Gonorrhea Is Becoming Untreatable, U.N. Health Officials Warn
npr.org
npr.org
Yes, humans failing to finish their run for the time prescribed for them, and use of antibiotics for viral infections have been a problem too. But those are completely dwarfed by farm use.
Funding for new antibiotic research should come from taxes on big agribusiness and there should be more regulation on antibiotic use for livestock.
antibiotic resistance livestock
http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-..., and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17600481 on the first page.
Edit: In the off-chance this is about the media conspiracy theory thing...
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/feeding-antibiotic...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46016296/ns/technology_and_science...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/11/16/kids-drug-resistant...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/07/11/infection-experts-w...
Yeah, it may be a lie but not much else.
[0] http://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/antimicrobials/news...
Eating the livestock (or drinking the milk) transfers antibiotics to our bodies, and then we become the environment in which bacteria are selected for resistance to antibiotics.
Antibiotic resistance is generally spread via plasmid-mediated resistance. Overuse of antibiotics in any capacity, regardless of ingestion into humans, causes some bacteria to evolve resistance. Bacteria are promiscuous with their DNA, and resistance by one organism on one context (e.g. livestock) can easily get transmitted to a completely different organism in a completely context (e.g. humans).
Having said all of that, there are many potential antibiotics out there that haven't been fully researched (almost all currently prescribed antibiotics are beta lactam variants, which is only one small class), and this "cannot be treated" stuff is mostly just bad journalism.
For example if someone were infected with both antibiotic-resistant gut bacteria (acquired from eating contaminated meat) and gonorrhea, it's possible the latter could acquire antibiotic resistance genes from the former.
I know for example my brother takes a low dose of antibiotics everyday to treat acne. Lots of people do. That can't possibly be good for preventing resistance.
Also the germs animals have are different than those in humans. Do cattle spread gohnerrea? And the antibiotics they use are different than those used in human medicine as well. The biggest problem is it is becoming resistant even to the last line antibiotics we have, and that can't be from agriculture.
See the 'common myths' section.
Then there's the severe type that always recur every month. Less than 1% of the population has this and the standard advice never works for these people. For some, changing diet works. For some it doesn't but thats the type of acne that's possibly linked to diet.
So saying there's no link is really misleading. There's no universal law that says red meat causes acne for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause acne for you
Also it's generally not useful to provide links like this. I can create hundreds of "sources" for you which say its myth. I can also do the opposite. If you want to link something please link a full blown study with hundreds or thousands of participants over at least half a year. Then we can talk.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.12180/full
That paper discusses a link between dairy, insulin levels, and acne.
From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.13462/full
https://www.aad.org/media/news-releases/growing-evidence-sug...
Yes, the cause of acne can be different from person to person, but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant. From my experience, many Dermatologists still deny the connection for whatever reason, but I have come across many instances (including my own) where cutting back on processed sugars and dairy has drastically impacted the levels of acne someone has.
My sister-in-law is sitting across from me and is currently dealing with the acne directly related to the amount of sugary drinks she has started consuming since moving (Thai Iced Teas are addicting)
People who say they don't eat sugar make no sense, it's meaningless. My mother in law "doesn't eat sugar" but I see her eat stuff with sugar in it all the time. Fruit, most vegetables, and milk all have sugar in them.
If you look at the article you linked the most substantial source is a study of 23 Australian men, which showed interesting, but not conclusive results. So at best the jury is out.
Note that these were low GI diets, so we are not just talking about sugar, but simple starches found in potatoes, white bread, rice etc.
> but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant.
Intuitively, of course this feels right. In practice, I'll wait to see the actual studies, rather than the anecdotage.
And I'm not comfortable calling the majority of dermatologists, the NHS etc "willfully ignorant "
The fact that your sister in law has moved has undoubtedly introduced a variety of life-style and dietary changes. That you've picked sugary drinks as the most important factor isn't really compelling evidence.
Right now the only way to find out is to try yourself, it is free after all, and you can't deny that in any case (whether it works for acne our not) reduction of sugar intake is good for your body.
It took 50 years before it we noticed that there might be a relation with smoking causing a lung cancer and 80 years (1980) before we were sure about it[1][2].
Acne though is far less serious issue, and not many people would be interested finding cause for it, especially since it would kill business for companies selling solutions that treat the symptoms (which do help, but you need to use them regularly)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_conc...
I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be harmful to reduce sugar intake (although, I'm sure there may be cases where it is, or perhaps it's just easier said than done). I think it's more that there's apparently no proven link between sugar intake and acne and, given all the possible things that someone try in order do to reduce their acne, it might not make sense to choose one that has no evidence supporting it. Or at least, exhaust the other possibilities first.
Also, in the parent to my comment you say "scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results". But, they can, and do. It's called a controlled clinical trial. I've participated in one that went on for a week (was well paid for it) where we were kept in a room, fed a designed diet, and restricted in our activities. There were test subjects in the building who were in for much longer than my trial. So I don't think the idea that it's impossible to (dis)prove these things is accurate.
"A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial"
Cohort size 43 persons.
My summary: At 12 wk, mean total lesion counts had decreased more in the low-glycemic-load group ( 23.5 +/- 3.9) than in the control group ( 12.0 +/- 3.5).
Are small agribusiness(es?) exempt? Why should they?
Small agribusinesses are hardly getting by.
This of course depends on local regulation and legislation. But at least over here (northern EU), the bureaucracy is heavy and requirements quite strong.
Large-scale farming units have internal processes and they have more resources; there are many people doing the work with more thorough official oversight. Small-scale animal care, i.e. family or single-person farms, may be dependent on one person only. When illness - particularly mental illness - or old age kicks in, the animals may be neglected or mistreated in abhorrent ways.
On the other hand, small-scale agribusiness is also where the best animal care can be seen, there is actually an emotional bond between the carer and the animals.
Bad care is eventually caught because when you can't treat your animals well, you won't do your paperwork either. However, it is a strain on small farms as there is a fixed overhead in paperwork that is not much dependent on farm size, so there's a lot more to do per animal on small farms and thus there is more work/cost.
But I would caution against taking rumor and gossip as strong supporting evidence.
Some of the biggest challenges in antibiotics are economics not technical e.g., http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/news-newsletter-vol-3... The only recent company built on antibiotics (Cubist) was purchased for a revenue stream and its R&D was disassembled by Pharma in the last year or so. You can bet that a good amount of organization knowledge has been lost. There are some start ups out there, but as far as I understand, there is little will to provide of equity or strategic funding for early development programs/companies. With the timelines in this industry, that doesn't bode well for 'breakthroughs' in the near future. With the recent idiocy and avarice of some of the "actors" in the industry (e.g., pharma bro, epi-pen). I am bracing for a backlash on pricing, even on needed products) which would further decrease the economic will for companies/funds to invest in early stage programs. Some comments here tout that the the wonders of science will solve this given time. Maybe so, but it's also possible that the burden of economics (and lowest-common denominator politics) could quench the wonders of science for the near term.
Basically as we get to understand exactly how cells work and how bacteria do what they do, and how they change. We won't need to scrounge around in the dirt to find something, hopefully, that will kill bacteria. We'll engineer what ever we need to kill what ever cells we want to kill.
And it might -- long term.
Only, as things are now, between an antibiotic stopping working and finding a replacement, there could be tens of millions of deaths...
Aside from wishful thinking there's nothing that guarantees that we'll find the next cure as soon as an old one becomes obsolete.
If you are genuinely worried, you can look up such info.
And given that you can use sugar to help heal wounds http://www.drwhitaker.com/sugar-on-wounds-for-healing/ what if you inject a sugar syrup into the bladder every time after you pee. Might work. Research is needed.
Stuff I have read indicates that antibiotic resisatant infections basically terraform the body, like an alligator making swamps in the American South. One of the things they typically do is making the body more acid. So, if you can reverse the acidity, the biofilm starts breaking up and the infection becomes treatable again.
Alligators don't make swamps - they live in swamps. They do dig "alligator holes" but that is hardly swamp-making.
Perhaps you're thinking of beavers, who _do_ very significantly modify waterways and lakes by building dams and nests?
https://bioventures.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/keystone-specie...
From what I have read, swamps tend to fill in over time and turn into solid land -- unless there are alligators.
Swamps abound in lands with no alligators whatsoever. In places where there are alligators, they can serve as an indicator species or keystone species for ecological studies. Certainly they alter their environment and create niches for other species, but they aren't necessary for swamps and they don't create swamps. Removing all the alligators from a swamp would not get rid of the swamp. Putting a bunch of alligators into an area will not result in a swamp being created in that area.
Yes, that is what I meant. They alter their environment.
I didn't intend to suggest that if you stick alligators in a non-swampy area, they create swamps by their very presence.
Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time. Here are a few things my son looked up for me just this morning because we were discussing the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator
In 'Habitat' we have:
"When [Alligators] construct alligator holes in the wetlands, they increase plant diversity and provide habitat for other animals during droughts."
"Further west, in Louisiana, heavy grazing by coypu and muskrat are causing severe damage to coastal wetlands. Large alligators feed extensively on coypu, and provide a vital ecological service by reducing coypu numbers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_alligator
At the very top of the page we have
"They play an important role as ecosystem engineers in wetland ecosystems through the creation of alligator holes, which provide both wet and dry habitats for other organisms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer
Down in "ecology and behavior" for American Alligator, we have
"Alligators modify wetland habitats, most dramatically in flat areas such as the Everglades, by constructing small ponds known as alligator holes. This behavior has qualified the American alligator to be considered a keystone species. Alligator holes retain water during the dry season and provide a refuge for aquatic organisms. Aquatic organisms that survive the dry season by seeking refuge in alligator holes are a source of future populations. The construction of nests along the periphery of alligator holes, as well as a buildup of soils during the excavation process, provide drier areas for other reptiles to nest and a place for plants that are intolerant of inundation to colonize. Alligator holes are an oasis during the Everglades dry season, so are consequently important foraging sites for other organisms. In the limestone depressions of cypress swamps, alligator holes tend to be large and deep, while those in marl prairies and rocky glades are usually small and shallow, and those in peat depressions of ridge and slough wetlands are more variable."
and
"Alligators also may control the long-term vegetation dynamics in wetlands by reducing the population of small mammals, particularly coypu, which may otherwise overgraze marsh vegetation. In this way, the vital ecological service they provide may be important in reducing rates of coastal wetland losses in Louisiana. They may provide a protection service for water birds nesting on islands in freshwater wetlands. Alligators prevent predatory mammals from reaching island-based rookeries and in return eat spilled food and birds that fall from their nests."
So basically, alligators dig holes, and this does a bunch of important things, and also they eat one of the main animals that would otherwise destroy wetlands.
Well, that's not what you originally said. Furthermore you're misinterpreting what you quote above too.
FWIW in the U.S. the word "coypu" is rarely used, we use the word "nutria" instead.
First of all, to say
Mz: "...like an alligator making swamps in the American South..."
is like saying that cows make cow pastures, or prairie dogs make grasslands, or oysters make the seabeds that they lie in - it is essentially incorrect.
I lived decades in the American South and have seen my share of alligators. I even raised one awhile and she did not terraform the backyard in any manner whatsoever. Mostly she crapped, irritated the dog, hissed and stood her ground until fed. To read someone speaking of alligators "making swamps in the American South" still has me laughing.
Mz: "Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time."
No. The swamp would be there with or w/o alligators. For example, Disney is removing alligators from their Disneyland parks. The swampy areas won't dry up as a result.
Swamps are consequences of geography and climate, not of alligators. There are plenty of swamps w/o alligators and alligators w/o swamps (e.g., lakes, rivers, etc.).
Humans are probably the main predators of nutria. Humans introduced nutria to the U.S. for their fur, in some instances, and to control various wild grasses, in others. Were the alligators were all gone, I have no doubt that other predators would easily pick up the slack.
Even if the nutria were allowed to reproduce unencumbered, they would not "destroy wetlands". Firstly the population would, as in the usual predator-prey models, boom then bust. Secondly, as I said earlier, the wetlands are a product not of biology, but of geography and climate. Of course biology diversifies the environment, but it doesn't create it. You could hit Louisiana with a giant neutron bomb, killing every living thing there and the wetlands would remain for eons.
Your pet alligator failing to terraform your backyard is not evidence that they do not have this impact in the wild. That is like saying "I have seen a single lion in the zoo. I can assure you, they don't hunt in groups."
Anyway, I am done with this discussion. I believe my observation is accurate. If you don't want to believe it, so be it.
There is, literally and figuratively, a world of difference between the real world and the world one reads about. One's grounding in real world knowledge is critical to one's understanding. Simply because something is on the Internet (or in a book) doesn't mean it's true. Getting out into the real world helps one understand, fills in gaps in one's knowledge, and makes the difference.
Earlier on I honestly thought that you were a child or at least a young student, since your knowledge seemed to be exclusively based on a rough interpretation of readings (which did not appear particularly authoritative). However since you state that you are a parent, I am somewhat disappointed to conclude that, in your life, you may have missed out on some experiential information that many, if not most, others share as common knowledge. I regret that I don't know how to communicate that to you. I would only hope that you encourage your child to get out into the world. My best wishes.
You however do not want to inject sugar or anything like that into the bladder.
P.S.
As a general rule of thumb you should probably avoid using "home remedies" from imadoctor.com sites.
Sugar is a good 'last resort' anti-biotic but it's certainly not the best option.
The risk is out there that at some point Gonorrhea can become the scourge of the human race. It is instructive to review how the staph bacteria has gone from nuisance to menace. But the exposure isn't there for Gonorreha to get ahead of us. Read that opinion piece in the Guardian.
It is important to respect that things in the world can kill you, it is also important to not let your fear drive you to action that is counter productive.
Perhaps, but not everything gives the same odds and stakes.
>I generally don't spend my days worrying about how I'm going to survive the next asteroid strike on the planet
If there were legitimate news of an asteroid en route to earth, you probably would.
And there are legitimate studies of antibiotics crapping out.
And even if you don't "spend your days worrying" about the latter (which I didn't suggest everybody should), doctors, biology researchers, drug companies etc, better DO worry.
> And even if you don't "spend your days worrying"
> about the latter (which I didn't suggest everybody
> should), doctors, biology researchers, drug companies
> etc, better DO worry.
I spend more time thinking about underfunded efforts that are trying to address hard problems. For example I believe the development of tornado/hurricane proof affordable housing is under funded. Every year we (as a community of tax payers) fund the reconstruction of housing and neighborhoods destroyed by tornadoes or hurricanes. We reconstruct these neighborhoods with the same types of housing that were destroyed before knowing that it will be destroyed again. That is GDP that if we invested some of it in research and development of weather proof housing we could save in future years. As the planet warms this is just going to get worse, and flooding is going to be a huge issue. One thing about warmer air is that it carries more water, more water, more rain, more rain, more flooding. That is a problem worth spending time on and investing in.
And as I read it, he means that for our continued existence.
The press releases are abominations compared to the underlying research, and the new media companies are embellishing even further for clickbait. It's shameful because it's not reality, which means it's a close cousin of lies.
Will progress be made? Yes, but until then global medical systems and agricultural sectors need to use sound antibiotics guidelines to avoid a looming catastrophe. No press release crap is saving patients who have MRSA right now!
Headline: "Not a Drill: SETI Is Investigating a Possible Extraterrestrial Signal From Deep Space"
Actual SETI website statement: "The chance that this is truly a signal from extraterrestrials is not terribly promising, and the discoverers themselves apparently doubt that they’ve found ET."
The media reported literally the opposite.
At this point you're better informed not following the news, if you don't have the time to dig for yourself.
What hope does Average Joe have of having any clue wtf goes on in the world?
as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
with terror and slaughter return
But there are other ways. One way is to follow the thread of research opened up by William B. Coley who developed Coley's Toxins, a cocktail of bacterial toxins that sparked the body's own defense mechanisms and in many cases, caused cancer tumors to turn to jelly within days and start being reabsorbed by the body. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888599/ has more about him.
Or the way of genome therapy where researchers are studying the active genomes in both healthy and sick (or cancerous) cells to understand what knobs and buttons exist in the human organism that we might be able to adjust by means of various therapies, sometimes even benign ones. There is evidence that one of the many hundred subtypes of cancer will respond to everyday blood pressure medication. This is a relatively benign drug that, in the right conditions, will kill cancer cells. Of course, the right conditions include that the patient has certain specific genes. But genomic techniques ca discover these genomic markers and help us sort out the mechanisms by which cells resist attacks from hostile bacteria. The ultimate outcome for cancer would be that your doctor takes a biopsy of the cancer cells, their active genomes are analyzed and this information is used to build a molecular machine that manufacture a custom drug that will cure your cancer.
Look at the molecular machinery of the Polymerase Chain Reaction which makes copies of DNA molecules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
And there is Reverse Transcription which converts RNA molecules to DNA molecules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymera...
Not to mention the Ribosome which is the molecular machine in your cells which manufactures protein molecules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome
Things like genome therapy are unfortunately a long way off so we need to look for antibiotics in the meantime.
In a geeky way, we keep drinking health potions to recover HP but if we had a shit ton of armor then we wouldn't need the HP potions to begin with. :)
Immunomodulatory drugs to some extent "predate" modern antibiotics before the antibiotic boom and the advancement in modern wide spectrum antibiotics immunomodulatory drugs were commonly used to treat severe infections.
The side effects of these drugs are very very severe, can be fatal, and can cause hereditary malformations Thalidomide is probably the most famous case of a "wonder drug" going very very wrong it is still used today in extreme cases of leprosy and to treat some cancers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
But just to be clear these type of treatments are just as "designer" molecules as any other drug, there are no magic fixes in medicine you find the most effective vectors to attack a disease and you use them.
But overall >Crazy - I never actually took a step back and wondered if we could boost our defense as a strategy.
This is a bit silly, we have had vaccines before we had antibiotics :) we wash our hands, keep ourselves clean, dress wounds etc. these are all "defense boosting" strategies, and they both predate and coexist with "offensive" treatments.
†These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
It also smacks of religion and "boring, uptight" lives. So, it is nigh impossible to sell the idea.
Perhaps that will get easier as people start dropping like flies from horrifying diseases. But, for now, no one wants to hear it.
We also have a global economy of a sort that did not exist previously. Things that would have been exotic not that long ago can be acquired readily by people who aren't wealthy by first world standards.
People used to routinely suffer scurvy, which is almost unheard of today because a) we know what causes it and b) ordinary people have no trouble getting citrus fruits. This was not true, say, 200 years or so ago.
And global access to non-native food sources exists since the 15th century.
The difference is whether mostly everyone has access to it.
So yeah. I'd say he's right and I'd bet your fancy shmancy genetic engineering won't wield anything significant but for a residual percentage of very specific cases.
As has most medical technology. The overwhelming majority of diagnostics are still made via question/answer, palpation and hearing.
Mass promiscuity has consequences, just like poor sanitary habits have them.
No amount of technology will change that.
The body is a complex adaptive system. We still lack methodology to properly and effectively study such systems.
What!? antibiotics are for the most part the most important discovery in medical history, period. They by far saved more lives than virtually any other treatment and make many other treatments possible.
Chemo and radiation therapy tend to reek havoc with the immune system, certain types of cancer leave you with little to no white blood cells period.
Without antibiotics you could not have these treatment regiments at all as without preemptive and reactionary antibiotic treatments many cancer patients would die.
Without anti virals and antibiotic other conditions with compromised immune system including HIV would be considerably more fatal as well.
What you're describing is the normal pharmacological approach to cancer treatment. Because these are the individual's own cells sharing the vast majority of its characteristics with normal, healthy cells, you have to go deep into the handful of mutations that occur that cause unmitigated cell proliferation (leading to cancer). These are targeted for treatment.
Bacteria are a foreign species and have all sorts of foreign biochemistry that can be taken advantage of. The health industry is not doing anyone a disservice by going after the low hanging fruit. Why climb through the 3rd story window when you can waltz through the front door?
Boosting the body's defense mechanisms could carry more risk that just attacking the organism. Boosting chemotaxis (WBC migration) to an area will increase inflammation which has it's own set of potentially dangerous risks. Sensitizing the adaptive immune system's to bacterial antigens runs the risk of autoimmune attack on similar-looking antigens in the host.
This isn't like D&D where you can take one point from "bactericidal" and put it into "immune boost." There are big systems in play and hardly anything can be reduced "one weird trick."
> Look at the molecular machinery of the Polymerase Chain Reaction which makes copies of DNA molecules
Antifolates, topoisomerase inhibitors, imidazoles, rifamycins are classes of antibiotics that target pathogen DNA/RNA synthesis.
> Not to mention the Ribosome which is the molecular machine in your cells which manufactures protein molecules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome
Aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, oxazolidinones, peptidyl transferase, macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins are all classes of antibiotics that target bacterial ribosomal units.
> And there is Reverse Transcription which converts RNA molecules to DNA molecules
Using reverse transcriptase pharmacologically would undoubtedly be dangerous, difficult, unnecessary, and ineffective. You'd basically have to engineer a virus that knows how to use reverse transcriptase that also targets the right pathogen and rewrites a portion of its DNA.
Drug-resistant HIV due to natural mutation and an increase in infection vectors (courtesy PrEP).
Killer venereal diseases: we missed you, but not that much.
Are there any sex acts that are immune to it?
Is there anything safe (sex-wise) that one can do to prevent it?
But when bacteria become too dangerous why we don't simply vaccinate against them?
Also because bacteria can mutate making your vaccine useless, so you need to research again.
We should aim to vaccinate as many people as possible and use antibiotics only in the rare case of infection, shouldn't we?
It's almost too simple to work, but I've heard that over time - thousands of years in fact - it is a strategy humans have used to build not just safe sex, but many other benefits as well http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/the-power-...
"If nobody ever had sex we'd wipe out STDs within a generation!"
Get tested and play safe. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
For me, at least, marriage has _everything_ to do with it.
I admit that I really don't belong here in this world. I'll give you that.
Was I a virgin before I married? No. But when I learned about the facts of sexually transmitted diseases back in 1990, I chose to stop. After that, I got tested twice for STD's: once when I started dating a girl in 1993 who I was serious with, and knew that if I married her she needed to know if I had contracted anything (I was clean, but we parted ways), and once more before I married in 2000 (just double-checking. No STD's).
Still, I haven't seen one response to my comment from anyone else that can explain why monogamy won't work to stop gonorrhea. Why people are so up-in-arms in this comment thread about another person's personal choice seems silly to me. You are free to do whatever you want! I'm not going to stop you. But, we all have to live with the consequences of those choices.
I made my choice. Sorry that so many of you seem to be offended by that, but I really don't care what you think of me. I guess I have to spend my hacker news karma on something :)
"Sexually transmitted" diseases have been given to people through other means, the primary vector being blood transfusions. They're also something you can pick up from needles either by being careless or having a freak accident. There's many ways you can end up with a disease of this variety even if you abstain.
Factoring in that some people are carriers, they show no outward signs of being infected, means you must get tested if you're intending to participate in any sexual activity if you're looking to minimize risk. It doesn't matter what your history is.
So your "it's easy" answer is actually advice that's misguided at best and insulting at worst.
We are talking about physical reality here. Arrogance doesn't even enter into it. We each, as individuals, make choices, and those choices have consequences.
> "Sexually transmitted" diseases have been given to people through other means, the primary vector being blood transfusions.
Primary? Are you serious? The primary means is through unprotected sex, hence the term "sexually transmitted". The blood supplies in most countries have been safe for decades.
http://www.cdc.gov/bloodsafety/bbp/diseases_organisms.html
> So your "it's easy" answer is actually advice that's misguided at best and insulting at worst.
I think your "find" function must be broken. I used the word novel, not easy.
Definition of Novel: Strikingly new, unusual, or different
That's as much of a myth as monogamy. Incompatible just means they're not attracted to you, or you to them. Call it what it is.
Just a few examples that confirm it's not a 'myth'.
Submissive usually means some disorder with the male.
There are tons of disorders that could impact sexual quality of life, but between 2 healthy individuals who are attracted to each other, sexual incompatibility is a myth.
Sure we can play this game because it's a tautology. My sexual preferences are different from yours? It's a disorder, doesn't count, you aren't healthy.
Is _that_ an answer for you?
aka ~50% of couples who think they are monogamous are actually non monogamous (non consensually)
The percentages are meaningless when we're talking personal choice. It is a valid way of avoiding STD's, and a choice I made back in 1990 when I was 20.
Monogamy may work, safe sex pretty much always work :) Most people not only not getting married at 20 if at all these days, they are also having sex at an earlier age.
GL telling 16 year olds to wait, I wasn't going to get married in high school, and I had no intention of waiting then or even with hindsight now.
I remember the term safe sex back in the late 80's. Then the term was changed to safer sex. So let's say you're going to have sex with a person and just before you start to get it on they say "oh, by the way, I have AIDS". Are you still going to have sex with them?
This is untrue. We have the most prude generation right now. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-...
Well then it's settled. I hope to read your manuscript in Lancet next month. STD epidemics are cured thanks to milesf boundless fidelity!
And oh, look! Abstinence-only is not very effective, but Abstinence-plus presents all the information, including the closing sentence "Only if they are provided with all the information they need to make their own decisions will they be able to decide wisely."
Huh. Learning about everything and then leaving it up to the individual to decide. What a concept.
It's even better as you get older and begin to appreciate that enduring fidelity actually increases love. But I guess many here don't know that.
Statistics say most people are weak willed. shrug. That's obvious, and still not a reason to live that way.
Getting preachy about it isn't going to win you friends or change anyone's mind.
I am not here to change minds or win friends. I'm 47. I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want, all I ask is they respect my right to believe whatever I want.
Yes, it does work for me and many other people, and it's a legitimate way to avoid gonorrhea and all other STD's including chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis, HIV, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and all other STD/STI's.
That is not a novel thought. It is as old as religion.
Abstinence based sex education has been shown to be ineffective, leading to greater pregnancy and STI transmission. Evidence says your idea won't help. And, well, it's also boring. I'll take my chances with responsible non-monogamy.
I did both. Have a look at other responses I gave in this thread. As far as AbEd education, who cares. I never listened to that stuff back in the 80's, and now we have the Internet, so we've got all the information.
Approximately 85% of all human cultures are polygamous and not monogamous[2].
1. Google "Harcourt testes 1981" and read the Nature article.
2. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, a scholarly catalog of world cultures.
[0] Commentary on the differing preferred escape strategies of Frederick Burnham and Winston Churchill. https://read.atavist.com/american-hippopotamus
Have street "Stop" signs lost their credibility with you too?