Book Review and Discussion of Positively Negative: Love, Pregnancy, and Science's Surprising Victory Over HIV

Positively Negative: Love, Pregnancy, and Science's Surprising Victory over HIV is a book that made me bend my "I don't write book reviews" stance. I am asked regularly to review books, but it's not something I like to do. Since liking a book is very subjective, one I may dislike may be another's favourite - but I do make exceptions when I think a book is a must-read.

Positively Negative: Love, Pregnancy, and Science's Surprising Victory over HIV by Heather Boerner, is about couples that want to have a biological child, but the male is HIV positive. It's a short book - you can read it in one dedicated sitting if you want. But don't be fooled - Boerner uses her words wisely, weaving scientific information with real couples who have to make life-changing decisions.

When I graduated as a nurse in the early 80s, we just started to see our first patients with AIDS in the Montreal-area hospital where I worked. The fear was everywhere as healthcare professionals learned how serious the virus was and how the virus spread. Unfortunately, this was also the time when it was considered to be a "gay disease" and a "promiscuity disease," which delivered a whole other set of problems and issues.

HIV and AIDS forever changed how we worked with patients. When I studied nursing, we rarely ever used gloves. As students, we were only allowed to don gloves if we were going to be giving intimate care or had to clean up body fluids. Otherwise, gloves were forbidden because the skin-to-skin, the contact, was considered vital for a good connection with the patients. With HIV and AIDS, this changed. We were told we needed to assume that all patients were infected - universal precautions, it was called. If we treat all patients as infectious, we reduce our chances of being caught off guard and becoming infected ourselves. We were told to wear gloves whenever we touched a patient - even if giving a back rub. While I see the practicality in the advice, it changed how we saw and treated patients - and this way of thinking stayed with me all these years.

I don't work clinically any longer; I don't work with people who have HIV or AIDS. As s result, I've not really thought about it very much since those early days, other than when I read news stories. So when I bought Boerner's book, I wasn't sure what to think. I had the pleasure of meeting her in March and I listened as she talked about the project and what it meant to couples who shared their stories. I do remember thinking that breezy Denver night, "I never realized that having a biological baby with an HIV positive partner was even an issue to be discussed." I have to admit, I was taken aback at how little I knew of the topic and I waited for Boerner's book to be published.

The urge to have a baby is very strong among many women and it's no different for some who have HIV positive partners. And until recently, the risk of allowing such a pregnancy was unheard of - or it wasn't discussed. Boerner's book follows the paths of two couples who did go ahead and have naturally conceived children. She speaks with experts on both sides of the debate, and another mother who made the decision without medical advice or interventions.

It is well written, well researched, and worth your time. Let me know what you think if you read it.

Why you have to take health articles with a grain of salt (or a ton, in this case)

This morning, a Facebook friend posted a link to a story that declared that if you used sunscreen, you were more likely to die than if you didn't. In fact, the intro was: "According to a June 2014 article featured in The Independent (UK), a major study conducted by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that women who avoid sunbathing during the summer are twice as likely to die as those who sunbathe every day."

There is so much wrong with this sentence and the whole article itself. First of all, we all die. At least, at this point we still all die. What the future holds in terms of eternal life, we don't yet know.

The article, in case you haven't guessed, is anti-sunscreen. The author uses references such as this one from the journal Cancer, which doesn't say at all that sunscreen use will lead to an earlier death or that sunscreen causes melanoma, both of which the original article's author claims it says. The article says that if you use sunscreen, particularly the lower SPF types, you will likely spend more time in the sun, increasing your sun exposure, increasing your chances of developing skin cancer.

The article author also doesn't take into account that the people most likely to use sunscreen are people who are fair and who burn easily - and are by their genetics at higher risk of developing skin cancer. He also ignored that Australia, which has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, is starting to see a decline with its campaign to get people either out of the sun or to protect themselves with clothing and sunscreen.

Outside of that one scientific reference, which the article's author completely misinterpreted for his own means, his only other references are to newspaper articles or website articles, which are not credible first-line sources.

Are there problems with sunscreens? There may be with some types, considering what is put into them to produce them, which is why we need to be careful about what we use. Are there problems caused by not using sunscreens - yes and it's been proven. The problems are called cancer. If you have concerns about sunscreen, find out more about them and the type you use. But this type of article, which is making its rounds through social media, is not educational or beneficial in any way - it is fear mongering.

Folks, if you want to spread news about health issues, real news, please be sure that the articles are written with good scientific backup. This particular article is crap and may do more damage than good.

Duh studies not just for the public

And we have another Duh Study for the Duh Study files.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a study that told radiologists that the newer CT scanners exposed their patients to less radiation than the older ones. Considering that this is one of the goals when researchers develop the new machines, I figured that was pretty well a Duh Study. Almost like telling physicians that oxygen helps people live (that was a comment from my editor for this client). But today I came across yet another Duh Study meant for radiologists. Did you know that the more experience you have reading mammograms, generally the better you will be at reading them? Yes! It's true!

A published study that looked at Australian and U.S. radiologists said that the sensitivity in reading the images increased with experience. Good thing we have researchers studying these things.

Final week blogathon round-up

Week 4 is over and this week has been a bit challenging in terms of finding topics I wanted to write about. Here is what we discussed:

Yesterday, June 28, I posted about three blogs I like, as well as a list of over 100 bloggers who were also participating in this blogathon.

On Friday, I addressed a question I get frequently - "Have I read anything you've written?" Maybe...maybe not!

Thursday's post was an excuse to write about my quilting, in a piece about how crafting is good for the brain. I put some nice photos too. :-)

Wednesday's post was about soccer and head injuries. I watched the Netherlands win over Mexico today and saw some nasty head collisions. Ouch! But I'm glad that the Dutch won!

On Tuesday, I covered an important issue, that of midwives and how they save lives all over the world.

And the week started with an interesting piece (I thought) about how a clinic in Montreal is bringing healthcare to the homeless and marginalized in Montreal.

Lots of variety!