Potential seen in HIV/AIDS fight

In some of the best news since the world first became aware of HIV and AIDS, a glimmer of hope has arisen. While the most recent results of a study in Thailand are not fully understood yet, one thing is speculated - a vaccine might be possible.

More than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand were involved in a multi-year study using for the first time 2 seperate AIDS vaccines in combination. While results of each of the vaccines seperately were disappointing and ineffective, this recent combination has shown some positive effect.

Of the over 8,000 heterosexuals men and women aged 18 - 30 that were in the blind test group receiving the combo drug, 51 became infected. This compares to an equivalent group receiving a placebo in which 74 became infected. Sadly 2 of those infected have died.

But the difference is 31%. Considering how rampant HIV has been in Thailand, this new potential and use of comdoms and other measures of protection give the first signs of progress in the 26 year fight. There are still many questions facing researchers at this time though.

Does this combination of drugs work for other groups?

Why did it only help some of the volunteers?

Are there other combinations of previously ineffective drugs that might work even better?

While the world may never be free of HIV and AIDS, the fact that there is a chance to lower the odds against this killer disease is heart-warming. But no one should think this is a cause for a limited group of people.

HIV/AIDS is still infecting 7,500 people each day across the globe. In 2007 alone there were 2 million (2,000,000) deaths that were confirmed from the disease. The victims of this disease are men, women, heterosexuals, gays, IV drug users, children, and of every religion, race, ethnicity and nationality on the planet. Those at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS remain every human being on the planet.

While the U.S. media has stopped paying as close attention to this disease as they once did, it has not gone away. The cure still remains to be found though that day may be just that much closer. So please take precautions. Don't have unprotected sex, get tested on a regular basis - even if you are not in a high risk category, don't use IV drugs.

Vernon Palmer, Apostle Shada Mishe, whacko snake oil peddler

I hate it when a whacko uses my site to try to gain fame, fortune or both. Let me be clear.

I previously posted a story about the Levi's 501 jeans commercial that I felt promoted unprotected sex among youth, and thus promoted STD's and HIV/AIDS.

Today a wacko named Vernon Palmer, who now likes to go by the name Apostle Shada Mishe, placed a comment to that post boasting about his 'Cure for HIV/AIDS' (which has since been deleted). This cure was given to Vernon by God via the angel Gabriel in 2002. After an unknown amount of delay, Palmer eventually used this cure on an unnamed AIDS victim who then was 'cured' though he remained HIV positive. Palmer has gone on to make several Youtube videos and claims to have presented his 'cure' to dozens of agencies, doctors, institutions, and governments. Yet none are advocating his claim nor using it.

Did I forget to mention that this "God given cure" also cures HPV, Lupus and several other maladies?

In all the mumbo quasi-religious quasi-scientific jumbo that Palmer spouts, and posts on every blog he can find, he never mentions the name of anyone cured. He never mentions a single institution that was given this 'cure'. And across the internet there is not a single post or article from any source that validates a single word of the garbage Palmer is spouting. There are multiple items found that dispute every word though - Jamaican claims that he can cure AIDS with gift given to him by God, AMBUSH (CURE FOR AIDS!!!).

Why am I discussing this then? Because I do not want anyone to be fooled or conned by this madman. HIV/AIDS is a serious disease, and research into a cure should not be sidelined by fanatical crap that will only give false hope to victims.

Second I despise anyone that would seek to gain anything off of the backs of the sick, impaired, or uneducated. This is akin to Nazi's who profited by pulling the gold out of the mouths of concentration camp victims. Or collected insurance payments from Jews that were never paid out to the families. Or the other sick bastards on the net that promise cures for various ailments that only wind up sucking the money out of the banks of terminally ill patients.

Third, were this to have any credibility scientists and doctors across the world would be trying it just in case it did save lives. If this cured anyone, I cannot see how they might hesitate to get on every blog, news program, newspaper and so on across the world proclaiming the results.

Fourth, Vernon Palmer states himself that he delayed using this 'gift from God' given to him by an 'angel'. If he truely believed such a miracle happened, why would he offend God by ignoring it for even a moment? That's like God giving Moses the ten commandmnets and then leaving them on the mountain for a few weeks as he went on about his life.

Such frauds deserve to be hung by the genitals with piano wire. I have no pity or remorse for these charlatans.

M V Consulting, Inc does not believe in such frauds. We do not advocate any such lies and profiteering. We will vociferously denounce any such fool and show them for the cheap snake oil salesman they are.

AMBUSH, Vernon Palmer, Apostle Shada Mishe and whatever new name he or his product take on deserve to be thrown in a jail and forgotten. Don't be fooled and never give such a cretin a dime.

You have to hear it to know it

In Hollywood women that have a lilt to their voices and curves like an hourglass have always been popular. In reality the average guy likes, marries, and has children with a woman that is more realistic and sexy. But there is an aspect of a woman in reality that mirrors those of Hollywood. Their voice.

To actually be more specific, women tend to have a higher pitch to their voice just as they enter and peak with their ovulation. Thus when a woman is most fertile her voice will have its highest pitch. And research seems to indicate that this is also incredibly attractive to men.

Now I realize at this moment that some women, and men, are reading this and saying, I never heard a difference. In fact I’m sure that a few guys will be tested by their better half to see if they really pay attention. But there is a bit of help in this report for them as well. It seems that this is not a constant pitch in a woman’s voice. It’s only in short simple sentences.

“The closer the women get to ovulation, the greater the increase in their pitch," Bryant [psychologist at the University of California involved in the report] said. The recordings revealed that the increase in pitch only occurred when women spoke a meaningful, introductory sentence, such as, "Hi, I'm a student at UCLA", and not when they simply made the sounds of different vowels. According to Bryant, this suggests that the effect may only arise when women were using communicative language.

Two years ago, Haselton published another study into female fertility and the monthly cycle, which suggested that women "dressed to impress" when at their most fertile, favouring skirts over trousers and showing more skin.”

The reason for all this is the same as a woman’s heightened sexuality at this time. It’s an intuitive sign for men to know that she is fertile. Nature is better than makeup, and works better too. The higher pitch is believed to be an effective signal, likely occurring as small talk (and a bit of flirtation) is on-going. So if you are debating which is better, Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, it may not occur.

Still I have to wonder about this. I can think of a few women that hardly have high-pitched voices yet are quite sexy. Marilyn Monroe is one that comes to mind, but she may not be fair as she was Hollywood (back when women were not required to be the equivalent of twigs). But Debra Harry had a sexy voice as well, and she is definitely feminine and sexy. There are others too. Though I’m not sure if they are the exception or not. Then again I’m just thinking of Fran Drescher, can you imagine how high her voice gets?

Oh and here is another clue for the guys out there. It seems that a study in Australia showed that women sway their hips more at this same time too. So if you are in a committed relationship, and a man in the true sense of the word, you now know when to plan for Jr. If you aren't please remember that condoms will not only prevent an unwanted situation, but they prevent HIV and AIDS as well as othe STD's.

In My Name - Will.i.am, celebrites, dignitaries, and you around the world

I realize that over the last couple of weeks the main issue facing the nation has been the bailout of the financial markets, and the mortgage crisis that spurred it. But that is hardly the only thing that has been happening in the world, or this nation.

While the major news media has been forecasting bail out deal after bailout deal, which keeps getting denied by various Senators and Representatives, and predicting what might or might not happen if the deal does or does not get done they have forgotten to cover celebrities, entertainers, and dignitaries that are reminding the world of the promises made to end poverty and combat disease.

In 2000 world leaders came together in the United Nations to create the Millennium Development Goals. The promise was to end poverty in the world, reduce those afflicted by pr the potential of diseases like Malaria and AIDS, increase access to healthcare, and improve the opportunity and quality of education by 2015. We are now halfway to that date, and far too many nations have forgotten about the promise they made. But concerned people have not.

Will.i.am has been in the forefront of multiple celebrities, entertainers, and world dignitaries and Youtube in generating attention to the promise made by our leaders. For 2 days he and Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Scarlett Johansson, Annie Lennox, John Legend, Wyclef Jean, Fergie, Angelique Kidjo, Kristin Davis, Elle Macpherson and many others, not to mention organizations including GCAP, Oxfam International, Save the Children and Comic Relief, have joined together to create the new channel on Youtube called “in my name”.

On this channel you the public and citizenry of the world have the opportunity to introduce yourself, your nation, and your message to the leaders of the world and your country to live up to the promises they made in 2000. Youtube will be accepting your videos, or video pettion if you prefer, until November 1st. At that point Will.i.am will be taking the best videos and mashing-up to form a single video set to the new song In My Name (dedicated to this cause) that will be presented to the entire United Nations.

We can only hope that world leaders will be moved by this expression of international care and attention. We must demand that moved or not, world leaders act as they have promised us they will. I am reminded of a line from a great movie you may have seen (and if you didn’t go see it) called V for Vendetta

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

The fear in this case is that we, the people have not forgotten what was promised on our behalf, nor those that are in need. That we hold the true power our Governments use, and determine how that power should be used.

The major media may not care that so many across the world remember the promises made, but I like many others do. And I believe that me must be held to our words. Because the world is not a varying number of individual countries but in the end just a collection of people, and none deserve to live in poverty or with sickness or in hunger.

Grey's Anatomy helps enrich HIV awareness

Score one for broadcast television. With the advent of cable television, and now with the potential for the public to view 500 channels, broadcast TV has lost most of its power to influence. Once there was a time when a hit show could capture 30 or 40% of the population, today they are lucky to grab 5%.

Because of that loss of viewership broadcast television has essentially given up on presenting important issues. The focus has increasingly become mindless fodder that kills as many brain cells as it entertains. The original intention of television to help inform the public has gone the way of vacuum tubes and Black and White sets.

Yet occasionally there are issues important enough that the Hollywood executives break from their constant pursuit of eyeballs. For Grey’s Anatomy the issue at hand was HIV.

Now I bet that most of my readers are aware that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another via fluid exchanges. That means saliva, blood, mucus and so on. Obviously that also means that a mother with HIV can transmit the disease to her unborn child. But did you know that if given proper treatment the baby could have a 98% chance of NOT getting HIV.

Yes, it is true and not a television plot device.

The episode was written with the help of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The goal was to inform the public and to see if that information was absorbed by the public.

“One week before the show, 15% of the viewers surveyed said that they were aware of the mother-to-child HIV transmission risk. One week after the show, 61% of viewers of the episode were aware of the risk. Six weeks after the show, 45% of viewers remembered the information correctly (Childs, ABC News, 9/17)”

Now I am sure that my readers are far beyond the mere 15% that realized HIV could be transferred from mother to child. But I’m not as sure how many knew that proper treatment could lower the risk of the child, nor how low that risk could be made to be.

Still it’s amazing that so many failed to realize the positive power of television. In all the formats, cable or broadcast, this is one medium that can reach people of all ages, across the world, 24 hours a day. When television was first created the intention was to inform and entertain.

With those 25 and under the most at risk, with the continuing growth of HIV and AIDS, with no cure any closer than the first day the disease was learned of information is vital. We need to disseminate the truth about this disease, the transmission the risk factors the treatment.

I commend the Kaiser Foundation and Grey’s Anatomy for taking this risk. I commend the Hollywood executives that for a moment forgot that viewers are the only goal. I commend the actors for taking a moment to promote a good for the public over their career.

Television should not be the same as going to a college lecture. But it can be a tool that can enrich lives, maybe even save them. As long as threats such as HIV and AIDS exists we need to use our best tool to keep us informed and remembering how to live long healthy lives.

Can television commercials promote HIV and AIDS?

Mrs. H,

Thank you for commenting. My response is not only to your comments but for those reading this post for the first time.

Now it’s not me saying this Levi’s 501 jeans commercial is about sex. I didn’t make it. But to watch this and to say they think that sex will sell their jeans seems obvious to me. The question of morality should be asked of Levi’s.

Now you asked how I connect this to HIV and AIDS. Well I view it like this. Teenagers and 20-something’s experience huge hormonal changes. Their sex drives are massively amped up compared to most any other age group, as is their belief that they are invulnerable to any harm. As such they don’t always think in the most logical or complete manner once sex is on the horizon. That leads to risky acts and spontaneous action.

That is not to say every young adult is like this. But honestly most are.

This is why far too many young adults don’t carry or use condoms. Add to that the general cultural fear and/or embarrassment about asking questions relating to sex and you have an environment that is ripe for transmitting STD’s. The worst of those STD’s is HIV and AIDS.

If unprotected sex can cause pregnancy, transfer Chlamydia or Herpes, then it can absolutely spread HIV and/or AIDS. Unprotected sex often is connected to high risk sexual activity, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex acts. The failure to even hint at a question of the sexual heal status of a potential partner due to fear, embarrassment, and/or fear of thus being rejected increases the chance of unprotected sex.

This commercial emphasizes spontaneous sex. It never asks any question of sexual health status. The very environment of the act demands the high risk nature of the sex. So in consequence it directly promotes the chances of getting an STD which means the chance of HIV and/or AIDS is MASSIVELY more likely.

Mrs. H, I see it like this. If we, via the media, promote spontaneous, high risk sex we promote the chance of getting and spreading HIV and AIDS. If we maintain a cultural fear and taboo about speaking to a potential sex partner about their sexual health status, we promote HIV and AIDS.

Unprotected sex is high risk sex and promoting HIV and AIDS. Ignorance of a sex partner’s sexual health is promoting HIV and AIDS. And both of these are the reason that most of those with HIV and/or AIDS currently in the United States are 25 or younger.

Assuming that unprotected random sex acts with a person that looks healthy, is of the opposite sex, or part of a race that is of lower HIV risk does not make anyone immune or safe from contracting HIV and/or AIDS. It is virtually inviting the contracting and spreading of the disease. And the 501 jeans ad does just that.

Some might think that I am overreacting. Perhaps I am. But what if your kid gets HIV and/or AIDS? What if it is you? IS not asking a simple question, having documentation, and being protected worth less than your life?

Because unprotected sex is like playing Russian Roulette with the odds, and you will be shot – if not the first time, then eventually. No one can beat the odds forever. Even if a jeans commercial would like to make it seem like you can.

Levi's 501 jeans - promoting HIV and AIDS?

Have you seen this television commercial?



It’s goal is to sell the Levi’s 501 jeans. Given. And it’s using sex as the medium to make the jeans sell. Normal.

But should it be aired?

I’m not talking about violating the Freedom of Speech. I support and understand their right to make the commercial. They did noting wrong in that arena. And I would argue if they were prevented from being allowed to air it, because of that right.

Perhaps the question I need to be asking is should they have made it in the first place.

The ad is based on the thought of ambiguous anonymous sex, and more than hints at unprotected sex at that. The kind of sex that promotes and spreads Sexually Transmitted Diseases – especially AIDS and HIV. And it’s targeting this thought on teenagers and 20-somethings.

The thought behind the ad is simple. If you wear these jeans, you will spontaneously be picked to have sex in the most unusual, and therefore potentially unprepared, places you can imagine. Wearing these jeans will get you to not wear them because of the multitude of random sexual encounters you will engage in.

If that sounds irresponsible it is. If it sounds like I got the message wrong, please look at the commercial again and tell me what else it might mean.

At no moment do we see the 2 in this video pause to ask if there is protection available. Or if they have been tested for HIV. Or any STD. Or even a hint of a condom on a pocket, wallet, or anywhere. They may not want to market another product (though co-branding couldn’t hurt either company) but just having the image can’t hurt them.

But why is there no mention of any responsible action or question?

Because it’s too sexual. Because that would be explicit. Because some mother or preacher out there would freak out that their child heard or saw something relating to sex.

Yes, an outline of a condom in the jean pants pocket is too sexual. But stripping each other and the glimpse of a woman’s bra and panties plus the jeans on the floor is NOT sexual.

People please. What the hell.

If we as a society are going to promote random, wanton sex especially among the youth of the nation, the least we can do is hint at the fact that some thought to protection from STD’s and HIV/AIDS has happened.

This commercial takes place in New York City - Manhattan specifically. There are at least some 14,400 known cases of HIV in New York City alone – 4,800 of them were new infections as of 2006. There is no way to accurately gauge the number of unreported cases. People that have not gotten tested to find out.

According to 2006 statistics Syphilis is up 60% not to mention other STD’s. That was 2 years ago.

So yes the commercial has the right to be made and shown. But it’s not responsible, and potentially it’s a deadly message that could affect you and/or your kids.

Be smart, be protected. Get tested. It’s your life after all.

Ludacris is not Senator Obama - understand Sean Hannity?

Name one thing that is potentially deadly to the political ambition of Senator Barack Obama and involves the youth of America.

Ludacris.

Or at least that is what the news media would love you to believe. And when I say news media I mean at least Sean Hannity, that I am aware of right now. But I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few that will try to use rapper Ludacris as a weapon against Senator Obama.

The problem is that Ludacris has released a video where he is lauding Senator Obama, and disparages Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bush – in a manner only rappers would believe to be decent.

Here is the video – WARNING – some individuals and parents may find this objectionable. (note there are several versions of this video on Youtube, I have selected the least visually insulting version)



I agree with most of the news media that Ludacris is a poor representative of Senator Obama. His use of foul language, the N-word, and implications of women as valueless sacks of meat meant for the base enjoyment of men are all things I denounce and disagree with. Were that the only implication in the news media I would have no problem with their assault.

But that is not the case. The words and images of Ludacris are being used to intimidate White Americans. As displayed on Hannity & Colmes the lyrics are matched with images that are obviously meant to imply ‘watch out for the crazy violent Black men’. That I do not agree with.

When Senator Obama first met with Ludacris in 2006 it was at YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness. If preventing AIDS is not a positive, what is? What is violent or crazy about keeping our kids alive and healthy? Nothing, and it’s why the national news media had little to say about their conversation.

After Senator Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, months later, a Youtube video came out called Obama Girl. While it was whimsical I heard no comments about how negative this expression of pro-Obama support was beyond its less than serious nature. The media was not rooting out the backgrounds of the performers looking to show how dangerous Obama was at the time. Of course at that time in 2007 Senator Clinton was still expected to garner the nomination.

When Will.I.Am made his popular and catchy music video demonstrating his support of Senator Obama no one raised an eyebrow. Yet Will.I.Am is a member of a music group that has used lyrics that while not as explicit as those used by rappers, is no less suggestive. Of course Senator Obama was still expected to lose to one of the White candidates at the time.

But now that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and another Black musician has voiced his support – well things are different.

But how?

This is just another entertainer that supports Obama. This is just another expression of that support. And it has nothing to do with Senator Obama or his policies. This does not reflect on Obama’s intention to get out of Iraq, or reduce energy prices, or implement a national healthcare system. It’s just a guy saying he likes Obama more than McCain in a bad way.

Yet according to pundits I have seen and read this is Obama’s problem. As if he was singing the song himself. And others have stated how this song does not reflect the social morality and family values of middle America.

But Obama isn’t singing the song. Ludacris has nothing to do with his campaign. And the most recent data states that more than 55% of all rap music sales are because of White youth throughout America. So obviously it must match up with hordes of family values throughout the nation’s White families.

The point is that I can understand debating the policy issues of Senator Obama. I can respect supporters and detractors that have substantive reasons. But to play on stereotypical fears of racial ignorance is insulting and unwarranted.

Yes Ludacris went way too far. Yes he should apologize for the attacks he made. It’s true the Obama campaign denounced the video. But what does any of this have to do with Senator Obama besides the fact that both men are Black?

Sean Hannity was wrong for the manner in which he presented this news item. He was wrong to imply the racial component as he did in his program on July 30th. He too should apologize for the over the top suggestive presentation that he provided. He is no less wrong than Ludacris. And the news media needs to stop trying to create Rev. Wright fiascos for their ratings and newspaper sales, just because a Black entertainer – or just a person in general – supports Senator Obama.