#HIV Positive Living Relations

[letmemarry]

#hiv positive marriages, hiv positve marriages website in india,

[doberbutts]

Curious about something you mentioned in your post last week, you said that in your opinion all drugs should be legal and I’m curious about how that would be a positive at all? Like I get weed bc it’s pretty harmless but when I think of drugs I think of cocaine and heroin, which have destroyed so many lives. If it was widely available wouldn’t that end up hurting more people than helping? That’s just my opinion but I’m curious on the other side

I do think all drugs should be legal. This is said knowing that addiction runs in my family and that the only reason my older sister is my *sister* is due to drug use and addiction. Otherwise she'd be my cousin.

Making drugs illegal does not stop people from getting high. It does not stop drug related crime. And it certainly does not stop drugs from tearing families apart.

Addiction is a symptom of a larger problem. Solve the problem and the addict problem goes away. Solve the addict problem and drugs stop ruining lives and destroying families and creating massive amounts of drug related violence. Places that have roled out decriminalization strategies effectively have seen an overall reduction in crime rates across the board, a reduction in recreational drug use, and a reduction in bloodborne illness like HIV. Creating safe needle exchanges as well as safe places to get high with medical staff onhand has also created a locale where very few people die from overdose.

Most people hear "decriminalize all drugs" and think I mean a free-for-all. I don't. I think the drug market should be regulated. I don't think you should be able to get ketamine or heroin over the counter at a walmart like you can get asprin. But I think it's time to stop putting people in jail for getting high.

My aunt tore her life and her family and her health apart for years while she was addicted to heroin. My sister, her daughter, needed to be removed from her care due to the amazingly bad choices she made as a mother due to her addiction and her prioritizing drugs over the health and safety of her daughter. My aunt has had multiple heart attacks from the damage the constant drug use did to her body.

My aunt is more than a decade sober and do you know why? It's not because she got a wakeup call when her daughter was taken away, because at the time she willingly and freely signed her over to my parents because that got her "out of [her] hair". It's not because she had a heart attack, because she went right back to it the moment she was out of the hospital. It's not even because she spent time in rehab and prison, because the moment she was out she was using again.

No, my aunt got sober because her life changed. She was put on a better pain management plan. She got out of her shitty marriage to her shitty husband. She completed some education to make her more hireable so she didn't have to rely on less than safe means of paying her bills. She reconnected with my sister and reforged their relationship once she was 18. She bought her own house. She found love with someone who didn't give a shit about her past and brought out the best in her.

My aunt was a deeply unhappy person. Heroin made life more tolerable for her. Until she couldn't tolerate life without it. Until she'd do anything, anything, to get her next high.

A lot of addicts are addicts because they are self-medicating for something else and their drug of choice has chemical properties that makes their brains crave it more. If you fix the "deeply unhappy" part, you create a healthier environment for that addict to take control over their life again. Without it, they are far more likely to continue to relapse.

Knowing this, why would I then want to add the threat of prison and jailtime- life-ruining things themselves- to an addict's list of concerns?

Look up rat park sometime. In the rat paradise, drugged water was freely offered, and occasional a rat here or there would take a hit or two, but rarely enough to even get high and almost never habitually. Addiction literally didn't exist even though the rats were taking addictive substances. But the rats in cages, seperated from each other, with no enrichment, crammed into small spaces and stressed to hell? Those rats took hit after hit after hit until they overdosed and died. The addict rats were deeply unhappy. The drugs were their only escape. The paradise rats had to be lured in with sweetened drugs to even consider and even then they rejected them. The caged rats did not need sweetner, even though the drugs made the water bitter.

If we can see such a stark difference in rats having their needs met vs rats experiencing isolation and stress, what would happen if we showed human addicts the same consideration?

I think a lot better results than continuing to jail deeply unhappy and desperate people for doing the only thing they can think of to cope.

[nunalastor]

Buckshot Anon here! As the second option on the poll, I'm going to cover the death of Nunalastor blog creation, Detective Guy Winters. His death was attributed to a vague terminal disease from months-long exposure to a highly toxic black mold.

Something that needs to be clarified right off the bat is that mold does not cause cancer on its own. Black mold may cause a plethora of other problems, but there is no evidence mold directly causes cancer. Contrary to what anyone would believe when they hear about a terminal illness, cancer may not be the culprit.

Theoretically: If his disease was cancer from the beginning, what would need to happen is for the mold itself to have cancerous traits. Fungi can develop a type of nucleus cancer, though this almost never happens under natural conditions and is more likely to occur from being cultured in a lab. If the mold had cancerous traits, any mold that lingered in Guy's system from breathing it in would have to die and then metastasize throughout his body, giving him cancer not with his own cells. Just to give you all something new to fear besides sepsis and coconut water.

For this to be viable, Guy would need a highly compromised immune system, or his immune system would have fought it off long before it reached that point. There was a man who got fatal cancer from a tapeworm, but it’s believed the foreign cancer only managed to kill him because he also had HIV. There is a way for Guy’s immune system to not have fought it off without having HIV, and that would be because he was exposed to the mold for so long that his body no longer registered it as something foreign to fight against. His immune system would still need to be some level of compromised, just not with the intensity of HIV. All of this being said, the chances of all of the appropriate factors lining up to make this possible are so slim that this was more a thought experiment than anything else.

Realistically: The disease that killed Guy would likely be pulmonary fibrosis. For those who haven't heard of this disease, pulmonary fibrosis is referring to scarring in the lung tissue that makes it significantly harder for the lungs to properly function. This disease is considered to be terminal because it is a progressively worsening disease with no known cure.

How quickly pulmonary fibrosis progresses and worsens in a patient varies from person to person. Some people may become ill very fast while others may be relatively stable for months or years with nothing but some shortness of breath and a persistent dry cough before it becomes a life-threatening problem. The average survival rate for someone with pulmonary fibrosis is between three and five years after diagnosis, closer to three in the cases of those who go without treatment or have very little.

Regarding treatments, Guy is in an interesting position. Pulmonary fibrosis didn't have a clinical description until 1944, which might make it seem like no treatments existed. However, silicosis is a type of pulmonary fibrosis, and this was a great health concern during the 1930s. While there wasn't a cure for this disease, variants of it were in the public consciousness, and that could have a positive impact on Guy's life expectancy because even if not much, doctors would be attempting treatments. As Guy would be able to confirm he wasn't breathing in silica, he wouldn't be diagnosed, but his symptoms would be similar enough that he might be given access to the same treatments being attempted for silicosis.

His life expectancy would still be automatically on the shorter end because of quality of medicine, but if his condition was stable for a longer period beforehand, he could still live for around five to seven years.

The decisive factor in what would finish him off also varies, as death from pulmonary fibrosis on its own would be respiratory failure once there is too much damage for the lungs to function at all. However, just as commonly death comes from a complication related to the disease and not the disease itself.

Remember when I mentioned mold doesn't directly cause cancer? If Guy were to develop cancer, it would be because pulmonary fibrosis comes with an increased risk of lung cancer. This is still not the most likely thing to happen, but it's worth mentioning.

What is more likely to finish Guy off if not respiratory failure or heart failure as a result of the heart overworking to compensate for partially blocked pulmonary arteries, is other complications or diseases in the lungs. As the disease progresses, other problems may appear such as blood clots or collapsed lungs. Another issue would be lung diseases like tuberculosis and pneumonia. Tuberculosis and pneumonia just so happened to be some of the leading causes of death in the 1930s, lower than they were in years past, but still up there in terms of fatality.

In summary: Guy suffered from the incurable disease pulmonary fibrosis. His disease may have progressed into cancer, but that is less likely. He most likely died either from respiratory failure or from a disease like tuberculosis or pneumonia he couldn't properly fight off.

If he became sick in 1929, his date of death would be anywhere from 1932-1936.

👀

[obsessivelollipoplalala]

It does seem like the auction finally made more fans publicly turn against Mary, but you know, none of this would've been surprising to any of you (collective "you" being used here) if you'd taken Jim Hutton seriously. Yes, it's awful that Mary has now greatly upset Brian (and presumably Roger) with auctioning off all of Freddie's things without their say, but Jim told you exactly who this woman was 30 years ago. But no, even people who liked Jim didn't think it was a disqualifying character trait for Mary to...*checks notes* tell Jim he couldn't ride in the first car in the funeral procession with her the literal day of the event, tell him (an HIV-positive man) that dead Freddie was already waiting for him, steal his cat and his family photographs, change the locks immediately before he could even begin to pick up the pieces of his broken life, and ban a man dying of AIDS (Joe) from Christmas dinner at a house that he lived in up until a month prior.

Or even if people disagreed with what Mary did, there were those on here who thought it was fine to talk about literally everything related to the band, from their relationships to their food preferences to their body hair to their fucking dick sizes—except for Mary's hurtful actions and the homophobic PR narrative involving her that has greatly impacted the public's view of Freddie's image for 30 years. No, apparently these big things were inexplicably off-limits, and those of us who thought all that was worth discussing were uwu starting drama uwu

And, for what? Why were people so chicken shit about calling out the bullshit of a talentless leech of an ex-girlfriend before, because a terrible movie wrote fanfiction about her? Because popular fan accounts defended her homophobic ass? Because uwu Freddie trusted her uwu (even though he also trusted Paul Prenter and Barbara)?

Yeah, screw that. I was disgusted by Mary when I finished Mercury and Me 5 years ago and literally nothing has happened to make me doubt my initial thoughts—if anything, finding out more about her has only strengthened them

[simply-ivanka]

Fauci -- July 9th Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/on-call-review-anthony-fauci-makes-his-case-fd3a9e3b?mod=hp_listc_pos4

The article is behind a firewall, but here it is in its entirety with some selected comments from readers:

‘On Call’ Review: Anthony Fauci Makes His Case

The nation’s top medical adviser during the pandemic has no regrets despite the collateral damage of lockdowns and school closures.

By John Tierney Wall Street Journal

At the end of his memoir, “On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service,” Anthony Fauci laments: “We are living in an era in which information that is patently untrue gets repeated enough times that it becomes part of our everyday dialogue and starts to sound true.” He’s right about that, and he has inadvertently produced a 480-page master class in how to get away with it.

The memoir chronicles Dr. Fauci’s rise in Washington from an obscure researcher to his fame during the Covid-19 pandemic, when he became, as he writes, a “hero to the millions of Americans who saw me as a physician bravely standing up for science, truth, and rational decision-making.” This image bore no relation to reality, given the evidence that the lockdowns and school closures accomplished little or nothing while causing unprecedented social and economic damage.

So how did Dr. Fauci spin it into a personal triumph? The memoir chronicles the development of his techniques. He tells how, after becoming director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1984, one of his first “crucial lessons” was “how important it was to cultivate relationships with people who are in a position to make things happen.” These people included politicians in the White House and the Capitol, activists demanding bigger budgets, and, especially, journalists eager for stories that would terrify their audiences.

Dr. Fauci’s rise to media stardom began early in the AIDS epidemic, when he published an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that this new disease could possibly be spread by “routine close contact” between children and adults. The resulting headlines inspired a wave of homophobia that infuriated gay activists, but Dr. Fauci quickly placated them by reversing himself, denouncing the idea of infection by routine social contact as “absolutely preposterous.” The memoir doesn’t explain his flip-flop—or even mention the controversy.

Meanwhile, Dr. Fauci found another way to frighten the American public, by joining with other federal officials in warning that AIDS would start spreading among heterosexuals. The much-hyped “heterosexual breakout” never occurred, but widespread fears led to spectacular increases in AIDS spending—and complaints from other scientists that the funding shifts were curtailing research into diseases that claimed far more lives. Although he had been cautioned by Albert Sabin, the developer of the oral polio vaccine, that an HIV vaccine was unattainable, Dr. Fauci helped persuade President Bill Clinton to declare a “new national goal for science” of developing one within a decade. “Unfortunately,” he writes, three decades and many dollars later, “an effective vaccine for HIV is still nowhere in sight.”

Dr. Fauci’s funding, media visibility and access to the White House continued during later administrations, particularly during the scare over a bioterrorism attack on America (supposedly imminent after 9/11) and during media frenzies over predicted pandemics from bird flu and swine flu. “On Call” details his campaigns to stockpile vaccines against the coming plagues, although again the sagas are anticlimactic: The doomsday pandemics failed to arrive.

“One might imagine that it would be terribly frustrating to put in enormous efforts of preparation for events that never happen,” Dr. Fauci writes. “However, that is not how I feel.” He went on seeking more funding to prepare for a future catastrophic flu pandemic, a threat he considered so dire that it justified “generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory,” as he argued in a 2011 article in the Washington Post.

In retrospect, given the mounting evidence that Covid-19 was created by just that sort of gain-of-function research in China, does Dr. Fauci have any second thoughts about advocating such a risky endeavor? None worth mentioning in this memoir. In dismissing the “smear campaign” to link him to a lab-created virus, he ignores the obvious possibility that the Wuhan virologists exploited knowledge acquired in the lab’s previous bat-virus research funded by his agency.

Nor does he regret his pandemic guidance, despite the vast collateral damage of lockdowns and the evidence that nations and U.S. states that shunned Dr. Fauci’s advice fared as well or better than the ones that locked down. Sweden experienced one of the lowest rates of excess mortality in Europe while keeping businesses and schools open and urging its citizens not to wear masks. Nowhere in Dr. Fauci’s memoir is there a mention of Sweden or other such counter-evidence.

Instead he alternates between denying responsibility for the pandemic restrictions—because he had no legal authority to impose them—and taking credit for promoting them endlessly in media appearances, meetings at the White House and phone calls with governors. He derides a lockdown opponent, Dr. Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution, for supposedly telling President Trump “exactly what the president wanted to hear,” but he offers no cogent rebuttal to Dr. Atlas’s arguments.

In fact, the glaring omissions in the memoir confirm the criticisms in Dr. Atlas’s own memoir, “A Plague Upon Our House” (2021). At the White House Coronavirus Task Force meetings, Dr. Atlas recounts, Dr. Fauci never presented scientific evidence in favor of his policies, refused to respond to the contrary evidence that Dr. Atlas presented, and never considered the collateral damage from the policies.

In fall 2020 there was ample evidence that schools could reopen safely, but Dr. Fauci kept offering reasons to keep them closed. When Dr. Atlas argued that Americans were irrationally frightened, he writes, Dr. Fauci replied: “They need to be more afraid.” Dr. Fauci’s determination to panic the public astounded Dr. Atlas, but it’s understandable after reading “On Call.” For Anthony Fauci, fearmongering was always an excellent career move.

Reader's Comments

Shouldn't he be in jail?

I'm not a proponent of book burning but in this case I would make an exception. Match please.

He should be indicted for mass murder based on his funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. The man is irredeemable.

dr Fauci is an idiot and he should be tried at The Hague for mass murder.

Perfectly obvious why Fauci and Biden worked so well together. They both are masters at deceiving the public to stay in power.

After reading this review (I will not be reading the book), it appears that Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci have something in common: They are wrong on virtually ever important decision they make.

"The nation’s top medical adviser during the pandemic has no regrets despite the collateral damage of lockdowns and school closures.". No regrets? Neither did a certain German Doc during WW2! And Fauci killed millions more! And we all get to pay this murderer $400K until he dies? Can anyone speed that process up? This malignant narcissist is directly responsible for the creation of the Franken-virus called Covid 19! The worst part is...he will get away with it!

Fauci belongs in prison if not death row.

Fauci is a heinous stain on the nation's history and the little monster should be under lock and key...

Sad, but not surprising...a common element amongst the elites, who by their definition are smarter than the rest of us, is the unwillingness to admit they were wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Fauci now admits that in his entire career he has worked on not following the science, but following the money...

If you put a big one over on people, you smile to yourself and quietly walk away. He can't do that because his ego is too big.

This man has done such damage to the level of trust people put in the medical science establishment that it will take decades before this turns around. What disturbs me is say, a very deadly new disease or virus actually makes it rounds in five or ten years, and because of Fauci, people won't believe the epidemiologists who tell them the truth about it.

[coochiequeens]

A 39 year old HIV+ trans activist was caught in a pedo sting trying to solicit a minor

A prominent trans rights and HIV activist was arrested in New York City this month after allegedly attempting to meet a 14-year-old for sexual abuse.

Lailani Muniz, 39, was caught in a predator sting conducted conducted by Fred Medina of NY Creeps Spotlight, a non-profit child safeguarding organization seeking to expose adults who wish to abuse children.

Muniz is a well-known trans rights and HIV activist in the city, and has been regularly featured in LGBT and news media. In December of 2021, Muniz was profiled by EDGE Network, an online gay news outlet, which promoted his work with the HIV Planning Board for the State of New York. Last year, Muniz was interviewed in a VICEdocumentary on HIV/AIDS.

Muniz, who is HIV positive, was a spokesperson with Amida Care, a New York nonprofit health insurance organization which states its goal is to serve “people living with HIV/AIDS; people who are experiencing homelessness … and people of transgender experience…” Muniz was also a member of the ‘HIV Stops With Me‘ campaign.

His footprint in community social organizations is extensive, and in addition to his advocacy on HIV-related issues, Muniz was well-known for his trans rights activism.

He was the Chief Operations Officer for the New York Transgender Bodybuilding Federation (NYTBF), one of the first trans-focused sporting companies of its kind. According to Muniz’s profile on the NYTBF official site, he also worked as a Trauma Informed Care Specialist at the Damian Family Care Center, and had volunteered with both CK Life and Princess Janae Place & Destination Tomorrow where he was “aiding in gender affirming surgeries.”

Earlier this year, he was honored by Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson at an LGBT Pride Flag Raising Ceremony at the Bronx County Courthouse. Gibson presented Muniz with a certificate of merit.

But on October 20, Muniz was arrested after being caught in NY Creeps Spotlight’s sting. Predator hunter Fred Medina had established a profile on gay dating app Grindr advertising to be a 14-year-old child named “Josh.”

Muniz contacted “Josh’s” profile, and engaged in sexual conversations even after acknowledging the teen’s age. In screenshots of the Grindr conversations posted to NY Creeps Spotlight’s Instagram, Muniz texts “Josh” a message expressing a joking hesitancy.

“I can’t front, I am nervous … I watch too much TV [because] I know you’re young, it reminds me of that show To Catch a Predator where they set people up attracted to minors.”

In another screenshot, Muniz sends “Josh” a photo of himself donning what appears to be an erection.

According to Bronx Times, Muniz eventually arranged to meet “Josh” at an apartment building in Bedford Park on October 20, and had reportedly encouraged “Josh” to bring a condom. Police arrested Muniz at after being alerted to his location by Medina.

NY Creeps Spotlight uploaded a video of their sting to YouTube on October 27, featuring 20 minutes of engagement with Muniz.

In the video, Medina asks Muniz why he arrived to the meet-up location, and advises him he is “Joshua.” Muniz initially attempts to deny everything Medina is saying about the meet-up’s intended purpose, stating he told “Josh” he was not going to have sex with him due to his age. Medina rapidly refutes the claim by reminding Muniz he has the Grindr chat logs.

After identifying him by his title as a transgender activist, Muniz attempts to deny he is a spokesperson for transgender people, and rejects Medina’s assertion that he had done anything illegal. He begins to walk away, and is pursued by Medina. When Medina phones the police, Muniz begins to pick up his pace significantly, making a clear effort to get away from Medina.

The video concludes with NYPD arriving, and Medina showing them the chat logs. Muniz is arrested on the spot.

Muniz is facing four charges including attempted sexual abuse, misconduct and endangerment of minor and was released on his own recognizance. His court date is reportedly set for December 2.

Muniz is not the first prominent transgender activist arrested this year on charges related to child sexual abuse. 

In May, Reduxx reported that a migrant trans activistwhose harrowing story of gender identity discrimination was featured in The New York Times was facing over one dozen felony charges related to the sexual abuse and extortion of a teenage boy.

Carlos Arturo Aparicio Hernandez, 36, was charged with aggravated sexual extortion and six counts of forcible sodomy as first-degree felonies, and three counts of forcible sexual abuse, enticing a minor, and five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor as second-degree felonies.

Hernandez is still in custody in Salt Lake County Prison, and is being recorded as a “female” inmate.

By Anna Slatz Anna is the Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief at Reduxx, with a journalistic focus on covering crime, child predators, and women's rights. She lives in Canada, enjoys Opera, and kvetches in her spare time.

[youremyheaven]

So true, just because you are born into wealth doesn't necessarily mean you will live up to it. Have you watched the show Succession? It’s about a family-owned conglomerate. The second son wants to become the next heir, but he’s a drug addict and unstable. Totally reckless.(The actor is a Swati or Vishakha. Personally, I think he’s so Swati. The drugs, hello???) The dad doesn’t let his children have it easy, because they all want to be the CEO but they aren’t fit for it. Also, a distant relative who’s not rich (either Swati or Vishakha, but I think he’s Vishakha because he had principles but obviously money corrupts) went from working at a bare minimum wage job and living at a hostel to making bank and being apart of the family’s inner circle. He’s a outcast, but he works his way up. Even though he doesn’t fit in, he is lucky to be in that position because, without being related to them, he wouldn’t have the job through the connections.

ive heard a lot about Succession (Sarah Snook is 🥵🥵) but alas, i haven't watched it 🥲

Yeah that makes sense

Vishaka is also an outcaste nakshatra

Just wanted to differentiate between outcast and outcaste

Outcaste = existing outside the caste system

Outcast = yk a misfit who's shunned by society or whatever

Outcaste naks do create experiences for individuals that make them feel like outcasts so it does add up

I just wanted to clarify bc some of you mix it up 🫣

I think beneficial naks are really important in having, accumulating and benefiting from wealth.

Obviously karma also matters

Mariah Carey is a singer who has a net worth of $350 million or more, of her 2 siblings, her sister is an HIV infected prostitute (or was) and her brother was/is a drug dealer and just an overall shady guy

They all grew up in the same house with the same parents and lived in poverty for the most part. Mariah went on to become a huge star while the others did whatever they did. Greatness can come from anywhere but it's important to not give too much credit to suffering. It's not suffering that makes someone great, it's their tenacity to build a life beyond it.

Sorry I'm just sharing random thoughts lmao

[pluckyredhead]

Do you have comic recs specifically to see Roy's relationship with his siblings/aunt?

Unfortunately there aren't a ton! It sort of makes sense that there wouldn't be, though, because during the period that the Arrowfamily was the Arrowfamiliest (the 2000s), Roy was living in New York, way the hell on the other side of the country. Honestly, the amount of times he shows up in the 2001 GA series is remarkable when you take that into account (and clearly happened because Judd Winick loves Roy). Your best bet is to stick with that series because it has the strongest family vibes, even if it's only one of the others talking about the toys Roy gives them.

That said, I can think of a few one off examples that are worth checking out:

Arsenal #2: The whole Arsenal miniseries is great, but this is the issue where Connor shows up and everything is extremely awkward because these boys don't know how to relate to each other. I love it.

Green Arrow #32 (2001 series): Roy and Connor attempt to bond. Roy takes Connor to a strip club. Connor takes Roy to a used bookstore. Roy teaches Connor to drive. It's perfect.

Green Arrow #47 (2001 series): Roy finds out that Mia has become the new Speedy and is HIV positive. The key scene here is mostly between Roy and Ollie, not Roy and Mia, but it's really clear how much Roy cares about Mia and Ollie explicitly states that Mia chose the name to follow in Roy's footsteps and honor him.

Green Arrow/Black Canary #4: Okay, I'll be honest: I hate this series and this storyline (though the art is Cliff Chiang so it's stunning). But if you want fascinatingly messy family dynamics, there's a lot of meat on that bone. This is the issue where Connor has been shot in the chest and the rest of the family is pacing helplessly in the hospital waiting room. It's mostly about Ollie's relationship with Connor, but I could write a novel about Roy's reactions in this scene, especially when Ollie says he adopted Roy because he couldn't find Connor. This issue pairs nicely with Outsiders #6, where it's Roy in the hospital after being shot in the chest and Connor talking Ollie down in the waiting room. (Judd Winick had a thing he liked, I guess.)

Green Arrow #23 (2016 series): Roy and Emiko team up. He worries over her; she roasts him mercilessly. It's very cute.

Sadly, Roy and Cissie have never met. :(

[mariacallous]

This month the World Trade Organization threw in the towel on COVID-19. Medicines like Paxlovid have been plentiful in the U.S. and Europe, but because of insufficient supplies and high prices, hardly anyone in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has had access. After more than three years of debate, the WTO declared on Feb. 13 that it was unable to reach agreement on waiving global patent rules for COVID-19 treatment to ease the way for expanded production.

Those confused about why the WTO is even still debating COVID-19 nearly a year after the public health emergency was declared over by the World Health Organization can be forgiven. Not only is this slow speed not what the world needs in a pandemic, it is also not how the World Trade Organization is supposed to work, and begs questions on WTO’s relevance in a multi-crisis world. It also makes clear that responsibility for the global governance of pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain with the WTO.

As negotiations have reconvened this week in Geneva over a new Pandemic Treaty, the question of which organizations should manage the response is a live question. Some negotiators are pushing for a role for the world’s health ministers and the World Health Organization on intellectual property, but the U.S. negotiator and others say these questions should stay with the WTO. The WTO’s failure, though, make this an increasingly untenable position: If the WTO cannot act in a pandemic to remove patents barriers and promote sharing of technology so the world can produce enough medicines and vaccines, then the WHO must be empowered to do so.

When the World Trade Organization was created in 1995, it marked a fundamental change to international trade law. Where the international system it replaced had primarily dealt with flow of goods across borders, WTO rules expanded the definition of “trade” to include the intangible—including patents on pharmaceuticals. All members were required to enforce 20-year monopolies over making new medicines. As the late scholar Susan Sell described it, this was a remarkable act of “forum shifting.” Before that, patents (effectively government-granted monopolies) were not part of “free” trade. Into the 1970s, many rich countries such as Italy and Japan did not allow patents on medicines, and many developing countries like India, Brazil, and Mexico had continued to exclude medicines from patent monopolies into the 1990s. But they were convinced to expand intellectual property in the new WTO agreement with a promise of “technology transfer” and a requirement that wealthy countries incentivize their companies to share with least-developed countries. This has not gone as promised.

The first effective medicines in the AIDS pandemic arrived just as the WTO came into being. It quickly became clear this debate about globally enforceable intellectual property was life-or-death as patents proved a major barrier to access. Twelve million Africans died between 1997 and 2007 with AIDS medicines too expensive and pharmaceutical companies blocking affordable generic versions. Eventually manufacturers in India, Brazil, South Africa, and elsewhere overcame barriers and made the drugs at a 99 percent lower cost. Today 30 million people are on treatment and cutting-edge medicines costs less than $50 per year.

Did drug companies voluntarily relent? Unfortunately, no. Dozens of low- and middle-income country governments issued “compulsory licenses” forcing drug companies to allow local producers to make HIV medicines. Activists pressured companies to drop their price and share their technology. The WTO eventually agreed on the “Doha Declaration” clarifying WTO rules allowing countries “flexibilities” to make affordable medicines and special consideration during emergencies. It took over a decade, but eventually the Medicines Patent Pool was created to facilitate voluntary sharing of technology—though companies only joined because compulsory alternatives left them little choice.

When the pandemic hit, these structures to transfer technology were all available, but world leaders decided to only use the voluntary elements—an approach that failed spectacularly. Scientists delivered vaccines in record time. Highly effective mRNA vaccines were developed in under a year and treatments followed. Paxlovid proved among the most effective—a long-standing HIV drug combined with a new drug similar to HIV antiretrovirals. Costa Rica and the WHO proposed a mechanism to pool technology and patents even before medicines were developed and approved. Over 100 different drug and vaccine manufacturers around the world were prepared to make them, several even showing they could reverse engineer mRNA vaccines. But no drug company agreed to share its technology, and none of the governments where companies were based compelled them to.

With neither a relaxation of WTO rules nor enough voluntary sharing to enable factories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to expand supply, global leaders backed a set of voluntary efforts for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). COVAX, the international effort to procure and equitably distribute vaccines, tried to secure vaccines from companies like Pfizer and Moderna. Predictably, however, COVAX quickly discovered high-income countries were locking up global supplies by using economic and political power to secure preferential access from companies. By the end of the first year, less than 1 percent of all vaccines had gone to low-income countries. Medicines fared no better. One analysis showed need for Paxlovid exceeded supply in LMICs by 8 million doses—leaving 90 percent without access. The lowest reported price was $250—200 percent of the average per capita spending on all health in lower middle-income countries.

These shortages had consequences. Analyses show as many as 27 million lives lost to the pandemic, many of which were preventable. Beyond the direct effect, dangerous coronavirus variants swept the world from contexts of high transmission and low vaccinated immunity. The pandemic has been longer and more damaging because of an artificially limited global supply of countermeasures.

Throughout this time the WTO was locked in debate. South Africa and India proposed a temporary waiver of WTO rules on all COVID-19 products during the pandemic. Pharmaceutical industry lobbyists cast this as a dangerous idea, launching a campaign against it claiming “voiding patents” would undermine innovation for pandemic products. In reality, a waiver does not take away IP rights. It simply suspends global rules temporarily, giving policymaking authority back to national governments to decide whether to enforce patents on pandemic-products during the pandemic without threat of WTO-linked sanctions. A waiver alone would not have solved the pandemic supply problem, which also required shared know-how and expanded manufacturing. But it would have removed threats of lawsuits for companies making financial and infrastructure investments in production lines and threat of sanctions from powerful states for governments allowing local production.

The WTO is supposed to be able to use mechanisms like waivers to respond to crises in a matter of weeks, not years. The Marrakesh Agreement explicitly includes a provision on waivers, stating the General Council must act within 90 days on a waiver request, assuming consensus, but falling back to a vote of three-fourths of members. Every year multiple WTO waivers are granted on issues from pharmaceuticals to diamonds to preferential trade for neighbors. But since 2020, the WTO’s efforts to pass a waiver in the middle of a world-changing event hit institutional and ideological roadblocks. Even as heads of state weighed in and wide swaths of the global economy depended on stopping the coronavirus, the institutional structure encouraged gridlock. Despite seemingly supportive law, the WTO’s structures encourage narrow interest-group politics, excluding actors with a broader public interest and economic agenda.

Narrowly-focused intellectual property negotiators framed the COVID-19 issue in ways that insulated negotiators, focused on footnotes and eligibility instead of stopping the pandemic, and gave an effective veto to trade negotiators from a few states with strong pharmaceutical lobbies. By the time the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference rolled around in June 2022, a simple pandemic-long waiver proposed two years earlier had morphed into a complicated mechanism that several developing countries declared unworkable. It only covered vaccines, pushing treatments to further negotiations. Eight months of more negotiations yielded no further progress, leading to the WTO’s declaration of no agreement last week.

It is time for a new forum shift. Negotiations over a new Pandemic Treaty are intensifying as negotiators hope for a May conclusion. The draft agreement includes a commitment to waive intellectual property during a pandemic and to use WTO flexibilities to produce pandemic-fighting products. These are the minimum steps to make the whole world safer. President Joe Biden already supported a patent waiver during the pandemic and is using these flexibilities at home, including “march-in” rights to limit patent monopolies on high-priced drugs in the U.S. The U.S. negotiator’s opposition suggests misaligned foreign policy.

But the agreement should go further. Given the WTO’s repeated failure, the new agreement should shift authority to waive patent rules to the World Health Assembly. And it should include a binding agreement to share publicly funded technologies for global production. States delegated authority to the WTO, which has proved a barrier rather than an asset in pandemics. Taking it back is just good governance.

[granvarones]

On December 10, 1989, a significant event in New York City would set the stage for Ray's remarkable journey. Thousands of activists, many living with AIDS themselves, gathered for the "Stop The Church" demonstration outside St. Patrick's Cathedral. Their target: Cardinal John O'Connor, an influential Catholic authority whose statements on homosexuality, abortion, and AIDS had sparked outrage. O'Connor, despite being appointed to Ronald Reagan's AIDS commission in 1987, controversially claimed that condoms were only 50% effective at preventing HIV transmission.

Led by AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) New York, the "Stop the Church" direct action made international headlines and introduced the activist group to mainstream consciousness. Amidst this historic event, a queer, HIV-positive visionary named Ray Navarro boldly declared, "Make sure the second coming is safe - use condoms!"

Ray Navarro's became a member of ACT UP New York in 1988. Known for their bold, innovative, and powerful organizing in demanding greater attention, research, and resources for people living with AIDS, ACT UP marked the beginning of Ray’s tireless advocacy for those affected by HIV/AIDS.

For the 1989 "Stop the Church" protest, Ray masterfully incorporated performance art by dressing as Jesus Christ. He reclaimed this religious figure, which had been weaponized against queer and HIV-positive people by Cardinal O'Connor, as a radical savior who believed in safer sex and HIV prevention.

Ray was also a founding member of DIVA TV (Damned Interfering Video Activists), a collective of artists who used multimedia to document the work and history of ACT UP. They ensured that police violence during protests, often ignored by mainstream media, was captured and preserved.

Ray's dedication extended to the Latinx LGBTQ+ community, where he recognized the unique challenges faced by individuals affected by AIDS. His bilingual activism bridged gaps and ensured that vital information and support reached this community.

Ray's performance art, challenged stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding AIDS and LGBTQ+ identity. In 1990, after losing his vision to AIDS-related illness, Ray collaborated with artist Zoe Leonard to create the photographic series "Equipped." This project centered on disabled people, shedding light on the complexities of disease, race, class, and sexuality.

Ray Navarro died from complications due to AIDS in November 1990 when he was just 26 years old. His passing was a devastating loss to the LGBTQ+ community and the broader AIDS activist movement. However, his legacy endures through his art, performances, and activism, inspiring subsequent generations of activists and artists.

Ray Navarro's life, art, and activism challenged stigma, demanded justice, and helped change the trajectory of the AIDS crisis. Today, we remember him not only as an AIDS activist but also as a pioneering artist and a fearless advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and visibility so that someone like myself could exist, breathe and thrive. His legacy testifies to the resilience and strength of all people living with HIV and AIDS.

[mygoodlifeatinfinity]

# The Scars tell the story.

"Have you ever considered the afterlife of the man who was freed from the demon called Legion, because they were many? Jesus freed him from their bondage, but imagine his life after. The injuries he inflicted on himself, cutting himself with stones every night and day. Yes, his face, hands, and legs bear scars, because he's human, not a spirit. He was free, but the scars remained. \_Well, scars tell a story\_. He might have been saved, but we can still tell from his scars the life he lived. He's a whole new person living his life, but all they see is his scars, his past.

"Okay, bringing the story to our modern day. He wears a short sleeve to go get something, and at reaching there, a man sees him and remembers a story with that kind of scar, but is not sure it's him. He would ask, 'Were you not the madman living up at the mountains?' Perhaps he might say. \_Well, scars tell a story\_. Well, the answer might be different; it depends. He might deny or speak up, 'Yes, I was, but I am now a sane man.' But in life, the answer to the question depends on who you are and what scars you have.

"Were you into bad things in the past, into cultism, robbery? Or were the scars inflicted on you? Were you a victim of rape, domestic violence, traumatized, unable to relate because of your past? Now a changed person, but living with the scars. \_Well, scars tell a story\_. All people see is the scar. Maybe because of the past, you tested HIV positive, lost trust, lost time, and the chance to live a better life. Life throws up a question. The answer depends on you - deny it or face it.

"Don't see yourself as the you before, but see yourself as who you are now and tomorrow. Don't be depressed because of the scars. \_Well, scars tell a story\_, you rule today. Don't let the scars rule your today; it just tells a story, not your life. Yes, people see, we judge based on what we see, that's being human. They will talk, but they will get tired. The scars are past. The scars tell of your past. The past can't be erased, so is the scar, but you can outlive it. Show them you are a better person now.

"Yes, the scars made me more of who I am today. I learned from it. I am living a better life, and that should be the answer. We all have scars; some are just so deep.

The scars tell the story. Are for people who feel they can't live up to their worth. Live life. Life gets meaning. #the scars tell stories

By M.C. Paschal

From My Good Life @ Infinity

[ms-hells-bells]

just recently i did a wikipedia deep dive on the rwandan genocide, so the pure horrors and images from what i read was still fresh in my mind when i read those white POS relate women fearing predatory men identifying as women to the systematic rape and murder of tutsi women by the hutu specifically in order to try and decimate the population. half a million tutsi and moderate hutu died in the genocide, and half a million women were gangraped, some living and some dying from internal injuries both during, and after with machetes and knifes to the genitals, or AIDs (in fact, leaders released HIV positive hospital patients to form groups to rape tutsi women with the intention of rendering them infertile from it). hutu militia leaders portrayed hutu women as sexual deviants deserving of sexual violence, and needing to be cleansed as a race.

i felt like i had to describe it as graphically as i have to really show what they are comparing this to. even the conservative anti trans laws don't hold a candle to this, let alone progressive gender critical women. i'm just so mad that i can't find the words.

[tomwambsgans]

could you expand a bit more on your theory of what happened to greg's dad? so far it seems super interesting

so it's def not something i thought of independently, i've seen similar musings in other ppl's posts (though idk if i've reblogged any of em and idk exactly who has said what) but here's the rundown of my thinking, particularly about the "your father used to sleep with all the men in sausalito" line:

it's likely referring to either prior to greg's birth or very very early on in greg's life, which would have been in the late 80s and/or early 90s

sausalito is basically right across from san francisco, which is/was THE gay man hub and which therefore had some of the most known cases of HIV during the AIDS crisis. which was the era that greg's dad was apparently having a lot of casual sex

also if caroline was there to know that her niece-in-law's baby daddy was not only gay but actively, functionally so, and laughs about it directly to greg like it's not some secret at all, then it stands to be assumed that their relationship was at the very least open and most likely never serious to begin with.

add this to connor telling greg about his mom sitting on the lap of gore vidal who is famously bisexual, giving her a track record of hanging around mlm. she was def the kinda girl who went to gay bars back in the day. anyway

going from there, personally i've come to the conclusion that, whatever motivated it - mr. hirsch thinking for a sec he might be bi, or him actually being incidentally bi, or just drunkenness and random fun - greg was born out of more or less a hookup that tied his parents together out of obligation.

given that greg never mentions the guy and looks explicitly uncomfortable when caroline says the sausalito line, i have to then also assume that greg's dad wasn't a positive figure in his life. which, based on how greg is, i can only imagine being the case if the guy just wasn't in it. then add THAT to allusions made to viruses particularly re: greg multiple times in the show.... basically it all creates a big steaming pot of, both functionally in-universe and as meta symbolism, It's Very Plausible Greg's Dad Died Of AIDS-Related Complications.

also imo i feel like even before dying the guy was probably not super present? like i do want to think that he made an effort to stay in greg's life but then, that he'd have been pretty unhappy trying to Make It Work with marianne so he didn't try to pretend to be anyone he wasn't. and the man he was was a bit of a whore. and i also figure that they were living in california before greg was born, and then marianne probably moved back to canada to be near ewan sometime shortly after, so if mr hirsch moved there with her, he wouldn't even have had nearly as much community up there as he def liked to have.

..point is, i think he planned on being a dad just as little as marianne planned on being a mom if not less. and he maybe didn't have it in him to settle down and make fatherhood his full time thing even assuming that he did love greg.

ntm ewan probably hated greg's dad's guts and didn't like the idea of him taking part in raising greg if he was also gonna be openly gay (especially if he was diagnosed with HIV and if ewan knew about it), which would make it a good chance that he was a factor in the guy only visiting sometimes at best and never bringing male partners with him.

so long story short i'm not like 100% set on it as a greg's dad backstory but i think it would make greg's behavior (especially as it relates to greg himself being gay) make a lot if not the most possible sense

[reasoningdaily]

Hip-hop has had a relationship with HIV/AIDS since Reagan created the crack epidemic in the 1980s. The genre, born out of necessity and fight, never shied away from depicting the continuous plight of Black Americans. Interwoven in the messages of gangsta rap from the East and West Coast was the grotesque characterization of the dope fiend, the crackhead, the sex worker — identities used to mischaracterize Black women and LGBTQ folks as harbingers of an invisible virus. Thankfully, Black women in hip-hop have addressed the misinformation in the only way they knew how: through the music. The same vehicle that their male peers used to dismiss them became the tool to mass distribute youth-centered, culturally relevant, and women-led information to the world. 

From Salt-N-Pepa’s 1992 hit “Let’s Talk About Aids” to TLC’s “Waterfalls” (1994) to Janet Jackson’s ‘Together Again” (1997), Black women in hip-hop made it their mission to prove that AIDS was an intersectional issue. Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes went as far to don a condom eye patch as a way to raise awareness about safe sex practices to young fans and listeners. While groups like Public Enemy embraced the misogynistic ideals about the virus in their 1990 hit “Meet the G That Killed Me,” Black women in music were using radio-friendly, mass-marketed songs to combat societal held beliefs and assumptions about it.

“As a Black gay man, my liberation is rooted in the liberation of Black women,” says Kahlib Barton-Garçon, a Texan who serves as the Chief Program Officer of True Colors United, a national organization that works to address youth homelessness. Prior to his tenure at True Colors United, he worked as a community health worker at Us Helping Us, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that provides services and programs to people living with HIV.

Unbothered spoke to Barton-Garçon about hip-hop’s relationship with HIV/AIDS, the involvement of Black women in early efforts to combat the epidemic, and ways hip-hop’s thinking around the virus have shifted today.

Unbothered: When we think about the 1990s, especially what it meant to be Black in the 1990s, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and 1980s. Two administrations that introduced a series of legislations that contributed to mass incarceration and unsafe drug and health practices in the Black community. Could you summarize what was going on in the 1990s for us? 

Kahlib Barton: In the 1990s, Black communities were struggling with the brunt of the crack epidemic. A lot of us were navigating experiences of poverty, living in overpoliced communities and food deserts. In response, a bevy of poverty-centered programming focused towards Black and brown communities, especially Black communities arose. It was a lot of lip service to ensure the people who were continuously being elected would stay in those positions. 

What strikes me about those three time periods is the War On Drugs, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, and the 1994 crime bill. The hallmarks of the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. The unspoken impact of these legislations, which significantly increased mass incarceration, created an imbalance of women to men in the Black community, coupled with the lack of programming for people to re-enter society after being incarcerated. Do you feel these impacts along with the societal norm of silence around HIV/AIDS created overwhelming conditions for Black Americans? Just the thought of going to get tested for HIV/AIDS was too much.

KB: Even trying to get folks to take the step and get tested was difficult. In the beginning, HIV/AIDS was shopped around as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency), a gay disease, something that was not targeting Black communities. Back then, our community did not know how to talk about Black LGBTQ people. It was very taboo, especially since the majority of us were raised in the church. It was easier to say “No, those people don’t exist.” Therefore forcing a lot of older LGBTQ folks into the closet which did nothing but perpetuate the AIDS epidemic in the 1990s.

In the beginning of the 1990s, Public Enemy released ‘Meet the G That Killed Me,’ a song that reinforced stereotypes within the Black community that HIV/AIDS was a disease for sex workers and drug users. In 2010, Chuck D of Public Enemy described the song as the group’s response to the rampant transmission of disease, that at the time, they believed was “man-made.” Do you believe this song reflected the perception of HIV/AIDS in the Black community around the early 1990s?

KB: Obviously, it was telling of the times. Unfortunately, I do believe that we have [shifted.] There is a larger school of thought and shift in consciousness around HIV and the AIDS epidemic in the Black community. There are still a lot of people who resonate with that message, especially in the Black community, who believe HIV/AIDS is reserved for people who are more promiscuous than others, who assume these people are not careful and do not care about their health. That it’s their fault. That they are somehow lesser than you.

In 1992, Salt-N-Pepa were asked by journalist Peter Jennings to remix “Let’s Talk About Sex” to “Let’s Talk About AIDS” for his ABC News special. They were one of the first musicians to address the epidemic, combat misinformation, and inform their listeners about safe sex practices. At the time, sex education was predominantly abstinence-only. Discussions around birth control and contraceptives were minimal. A time where Black women, similarly to today, were criticized for openly talking about sex. How impactful was it for Salt-N-Pepa, Black women, to talk about HIV/AIDS on the national stage when so many of our voices were silenced in the national consciousness?

KB: The messaging of that time was a white gay man talking about HIV. When you see that as a Black person, especially a Black cisgender heterosexual who attends church on a regular basis, you believe those messages do not apply to you. Some efforts were made to reach out to our folks. The biggest way to reach Black women was to go to Black colleges and churches. Those efforts made sure initiatives were being held on college campuses around HIV that were not just focused on abstinence only, but condoms for people with penises, insertive condoms, and dental dams. That shifted the game. 

All those different conversations were not happening. The majority of education was targeted towards folks with pensises to be able to protect themselves, which unfortunately placed a lot of blame, responsibility, and shame on Black women. There was a lack of conversation about children who were born with HIV. There was a lack of conversation around medication and safety to make sure children did not acquire HIV in utero, a lot of the blame went towards the mother.

In 1995, Eazy-E’s death changed pop culture for Black cisgender heterosexual men, the passing of the gangsta rap legend hit home. Prior to his death, the majority of HIV/AIDS advocacy in the Black community was done by women and LGBTQ folks. Months after his passing, Heavy D, The Notorious B.I.G., Method Man, and Warren G performed at the Urban Aid for Life benefit concert in New York City. This concert was one of the first times we saw Black cisgender heterosexual men use the language of hip-hop as a vehicle for public health advocacy. 

KB: I will not assume those artists were asked prior to say something about the issue. Would they have gotten involved with Salt-N-Pepa? A lot of those artists were resistant. “Nah, I don’t wanna talk about that.” I assume it was not “gangsta” to talk about it. At that point, sexual health was not viewed as something that impacted their communities. Being gay is not hip-hop. We are just now getting to the point where the conversation is starting to shift. We are starting to see more gay rappers make their way in the game.

For so long, it was very clear that hip-hop was very homophobic. HIV being closely related to gay communities wasn’t a thing they wanted to talk about. Eazy-E’s death shifted the conversation, because rappers were interfacing and interacting with Eazy-E. A lot of folks, due to archaic and stigmatic beliefs of “Oh, you catch HIV from a hug or from giving someone a kiss,” had them thinking about their own life, their own morbidity, and if it could impact them since they were in the same social circles as Eazy-E.

I think it resonated with those individuals who were not living with HIV or were not personally impacted by this issue. It was great to see that shift happen, even after something tragic happens, folks may not feel inclined to speak up or get involved. It was great to see action coming from diverse Black communities. At this point, we see rappers talking about sexual health, even if it is not always forward thinking. We see more conversation. I think people are more aware that we can not talk about sex without talking about sexual health and safety.

[your-dads-top]

Just on the topic of lesbians (and “lesbians”) affected by HIV/AIDS:

“ Here are some case examples of lesbians who are HIV-infected or are living with AIDS: 

Marta is a single, Latina lifelong so-called gold star lesbian. The term “gold star” refers to a woman who is lesbian-identified who has never had sexual contact with a male. Her HIV infection risk was linked to chronic, intermittent IV drug use, primarily heroin, but she also used crack cocaine periodically. In exchange for drugs, she has often engaged in unsafe sex. She often fears that she might die of “the madness.” 

Beverly is an African-American mother of three. She was in a commonlaw marriage with someone on the “DL,” or down-low, a man who was secretly also having sexual relationships with other men. She did not find out that he was HIV positive until he was terminally ill with AIDS. He died of severe pneumonia related to HIV. After her husband’s death, Beverly pursued relationships exclusively with women. She discovered she was HIV positive when she went to donate blood. 

Kim is a Caucasian transgender, male-to-female sex worker who practices safer sex with her clients. However, she has unprotected sex with her longtime female partner, since both considered themselves “monogamous” despite Kim being a sex worker. She tested positive after HIV antibody testing which she routinely obtained every three months. 

So, who is the lesbian? The common definition of a lesbian is a woman who is romantically, sexually, and erotically attracted exclusively to other women. In psychiatry, when we describe lesbians, it is important to distinguish operational versus descriptive terms. In research we find that the term “women who have sex with women” is commonly used. However, this does not describe many lesbians’ experience, particularly if we are talking about lifelong experience. The literature shows that a majority of self-defined lesbians, 70% or more have had sexual contact with a male partner during their lifetime (Diamond, 2008). It is important to note that when someone identifies herself as a lesbian, this may not correspond with her behavior. Also, the reverse is true—a woman may be having sexual relationships with women yet not identify as a lesbian. If you are describing a lesbian from a non-Western culture, including some ethnic minority cultures in the United States, they may have different terms or concepts of women who would be considered by many as lesbians. Therefore, in sexual history taking, it is important to distinguish identity/orientation versus behavior and to ask explicitly about each.”

Khakasa Wapenyi MD (2010) Do Lesbians Get AIDS? Women Who Have Sex with Women, HIV/AIDS, and Its Mental Health Impact, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 14:1, 52-55, DOI: 10.1080/19359700903422683

Lesbian with a drug addiction, bisexual woman calling herself a lesbian who was in a relationship with a bisexual man, and a TiM.

If you’re going to talk about lesbians living with HIV or dying from AIDS-related complications, make sure you know what is being included in that data.

[cannabiscardaz]

Unveiling the Therapeutic Benefits of Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana, derived from the cannabis plant, has garnered attention for its potential therapeutic properties. As attitudes and regulations surrounding its use continue to evolve, it's essential to explore the compelling benefits this natural remedy offers. In this blog post, we delve into the various ways medical marijuana can positively impact health and well-being, shedding light on its potential as an alternative treatment option.

Pain Management:

Alleviating Chronic Pain: Discover how medical marijuana can provide relief for individuals suffering from chronic pain conditions, such as arthritis, fibromyalgia, and neuropathy.

Reducing Inflammation: Explore the anti-inflammatory properties of cannabinoids, which may help ease symptoms associated with conditions like multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Mental Health Support:

Anxiety and Depression Relief: Learn how certain compounds in medical marijuana, such as cannabidiol (CBD), may offer a natural approach to managing symptoms of anxiety and depression.

PTSD and Trauma Recovery: Uncover the potential of medical marijuana in helping individuals cope with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and trauma-related conditions.

Nausea and Appetite Stimulation:

Cancer Treatment Support: Discuss the role of medical marijuana in mitigating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as stimulating appetite for individuals undergoing cancer treatments.

HIV/AIDS Symptom Management: Explore how medical marijuana may alleviate symptoms like nausea, weight loss, and appetite loss in individuals living with HIV/AIDS.

Neurological Disorders:

Epilepsy Management: Learn about the promising effects of medical marijuana, particularly CBD, in reducing seizures in individuals with epilepsy.

Multiple Sclerosis Symptom Relief: Discover how medical marijuana may help manage symptoms like muscle spasticity, pain, and sleep disturbances in individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Sleep Disorders:

Insomnia Treatment: Explore the potential of medical marijuana in improving sleep quality and alleviating insomnia symptoms, promoting restful and rejuvenating sleep.

Palliative Care and End-of-Life Support:

Comfort and Symptom Management: Discuss how medical marijuana can provide comfort and relief to individuals in palliative care, easing symptoms like pain, nausea, and anxiety in the final stages of life.

Potential Adjunct Therapy:

Reduced Reliance on Opioids: Highlight the possibility of medical marijuana serving as an adjunct therapy for chronic pain management, potentially reducing the need for opioid medications.

Medication Side Effect Mitigation: Discover how medical marijuana may help alleviate side effects associated with certain medications, improving overall treatment experiences for individuals.

Medical marijuana holds immense potential as a natural treatment option for various health conditions. From pain management and mental health support to alleviating nausea, stimulating appetite, and providing relief for neurological disorders, its benefits are broad and diverse. As research and understanding continue to evolve, medical marijuana has the potential to transform the lives of countless individuals seeking alternative approaches to their well-being. Embrace the therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana and engage in informed discussions with healthcare providers to determine if it's a suitable option for your unique needs.