I get the feeling you're one of those people so terrified of AIDS that you've broken off all sexual relations with anyone. You don't have to do that, Ben, just wear a condom and don't be a male-slut.
*Originally posted by shrike It is my feeling that Tony1 is blaming the gays for AIDS.* Not really. They SPREAD it. They didn't invent it. Now that "everyone" is on the AIDS bandwagon, they aren't primarily responsible like they were in years past. At one time, AIDS was limited pretty much to Haiti, Eastern Africa and the gay community. Bisexuality and promiscuity spread it out pretty evenly since then. *They are not to blame! You can't blame anyone for the disease of a virus because it's an empty generalization! * Sure you can! Compare a population that is not promiscuous that has no AIDS with one that has some AIDS and is promiscuous. The non-promiscuous population has no increase in AIDS. The promiscuous population has an increase in AIDS, therefore promiscuous people are at fault. *I get the feeling you're one of those people so terrified of AIDS* While I can't speak for KalvinB, avoidance of promiscuity is not proof of fear of AIDS. Oddly enough, using condoms is.
Back what you're saying up with facts Tony1. How is it that AIDS was in Eastern Africa and Haiti at once? Haiti's practically on the other side of the world (in the Caribbean). As far as I know people don't know where AIDS came from, some think that the CIA introduced it to gays to wipe them out, but didn't count on bisexuality. That is also an empty assumption. Give me proof that homosexuals were the first victims of aids and spread it to the heterosexuals, as I have given you proof that the majority of AIDS-infected humans are women.
*Originally posted by shrike How is it that AIDS was in Eastern Africa and Haiti at once? Haiti's practically on the other side of the world (in the Caribbean).* Do you have the foggiest idea that people in Haiti are black, i.e. from Africa? *Give me proof that homosexuals were the first victims of aids and spread it to the heterosexuals, as I have given you proof that the majority of AIDS-infected humans are women. * I didn't say queers were the first victims. What I said was they spread it in the earlier days. You haven't given me proof of what you say. You gave me proof that more women die of AIDS, but more men have it. There doesn't appear to be any distinction between geography and sexuality in your list. So, there is no way to tell from your list that in the US gay males carry more AIDS and in Africa females carry more AIDS. Furthermore, your list doesn't show how many people were actually infected with AIDS, it shows how many are estimated to be infected with AIDS.
Tony1, if you can recall from your ole schooldays the people of the Caribean were there before the spanish, dutch and english explorers. They did not come from africa, at least in the short run. Every last human on Earth has ties to Africa. The blacks in the Caribean evolved the same way the blacks in Africa did, yet a long time before they probably looked like Eskimos or Native Americans. My list shows that more women, gay women and straight men are infected than aids as opposed to gay men.
*Originally posted by shrike if you can recall from your ole schooldays the people of the Caribean were there before the spanish, dutch and english explorers.* You weren't paying much attention in school. The original Caribs were Indians. Today's Haitians are blacks, from Africa, and in the short run. *The blacks in the Caribean evolved the same way the blacks in Africa did, yet a long time before they probably looked like Eskimos or Native Americans.* You're hallucinating. *My list shows that more women, gay women and straight men are infected than aids as opposed to gay men. * Your hallucinations show that but your list doesn't. You're just making that up.
Give me proof tony1. You aren't backing up your claims. I am. If you recall I said that only a little more than half of men were infected with aids or something like that. Not all men are gay. In fact a commanding majority, whatever that majority is, are not gay, because if the majority of men on Earth were gay then we wouldn't be having this conversation because they would set the trends.
Anyone who's taken a critical thinking course knows that statistics mean sqaut if you don't have access to what made them up. Your statics are quite frankly bullshit. They don't break down the numbers at all. You don't know why those people have AIDS are where they are from. You don't know their sexual history or their drug use history which are incredibly important. In the US: How many gay or previously gay men are there? How many have AIDS? How many strictly hetero men are there? How many have AIDS? How many gay men with AIDS do or did drugs? How many strictly hetero men with AIDS do or did drugs? How many gay men had only a single partner? How many hetero men only had a single parter? How many gay men with only a single partner have AIDS? How many hetero men with only a single partner have AIDS? Repeat with women. Repeat with additional countries. Find the answers to those questions and maybe we'll have some real statistics that actually present an answer. Ben
Here's some info for you http://www.thebody.com/siecus/hiv_trends.html "study of 3,492 gay and bisexual men, ages 15 to 22, in seven U.S. cities found that one in six young men who had sexual intercourse with men had recently had sexual intercourse with women. In addition, nearly one-fourth of those men reported recently having had unprotected sexual intercourse with both men and women. The study confirms that young bisexual men are a "bridge" for HIV transmission to women, particularly given that 6.6% of bisexual men in the study were HIV positive. " So yes, bisexual people are part of the problem. And considering women are more likely to have their blood tested for other reasons, of course their numbers will be high since (See below) about 22% of the gay community doesn't get tested. "Young gay men are not getting tested for HIV. A study of 2,621 gay and bisexual men, ages 15 to 25, in 10 U.S. cities found that more than one-fifth (22%) of young gay or bisexual men had never been tested for HIV and over half had not been tested in the past six months. " There's one flaw in your "statistics" "Perinatally infected children are reaching adolescence. According to a CDC study, approximately 2,100 children born with HIV are now teenagers and an estimated 10,000 perinatally infected children will enter adolescence during the next five years. " And here's a "no shit" for you to explain why there are infected children. And you can bet your statistic is an accurate number since every baby born is tested. The number we can't trust the most is the population of the gay men community. In conclusion your statistics are bullshit. Ben
You make an excellent case, KalvinB You make an excellent statistical case, KalvinB. I think we might find some agreement, then, that perhaps the Reagan administration should have done something more about HIV than keep silent as long as possible since it was merely a "gay measles"? Tony1 likes to assert that only a person with HIV can help spread the disease. I think that when you don't tell people that there is a disease there, and when you leave an epidemic festering in the culture because you think it's God's punishment for the gays ... well, I guess you don't ever have to say you were wrong, since God punished Ryan White for being a homo-lover, right? While we're on the subject, why do people think needle exchange is so vital? Do you really think a person in the throes of heroin addiction can put this simple 2 and 2 together? Why are drugs illegal? Addiction? Well, how do you help addiction by making addicts admit to felonies before getting treatment? Social harm? Ah, then here we find the crux of the immediate issue: how do you reduce the social harm when you prevent people from employing safer techniques? Don't like gays? Why? Because they're sick and wrong? Fine, feel that way. Because God says so? Hey, we know--if you only had a brain .... Because it's unclean and medically dangerous? Well? By opposing all efforts to contain the problem that fall short of draconian imposition of religious standards, you're essentially encouraging the practicioners to continue according to unsafe methods. For those who chose God's law over wisdom and compassion, you, too, are guilty. Maybe, just maybe, if the US had a reasonable chance from the outbreak, but you know--it was a gay thing, and since God's punishing the gays .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tell it to Ryan White. Oh, that's right: you don't have to. He's dead. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, I was going to say something. Before I read your post, that is. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, maybe a little something after all Ben, Since Tiassa so effectively addressed the social side of HIV, perhaps it's time now to close the last gap: your seemingly still present conviction that anal sex creates the HIV virus (or the SIV virus in nonhuman primates, or other immunodeficiency viruses in humans, primates and various other species.) In light of your theory, I suggest the following. Write up a research proposal, where you will collect blood and feces from non-HIV positive people (even better, non-HIV possitive virgins, to completely eliminate the possibility of undetectable contamination from intercourse.) You will then mix the various blood and feces together and analyze the mixtures for presense of HIV using the now-standard high-precision HIV detection methods. If even in one case you manage to create from scratch an HIV virus, you would have proved your theory and contributed enormously to the wellfare of mankind. Of course if the probability of such spontaneous HIV formation is very low, then you might have to mix blood and shit for decades. But don't despair, the probability can't be all that low; after all, there currently are at least 3 varieties of HIV, so the spontaneous virus formation must have happened 3 times within the recent years. Of course, your research will have enormous difficulties garnering money from the scientific establishment (since a real scientist would have to be out of their mind to take your theory seriously.) But you could take your grant proposal to various religious organizations and church institutions; I'm sure many of them would be forthcoming given the importance of your work.
All I need is two rats with different blood types, a needle and a cotton swab. Or to be going to a community college with a professor willing to try to kill rats in a rather not nice way. I've got 20 bucks. I think that will cover the costs. I don't need to detect the HIV by any sophisticated manor. The rats just need to get sick and die after the concoction is put into their blood stream from one to several times. When that happens then I'm sure government funding to test for actual HIV in the blood taken from the dead rats wouldn't be an issue. I'd just need to talk to a blood bank as they know the people who do the tests. If it gets that far then it would have to be submitted to the scientific community for duplication which would take it out of my hands in terms of finding funding. ---------------------- I think we do need to recognize the facts of what allows for transmission of HIV and what behaviors aid in it's transmission. Gays and bisexuals do play a big role but everyone has to take responsibility for their actions. When AIDS really hit the mainstream the first time it was just a giant scare and as a result no one took it seriously. Recognizing there are ways to be at zero risk and letting everyone know about it would be more helpful. Ben
Ben, I'm with you on that 100%. Prevention is always the best cure. That's the reason for all the sex ed and HIV campaigns. Still, you fail to get the point. A child infected with HIV may not develop AIDS for <u>years</u>. And when they finally do develop AIDS, it's not because of frequent injections of foreign blood. And it's not because of constant medication: in Africa, children are too poor to eat, much less get medicated against HIV. HIV <b>is</b> the cause of AIDS. I'm waiting for you to finally accept that. Then, perhaps, we could have a more interesting discussion concerning HIV's actual origins.
I'm aware that HIV is the cause of AIDS. And the origins of HIV is what I've been trying to figure out. "Still, you fail to get the point. A child infected with HIV may not develop AIDS for years. And when they finally do develop AIDS, it's not because of frequent injections of foreign blood. And it's not because of constant medication: in Africa, children are too poor to eat, much less get medicated against HIV. " Um...I'm aware of that. In fact I pointed that out earlier. Where did the mom get HIV from? The father? Where did the father get HIV from? His mother? and so on and so on and so on. And there is no preventive medication for HIV. If a woman with HIV has a baby, that baby will aquire HIV no matter what medicine in taken. Ben
Originally posted by KalvinB Sweet! For a while there, I was worried that you thought cortisol was the primary cause (as opposed to a symptom of advanced infection.) Glad we got it squared away. Now... Before going on to HIV's origins, I just want to correct you on one point: Actually, there is medication that prevents transmission of HIV from mother to child. Additional medication of this type is being actively researched. For example: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/AIDS/9907/14/preventing.baby.hiv/ http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/library/readroom/hiv98/letter_4.htm http://www.developmentgateway.org/topic/kiaq?kiaq_id=4028 http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/hiv_aids/ Granted, the available medicines are not bulletproof. But at least they reduce the likelihood of transmission. And in the right amounts and combinations (and with the right therapies) the likelihood of transmission should be reducible to a very low number (if not altogether 0.) If you examine the case for spontaneous generation of HIV carefully, you will realise that it is not viable. For example, there are only 3 (I believe) known types of HIV identified to date (and there can't be many more than that after all the research.) The 3 are closely related (virtually identical) in genetic and protein structure (as well as how they invade and operate within the host's cells), and most likely arose via mutation from a single ancestor. Yet if spontaneous generation of HIV from introduction of toxins into blood (as you propose) was indeed the origin of HIV, we should see many more different varieties of HIV -- as well as other types of human immunodeficiency viruses quite different in structure from HIV. Thing is that sex is not by far the leading cause of foreign or toxic substances entering the body. Wounds (especially in wars) create much more extensive injury and contamination. Medieval medicine involved bloodletting using unsterilized instruments and leeches. Unprotected sex has been the rule all over the world (and still is over much of the world -- regions which are thus the most at risk in the face of an expanding HIV epidemic.) Poorly cooked or raw meats are another source of poison, not to mention poor-quality water or altogether poor hygiene (e.g. dumping human waste out the window and right onto the street, as was the case over much of medieval Europe.) Neither is HIV the only pathogen that gets transmitted exclusively through sex. Chlamydia, herpes, the yeast infection, the bacterium behind syphilis, the virus causing genital warts, and dozens more -- are all sexually (and only sexually) transmitted. Sexually transmitted pathogens are typically ill-adapted for entry via other routes. They cannot penetrate the skin's defences; they cannot withstand the environment of the gastrointestinal tract; they do not readily aerosolize for inhalation or cause the host to expel them in such form. They have adapted to their own little backdoor -- and it doesn't really matter for the majority of them whether they enter through anal or vaginal intercourse. Though of course, the human body might be less adapted for defence against pathogens entering through the anus (which happens rarely in the heterosexual majority) -- which potentially makes infection through anal intercourse easier (despite which I haven't seen a single study to cleanly demonstrate as much.) Still, and it is critical to emphasize it -- sexually transmitted diseases are indeed very adept at transmission through vaginal intercourse (as it is their primary route of entry.) So if you believe (as I've seen you state) that you won't get HIV if you only put your d**k where it belongs, then you are sadly mistaken. You will only be safe if you can guarantee that your sex partner does not have HIV, and in addition has no other partners except yourself. This is true of any other sexually transmitted disease, as well. Of course, using protection reduces both of your risks enormously. Going back to HIV's origins, let's note next that HIV has a very close cousin in SIV (simian immunodefficiency virus). And in general, it belongs to an entire family of retroviruses -- and more precisely to a subclass of lentiviruses within that family. See, for example, here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/8.htm The HIV virus (especially the HIV-2 variety) shares a significant amount of structure with SIV. In addition, its quite recent origin has been traced back to Africa (via retrospective screening of blood serum samples). Which makes it likely that HIV is merely a human form of SIV, and that SIV jumped from monkeys to humans in Africa quite recently. And keep in mind that while homosexuality has enjoyed a coming out of sorts in America, the same has not been true by far in Africa (homosexuality is stigmatized all over the world, regardless of religion.) So attempts to link the emergence of AIDS to the U.S. gay movement are altogether spurious (if not malicious) and certainly slanderous. It is true that HIV in U.S. spread much faster in the gay community than elsewhere -- but that was due to the high promiscuity within that community, not to the sexual orientation of its members. HIV is actually quite a sophisticated monster with many genes and a fairly complex protein envelope. Moreover, like all other retroviruses it codes for a very special enzyme -- called "reverse transcriptase" -- which takes the viral RNA and incorporates it into the DNA of the host. No mammal (including humans) has a functional gene that codes for such an enzyme. Neither, to my knowledge, does any other lifeform except for retroviruses. The likelihood of a gene for such a sophisticated enzyme arising ex nihilo from an introduction of toxins into the blood is in all practicality 0. Which alone pretty much renders the whole idea nil. It is much more plausible that the sophistication of modern retroviruses evolved in parallel with the sophistication of their hosts' cellular and immune mechanisms. This of course is true even before we consider the other viral genes and proteins that constitute HIV.
*Originally posted by tiassa Tony1 likes to assert that only a person with HIV can help spread the disease. * I assert that only people with HIV spread the disease. I said nothing about "helping" to spread it. To discern the the difference, picture yourself as being the bad example, of say, absence of intelligence, "helping" to spread the need for development of intelligence. *Don't like gays? Why? Because they're sick and wrong? Fine, feel that way. Because God says so? Hey, we know--if you only had a brain .... Because it's unclean and medically dangerous? Well? By opposing all efforts to contain the problem that fall short of draconian imposition of religious standards, you're essentially encouraging the practicioners to continue according to unsafe methods.* Your insanity knows no bounds. The encouragement is to stop. If the "practitioners" choose unsafe methods, more power to them, if they think they know best. *Originally posted by Bambi you might have to mix blood and shit for decades.* Inadvertent description of life for a gay man? *If you examine the case for spontaneous generation of HIV carefully, you will realise that it is not viable. * You just shot your theory of evolution all to hell. BTW, your post is one gigantically lengthy way to say that prevention is best, and the Bible is right.
