say the same for Bali?

The real answer from me is, "I don't know"...but that's enough for me to keep my procedures home-grown. So if you don't know, these procedures would include:

• plastic surgery
• tattoos
• dental work
• other surgeries
• ear piercings
• other body piercings
• delivering babies
• and darn it...probably sex too (but that's just my peculiarity)

If you feel like the deal you're getting overseas just can't be beat, then, well...just know the risks. I'd pay top dollar, myself, to know I'm getting the best procedures done; but really, I do care and think about my health like that. Hope you do too.

Irresponsible Drug Use the Common Theme

I was asked to say a few words about drug use, but not in the positive. Well darn-it, how could I resist? I'm guessing the request comes on the heels of my most recent posts on medical marijuana, of which I make no secret that I am in favor. But I wish to be very clear that my views on medical marijuana are not a condonation of recreational or irresponsible drug use. On the contrary, it's precisely because I am so against the irresponsible and dangerous use of drugs that I advocate medical marijuana. When compared to the heavy-duty narcotics and other pain pills that are doled-out indiscriminately by doctors, believe me, medical marijuana is a blessing.

First and foremost, I am a former drug abuser, so I full well know what it means to be addicted. And I also know the down-side to heavy and/or long-term drug use. I have done it all, you name it, but alcohol and narcotics were my main weakness. I was also addicted to nicotine. For twenty years I smoked a pack a day.

My experience with drugs and alcohol were not all bad, though--I certainly learned a lot. If nothing else I came to understand how drugs can consume your life, how they can distort your view of the world, and how they could damage relationships. I got to experience how they could kill your motivation and prevent you from achieving your full potential. I was also exposed to a dangerous, seedy side of life that was full of mistrust, deceit, theft and violence, not to mention legal ramifications that could end a life of freedom by landing you behind bars for a long time. Yeah, lots of disadvantages to drugs; but for me it was a valuable education that will probably serve me, and hopefully others, for the rest of my life.

Despite medical marijuana being classified a schedule 1 controlled substance--high potential for abuse, lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision, and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States (not entirely true, but that's the definition)--it does have definite benefits. In my lifetime, I have seen it help HIV+ men keep from wasting away by giving them an appetite when they had none. I have seen it help cancer patients. One elderly couple, who are in their 90s, and whom I treat chiropractically, have shared their stories with me about the unrelenting pain they feel on a daily basis due to the cancer they each have; and how not even the Fentanyl* patches their doctors put them on would not bring relief. Only medical marijuana did that. That's right--these people, in their 90s, could only find relief from the intense pain they felt 24/7 by smoking a joint. They were not hippies; they had never had marijuana in their lives until they were sick with cancer. And it helped them. Duh!

Listen, drugs in and of themselves are not bad. They are helpful, even necessary, in many instances. I've needed the help of pain killers. An attack of acute appendicitis in 2006 showed me just how useful morphine could be (although not 100% effective, and highly addictive). Whether antibiotics, sedatives, pain meds or steroids, each have a short-term use; but too many doctors give them to people long-term, as an easy yet temporary fix, instead of looking for real, long-term and self-directed solutions.  And it's this that leads to serious problems.


Let me ask you a question. What do the following people have in common:

• Jimi Hendrix, John Belushi, Sid Vicious, River Phoenix and DJ AM?

They all overdosed on recreational drugs.

And how about these people:

• Elvis Presley, Keith Moon, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson?

They all overdosed on doctor prescribed drugs.

In both groups the common theme was an irresponsible use of the drugs. So regardless of whether a drug is illicit or legal, using it carelessly is foolish, and it can lead to illness or death.

That doesn't mean drugs are bad by any means. Worshiping and relying on drugs, however, is unwise. And that goes for medical marijuana too. But if a substance can help cancer patients, people with HIV and people that suffer from chronic pain, find relief, and maybe even help them survive (by increasing appetite), and that substance has low-risk side effects when compared to harder drugs like narcotics, then shouldn't we use them? Shouldn't we at least study them to see what medicinal benefits they might contain and do our best to understand them?

That's not me condoning drug use. I have lived both a life of drugs and a drug-free one--and I can say without a doubt that I prefer being straight, sharp and of clear mind. But I don't knock recreational drug use, either, if the user can do so responsibly. However, rehab centers and city morgues are filled with people who couldn't, and frankly, that could be you one day.  So if you value your life, it's better to stay clean.

That, however, is the farthest I will go with wagging a finger at society, because I know we can't both live in a culture where taking prescription drugs is considered 'normal', and expect others to not do so recreationally. That would be a fantasy.

*Fentanyl is a schedule 2 controlled substance--high potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in U.S., and currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence (not true of marijuana).  Medical cannabis (currently a schedule 1--see above) would be more appropriately placed in this category, and probably most appropriately as a schedule 3.

Flesh Eating Cocaine is Here!

Listen up, cokeheads--we know when you said you'd give your left ear for another bump you didn't mean it literally!  But junkies in New York and Los Angeles are doing just that: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reports that 82% of street cocaine is laced with the veterinary drug levamisole, which is used to deworm cattle, pigs, sheep...and now junkies.

Levamisole can can also rot the skin off noses, ears and cheeks, doctors says.  Multiple cases of rotted flesh have already been reported.  Eeeeww....

Dealers usually cut the coke with baking soda, but may have turned to the veterinary drug as a way to extend the coke high (studies in rats suggest the drug acts on the same brain receptors as cocaine).  More high, more sales.  But bad for the health: Reports of rotted flesh in the left and right coast's two biggest cities abound.  Anything for another line...here take my nose.  One doctor reported seeing a man whose entire body was black with dying flesh.

Some users seem to be immune, but others no such luck.  some doctors are comparing the flesh eating effects, and the suppression of white blood cell formation eerily similar to AIDS (Hmmm, seems like somebody has said drugs/AIDS in the same breath before). 

“It’s a little bit like having HIV,” said Dr. Noah Craft, a dermatologist with Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in an ABC article. “About 10 percent of those patients will die from severe infections. They may be walking around like a time bomb.”

Dr. Craft believes the problem must be nationwide and we just aren't seeing the full ramifications yet.

The good news: Once levamisole is cleared from the body, the wounds do heal, leaving behind a shiny scar.  Phew.  And on to another day. 

Just reminds me of one thing: Whether street powder or pharmaceutical crank (think Ritalin, Adderall), drug dealers don't give F&*# about their customers.  Freakin' weird.

Makin' It Safe

Are you a porn star?  Tired of fearing the STD hand-off from one of your peers?  Well fret no more--the industry has now got doctors to help clear you up and keep it private too.  So says an official from the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), an organization heading up a new medical network to service the porn industry.

The Adult Production Health and Safety Services has been created to replace the now defunct Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation that closed earlier this month.  Known as the AIM clinic, the San Fernando Valley health clinic was a preferred medical provider for many performers in the multibillion-dollar porn industry, providing a discreet environment for frequent HIV and STD tests.

The AIM clinic was forced to close permanently earlier this month following a series of controversies.  After porn actor Derrick Burts was diagnosed HIV-positive there in December, state and local officials said the clinic failed to cooperate with their investigation into other possible infections. Burts said that instead of getting information from the clinic on how to get follow-up care, he was told to avoid media, change his phone number and leave town.  The clinic was also accused of medical privacy violations after patient information appeared on a website in the run-up to its closure.

The FSC, unfortunately, are not in a position to set up an actual clinic to replace AIM, so they've done the next best thing--create a network of doctors to take care of adult film actors icognito.  Doesn't get much better than that.  Within a week, FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said, performers will be provided a list of labs and clinics where they can get testing and have their results fed into the industry database.

For those that don't know, the heterosexual porn industry attempts to keep close tabs on its actors, to prevent the spread of diseases like gonorrhea, chlamydia or HIV.  Recent HIV outbreaks in the straight porn industry have shocked those inside as well as the outside public--all the more reason to make sure an updated medical database and medical professionals are at hand to keep the industry safe.  The same safeguards are not in place in the gay porn industry.  It is believed that HIV outbreaks in the straight industry are started by infections incurred in crossover actors--that is, males working concurrently in both industries.  If you don't get it, don't ask--you never will.

The new database will tell users whether an actor is available to work or not, depending on whether they have any of the sexually transmitted infections the system tracks.  The system makes an exception for HIV-positive gay performers who still work in sex scenes while using condoms.  Further, the group is reaching out to medical providers with education to ensure sex performers aren't treated with insensitivity and hostility for their work.

Listen, you may not like the porn industry, but safety there is safety for us all.  Porn stars need good medical care like we all do--maybe even more than the average blow...ehem, Joe.  So this is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.  Safe sex should be the norm--in life and in fantasy.  Good job, Free Speech Coalition.

Homophobia Among Black Men May Increase HIV Numbers

With regard to HIV and race, blacks have the highest infection rates.  And black men may be playing a significant role as a result of homophobic beliefs.  This was the hypothesis recently studied to determine why blacks have disproportionately high HIV numbers.

The study conducted at the University of Washington in Seattle looked at social factors in men who have sex with men (MSM), not risky sexual behavior, as previous studies have shown this not to be a factor with blacks as compared to whites.  What the researchers found was a prevailing attitude of homophobia among black men in general, and even in black MSM.

Using data from a U.S. health survey, the researchers found that, in general, African-Americans were more likely than whites to report a negative attitude toward homosexuality.

In 2008, 72% of black adults said that homosexuality was "always wrong"--a rate that had changed little since the 1970s. Among whites, 52% expressed that view in 2008, which was down from 71% in 1973.

A similar pattern was seen among men who reported having sex with other men. Of these men, 57% of African Americans said they believed homosexuality was always wrong, versus 27% of whites.

When the researchers looked at the men's reported rates of HIV testing, they found that those who regarded homosexuality as wrong were less likely to have ever been tested: 36%, versus 73% of those with a more favorable view of homosexuality.

Hmmm....I see the dilemma here.  First, let me say this is an excellent study, as it seeks to understand a phenomenon not explainable by sexual behavior alone, and it is important to understand why.  Let's look at the numbers.

• 1 in 22 black Americans will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime--more than twice the risk for Hispanics and eight times that of whites
• in 2006 African-Americans accounted for nearly half (45%) of new infections in the 50 states and the District of Columbia
• African-Americans account for 24% of reported HIV cases among gay and bisexual men in the U.S.

Homophobic beliefs may be contributing.  It's important to point out here that the results of the recent study do not prove that homophobia is a factor in the racial disparity in HIV infection among gay and bisexual men in the U.S., according to the study's authors.  It only gives researchers information for further study, while advocacy groups now have a point a focus politically and within community services.

"These kinds of studies are important," said Francisco Roque, director of community health for Gay Men's Health Crisis, a New York-based non-profit that provides HIV/AIDS education and services.  According to Roque, such research-based data are helpful for gaining support for campaigns to address homophobia, as well as HIV/AIDS prevention.

How would homophobia contribute to the disproportionate numbers of HIV infection among black men?  Little known is that MSM among "straight" men (SMSM) in the black community is not uncommon (it happens in all racial and ethnic groups incidentally).  Because of the stigma of homosexuality in the African-American community, many infected SMSM are not getting tested, thus acting as an asymptomatic carrier.

With 36% of black MSM who look at homosexuality unfavorably not getting tested, HIV is likely being spread to both men and women in the black community with a big fat, "Huh?!?!"  Again, we can't use this study as proof, but it looks like a plausible explanation.

Immune Soldier Story

Here's a spectacular story of nature and technological potential all rolled into one fascinating physiological process--the incredible human immune system.  Researchers have found previously unknown antibodies that might prevent HIV from entering cells.  This immune system soldier could potentially be the key to discovering a long-awaited vaccine against the illusive virus.  The magnificence of the human body never fails to amaze me.

According to researchers, the newly found antibodies (three to be exact) neutralize more than 90 percent of a group of HIV-1 strains, involving all major genetic subtypes of the virus.  It does so by acting as a gumming agent tying up the lock that the HIV virus "picks" in order to enter a cell.

These antibodies only appear to exist in some people, and even in the fortunate carriers they fail to make enough to totally clear the virus.  Enter human technology: The idea scientists have is to coax the body, through a vaccine, to produce the virus-neutralizing antibody. 

Scientists admit that they are several years away from fully developing the vaccine but remain hopeful.  "The goal is to vaccinate individuals and have their own immune systems make an antibody like this," said Dr. John Mascola, a vaccine researcher and co-author of two new studies on the soldier antibodies. "To do that, we have to design a new vaccine, study it first in animal models and then try it in small scale human studies, and see if it does what we expect it to do. That takes a quite a bit of time and effort."

I have no doubt we will be hearing more about these antibodies in the future.  They exist and have now been uncovered; we are sure to learn much more about where they come from, how they operate, and whether they are truly unique to some, or if we all have the potential to develop them.  Pretty cool, huh?

Aging Doesn't Prevent Clap

Get this: Geriatric gentlemen popping Viagra are more likely to have VD.  Doh!  Yes, it's true--middle-aged and elderly men that take the erectile dysfunction (ED) med seem to be more likely to practice risky sexual behavior.  This the latest report in the recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the report, individuals most likely to fall into this group are men that have sex with men.  The data comes from a study conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Southern California, where researchers looked at a representative sample of privately insured older men.  The study was unable to determine if the men were primarily homosexual or bisexual.

Researchers examined health insurance claims records covering 1997 though 2006 from 44 large U.S. employers. The study group included about 34,000 male beneficiaries over 40 who used ED drugs, for whom the researchers collected data covering one year before and one year after the first prescription was filled, and nearly 1.37 million men over 40 who were non-users, for whom claims data was also collected.

They found that men using Viagra or other ED drugs were two to three times more likely than non-users to have sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).   The most frequently reported STD was HIV/AIDS, followed by chlamydia. The researchers did not know if ED drug use itself increased STD risk but they plan on investigating that in future studies.

The study's authors conclude that:

1. Drugs like Viagra are not only being prescribed to men with ED but also to those engaging in risky behavior.  This blog has reported for a long time the use of ED drugs to party.
2. Age is not an inherent protection against STDs.  On the contrary, it appears that men (and women) partying with older men might want to carry their own protection (or demand health records).
3. Doctors are doing a poor job of discussing STD risk with older gentlemen.
4. HIV was probably most reported because its symptoms are most likely to bring men into doctors' offices.
5. Men that do not use condoms 100% of the time or are not in a mutually monogamous relationship need routine STD screening with repeated follow-ups.

All I can say is that I think it's human nature to make assumptions, and most people probably don't think of their gray-haired neighbor as the typical clap carrier.  But making assumptions is foolish.  Now you know.  Carry your own rubbers, doggone it.

German Pop-Star Charged with Reckless Sex

Oh lord, Nadja Benaissa...you know her, right? Oh you don't? I never heard of her either, before today. But you'll here her name now, because she's in BIG trouble. The pop singer from the German all-girl band, No Angels, was charged with causing bodily harm for failing to inform sexual partners that she was HIV positive. Doh! No angel, indeed.

Ms. Benaissa, 27, had sex on five occasions between 2000 and 2004 with three people and did not tell them she was infected, even though she had known since 1999, according to the charge sheet.

"She was well aware that any unprotected sexual contact can lead to the virus being passed on," prosecutors in the German town of Darmstadt near Frankfurt said.

One of the three former partners has been confirmed as being infected with the HIV virus. Hmm...would knowing her status have changed things? Would the former partners have declined? I don't know, have you seen what see looks like? Man, that's dangerous.

Either way, if you are infected with HIV, herpes simplex, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, or any other sexually transmittable disease...own up to it. Don't mess with other peoples' lives like that. It's irresponsible and quite frankly, heinous, and one way or another it'll come back to you. For the smokin' hot Benaissa, well, you're gonna have to pay, babe.

Celebrity Hard Sell

Here we go again: Celebrities being used to sell pharmaceuticals to a trusting public. Ah, always trust a celebrity, that's this country's motto. Oprah, Ellen, Magic, Omarosa--the celeb matters not; famous name, the product must be good. Well this time a drug maker has gotten scolded. Bad drug maker, bad--now go to your room.

According to a recent report, Abbot Laboratories, makers of a new HIV drug have been using Laker's legend, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, in their promotional DVD for the drug, Kaletra. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent a warning letter to the pharmaceutical company ordering them to cease dissemination of what they label as "misleading information."

The FDA states that the DVD provides only anecdotal information (personal account) on Magic Johnson's personal experience with the drug, and offers no substantial evidence. They also go on to say that the DVD is misleading in that it presents Kaletra as "safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective."

Tsk, tsk, tsk...the folly of it all. Listen, drug companies know that the American public worships celebrity. So they know that attaching a big name to their product will increase sales substantially. Good job by the FDA for catching this bunkum. And damn Magic, stick to NBA analysis (awright, throw in a little Fatburger)--don't go selling your soul, man. If that drug doesn't turn out to be what Abbot Labs is claiming in their propaganda, or even worse, if it turns out bad, then you're in the doghouse. Why bother? I know in today's world, it must be the money (sung in my best Deion Sanders), but I'm certain that doing one's due diligence on a product one is to endorse is the wisest approach.

Anyway, the DVD has been pulled, and Abbot Labs has been ordered to come up with a "comprehensive plan of action to disseminate truthful, non-misleading, and complete corrective messages about the issues discussed in this letter to the audiences that received the violative promotional materials." And they've got only until July 28, 2009 to do it. I think they should get Larry Bird in on that one. What do you think?

Sex Trap

What's old is new again, especially in the world of sex. It seems that we just can't get enough of the good old days. Let's reminisce: Free love, orgies, John Holmes, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Joy of Sex, bath houses--man, that's hot. Oh wait, let's not forget our old friends gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia. No, no, no...we couldn't leave them out now, could we? Don't worry, here they come again.

According to the latest numbers from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), 2007 saw another rise in syphilis cases--the seventh year in a row--driven by homosexual and bisexual men. Chlamydia has reached an all time high, and gonorrhea is still way up. Blacks are disproportionately affected. Although the black population is only 12%, they make up 70% of gonorrhea cases and almost half of chlamydia and syphilis cases. Black women aged 15 to 19 have the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea, and gonorrhea rates for blacks overall were 19 times higher than for whites, the CDC reports.

Untreated chlamydia and gonorrhea can cause pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and ectopic pregnancy in women--unfortunate since both bacterial infections are preventable, and treatable if found early enough.

Syphilis infection is up 81% since 2000. Damn! Sixty five percent of all cases are among gay and bi men. as I reported in this blog back in 2007, many infections are the result of HIV+ men having unprotected sex with other HIV+ men. The idea behind the practice is, "Hey, you're +, I'm +...let's party." But gentlemen, have you forgotten?...the syph? Bad, bad stuff, man.

Here's the bottom line on all the above STDs--condoms are critical. It's that simple. Unless you're in a committed, monogamous relationship (married?), then you better wear the glove, period. Any practice other than that is plain stupid.

A Fad You Don't Want to Follow

Guess what's "in" for 2008. Give up?--a fresh bout of syphilis, that's what. Yup, you heard right. Ol' Treponema pallidum, that crazy spirochete of yesteryear, is back in fashion, especially in Europe. Whether in London, Amsterdam, Paris or Berlin, if you're looking for a good heapin' helpin' of this bad boy, just have some wild, unprotected sex. It's there for the taking, baby. Just make sure you've got lots of penicillin, cuz this is one infection you'll not want to ignore.

Syphilis comes in three flavors--primary, secondary, and tertiary. Whatever your speed, syphilis has got the complication for you. Unsightly and painless* chancre your thing? Then you'll want to try primary syphilis. Don't worry, you can have it on any location, even on your finger; very becoming, I might say.

Maybe you like to live on the edge. Maybe you'd prefer a full body rash, or white, flaky crust on your head. How about fever, sore throat, malaise, weight loss, headache, meningismus, and enlarged lymph nodes? Then you'll want to ignore that bout of primary syphilis, and go for the secondary version. Nice. You've got balls, man. But not for long...

If you just don't have the patience for the two more mild forms of the syph, then you've absolutely got to try tertiary syphilis. WooBoy! Ain't nothing like it! Gummas, chronic inflammation, neuropathies, aortic aneurysm, heart failure, blindness, dementia, memory loss, insanity, death--you get it all with this one.

Seems like people are tired of safe sex. I know, I know--boring! So they're doin' it without protection. It seems like the biggest adventurers are HIV+ men (but everyone's doing it--straight, gay, no matter--it's the thing). According to experts, HIV+ men are seeking each other out on the Internet specifically to have unprotected sex. They figure: Hey, I've got the virus, you've got the virus--let's party. I understand the concept. But what they might not count on is syphilis. Seriously, syphilis scares me a hell of a lot more than HIV does. But that's just me. I'm definitely boring.

Listen, if syphilis or gonorrhea or chlamydia ain't your thing, then don't stop using rubbers--it's simply foolish. I know that it may sound like fun at the time, but just ask anybody who's ever had any of these infections if the 2.5 minutes was worth it. I'll bet a million dollars they'll say, "Hell no!" C'mon, let's all chant together now: No glove, no love, no glove, no love, no glove, no love...

*thanks Anon.

AIDS Vaccine Enigma

AIDS researchers are baffled by the latest findings: The AIDS vaccine developed by pharmaceutical manufacturer, Merck Inc., has failed to prevent HIV infection in previously uninfected volunteers. To add to the mystery, those taking the vaccine actually had higher incidences of infection, leaving scientists and Merck officials scratching their heads in disbelief.

The study, a randomized double-blind trial, looked at two groups. The first was given a modified cold virus that was engineered to carry three synthetic HIV genes (genes native to the HIV virus but produced in the lab). The other group was given a placebo. Both groups received prevention counseling. All the volunteers in the study belonged to groups that were already high-risk for infection. The group receiving the vaccine were not only susceptible to infection, but they also contracted HIV at a rate of more than double the placebo group.

Huh? You mean, the group receiving the vaccine actually contracted HIV more than the non-vaccinated group? Quite the mystery, isn't it? Here's what makes this especially strange--it is not possible for the vaccine itself to have caused infection: It wasn't HIV! Whoa. What happened then? Well, nobody knows. But you better bet I've got a theory.

Here it goes: HIV is not the sole factor causing AIDS. Before I take credit for this idea, just know I didn't think of it. The first person I heard it from was a researcher at my alma mater, U.C. Berkeley Professor of Virology, Peter Duesberg. Let's just say this controversial theory--this little bit of logic thrown in the face of scientific and political dogma--really grabbed my attention back in the early nineties when I first heard it. And now, here might be another piece of evidence hinting at its possibility. I won't go into detail on his reasoning because it can get quite involved; and you can read it here on your own, anyway. Suffice it to say, however, that if you go against conventional wisdom, you will be ostracized and ridiculed by your peers, and also the public at large. Dr. Duesberg lost much of his funding in the form of research grants because of his controversial theory; and while I was still a student, he was forbidden from teaching--blacklisted if you will; censored; effin' scary.

And so here we are with new research that makes no sense within the context of how we currently understand HIV and AIDS. But don't expect the mainstream political and scientific machine to back off of their dogmatic position any time soon. When you have years and years, and billions and billions of dollars, invested in a paradigm, it's pretty hard to give it up and look elsewhere.

This can be summed up beautifully by Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which co-sponsored the trials. The results are "both disappointing and puzzling," he said. "Certainly, the failure of this HIV vaccine product was unexpected, but this setback should not and can not diminish our commitment to developing an effective HIV vaccine." Stay tuned, but don't expect me to win any research grants anytime soon, either.

Thoughts on Evolution

Scientist have reported that our human ancestors won a significant battle against an ancient retrovirus millions of years ago, one

that may have ultimately left us susceptible to HIV.

According to experts, human beings have a gene, called TRIM5a, which was successful in fighting the ancient PtERV1 retrovirus. This retrovirus infected chimpanzees, gorillas and old world monkeys about 4 million years ago but not humans. Scientists believe that the presence of the TRIM5a gene in humans neutralized the retrovirus and therefore prevented infection.

Monkeys were not so lucky. Without a copy of the virus fighting gene, apes' were susceptible to the retrovirus lodging itself into their genome, thus causing disease. In monkeys that did not die, the retrovirus mutated, and was passed on to offspring. These mutations led to future immunity to the HIV virus, something humans did not get.

Sounds right to me; from my understanding of evolution, this is one mechanism in which an organism can develop immunity. As I say in my upcoming book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, we actually need to be exposed to infectious agents - it's the only way for our immune system to evolve. The virus and other microorganisms we encounter today, may protect us from new diseases tomorrow. Microorganisms evolve just like we do, as does our immune system. Think of it in the same way you would a computer virus-scan program - gotta do the updates, otherwise you're susceptible.

So, in my opinion, it's futile to eradicate microorganisms. We need them to further our own evolution. What's more important is keeping the body healthy, so that we can effectively stave off infection, illness and disease on our own - just as chiropractors have been preaching for over a century. Do the right things - eat well, sleep well, get regular chiropractic adjustments - and appreciate those bugs for what they are: accomplices in the evolution of life on planet earth.