Cure To HIV Discovered?

Off Topic
21

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.[/quote]

Heterosexual men getting HIV from vaginal sex with women is rarer than hens teeth in the US. It is supposed to be much more prevalent in Africa but I wonder how many victims are really gay and don’t report that. It is very strange.

22

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

How many heterosexuals do you know with HIV?[/quote]

b/c everyone just openly admits to having the HIV

I thought you were kidding, but damn man

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

Heterosexual men getting HIV from vaginal sex with women is rarer than hens teeth in the US. It is supposed to be much more prevalent in Africa but I wonder how many victims are really gay and don’t report that. It is very strange. [/quote]

You need to read Michael Fumento. Apparently there are quite a few “heterosexuals” there that really aren’t.

24

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

How many heterosexuals do you know with HIV?[/quote]

I know 5 people with HIV 2 are full blown AIDS.

25

Interesting link just for everyone in America

26

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

How many heterosexuals do you know with HIV?

b/c everyone just openly admits to having the HIV

I thought you were kidding, but damn man
[/quote]

I can’t name one. Don’t know anyone who’s died from it. Can you?

I have several highly promiscuous friends who never use condoms. One decides to go in and get tested for HIV. He’s really worried about it. While at the clinic, the nurse asks him if he has been having sex with any men or using IV drugs. He says “no” to both. She tells him he doesn’t have anything to worry about.

The functional anatomy of anal sex is what spreads HIV. The cell walls of the lower intestine break easily through to blood because of the squarish shape of the cells and their thinness. The cells of the vagina are roundish and multiple layers thick, making it much harder to break through to blood.

C. Everett Koop, after scaring everyone in America with his HIV pamphlet, testified before Congress that less than 3% of the new HIV cases in the United STates annually were amongst heterosexuals, and of those most were IV drug users. On top of that, the WHO just came out with a report saying much of what I’ve just said.

27

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small. [/quote]

uh no. especially if you like african girls like me.

28

Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW

29

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

How many heterosexuals do you know with HIV?

b/c everyone just openly admits to having the HIV

I thought you were kidding, but damn man

I can’t name one. Don’t know anyone who’s died from it. Can you?

I have several highly promiscuous friends who never use condoms. One decides to go in and get tested for HIV. He’s really worried about it. While at the clinic, the nurse asks him if he has been having sex with any men or using IV drugs. He says “no” to both. She tells him he doesn’t have anything to worry about.

The functional anatomy of anal sex is what spreads HIV. The cell walls of the lower intestine break easily through to blood because of the squarish shape of the cells and their thinness. The cells of the vagina are roundish and multiple layers thick, making it much harder to break through to blood.

C. Everett Koop, after scaring everyone in America with his HIV pamphlet, testified before Congress that less than 3% of the new HIV cases in the United STates annually were amongst heterosexuals, and of those most were IV drug users. On top of that, the WHO just came out with a report saying much of what I’ve just said.
[/quote]

interesting did not know this. i will still watch out, especially if i have anal sex with african girl lol. or i don’t want to catch herpes for the rest of my life.

30

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW
[/quote]

Sex workers? How do explain the fact that most of the men who have it are gay or HIV drug users? Are these gay men then going and having sex with women and spreading it to them, or are the 11% “heterosexual” male HIV infections the cause of the 77% female heterosexual cases?

I think the WHO’s new report sheds a little honesty on the situation:

31

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?
[/quote]

So what you’re saying is that roughly 65% of women take it up the butt.

32

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
so, we don’t have to use condoms any more?

seriously though, those 2 docs would be remembered for ever if they can pull this off

You don’t have to use them now if you’re a heterosexual worried about contracting HIV. Other diseases are a different story. The odds of you getting HIV from heterosexual contact are vanishingly small.

Are you fucking serious? No wonder HIV keeps rising.

How many heterosexuals do you know with HIV?

I know 5 people with HIV 2 are full blown AIDS.[/quote]

IV drug use?

33

[quote]dirtbag wrote:

Interesting link just for everyone in America[/quote]

Many believe those numbers are dramatically overstated for males that claim it was transmitted through heterosexual, vaginal contact with a woman.

34

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
tedro wrote:
Anyways, I say we forget about HIV. At some point we have to start letting natural selection run it’s course again, lest we continue this reverse evolution.

Thats a pretty cold thing to say for someone that is not infected with HIV. What happens if say you got infected. Your most likely a healthy guy. You happen to fall or need blood for some reason or some chick passes HIV to you and she didn’t know she had it. And bang through what should have been an easy transfusion or healthy relationship. You now have HIV.

Wow, should we all say to you nature should take its course as the sores and the body wasting starts to happen(there goes your precious body you worked so hard for). The perm. colds or other various diseases start to take hold from your weaken body and immune system?

Grow up idiot. This effects us all.

[/quote]

The chances of getting HIV from a transfusion are less than 1 in 2 million. Whether it still happens at all is very debatable. I’m willing to take my chances on this front.

With the other very small exception being unfortunate medical personell and law enforcement (which is also debatable), HIV is the result of a choice that individuals make. It is the responsibility of the individual to live with his choices, and not bring down all of society with them.

35

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW
[/quote]

Heterosexual women can get it from men and the biggest risk is anal sex.

It is very very very very hard for a man to get it from a woman.

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW

Heterosexual women can get it from men and the biggest risk is anal sex.

It is very very very very hard for a man to get it from a woman.[/quote]

This surprised me when I first heard it, but from what I’ve seen, the evidence seems to weigh in favor of it (zaps comment).

37

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW

Sex workers? How do explain the fact that most of the men who have it are gay or HIV drug users? Are these gay men then going and having sex with women and spreading it to them, or are the 11% “heterosexual” male HIV infections the cause of the 77% female heterosexual cases?

I think the WHO’s new report sheds a little honesty on the situation:

[/quote]

Is this a real report? the guy’s name is Dr. Cock? AKA Kevin de Cock?

38

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW

Sex workers? How do explain the fact that most of the men who have it are gay or HIV drug users? Are these gay men then going and having sex with women and spreading it to them, or are the 11% “heterosexual” male HIV infections the cause of the 77% female heterosexual cases?

I think the WHO’s new report sheds a little honesty on the situation:

[/quote]

[i] Dr De Cock , an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia �?? China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn’t look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”
[/i]

Seriously? Dr De Cock?

39

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
dirtbag wrote:
Wow it shows on this site that 65% of women caught HIV through hetro contact. hmmmmmm?

“At the end of 2006, the CDC estimates that 448,871 people were living with AIDS in the USA”
Source: Get the facts about sexual health and HIV | Be in the KNOW

Sex workers? How do explain the fact that most of the men who have it are gay or HIV drug users? Are these gay men then going and having sex with women and spreading it to them, or are the 11% “heterosexual” male HIV infections the cause of the 77% female heterosexual cases?

I think the WHO’s new report sheds a little honesty on the situation:

Is this a real report? the guy’s name is Dr. Cock? AKA Kevin de Cock?[/quote]

Dr. de Cock - of the cock. Seriously, though, it is a real report.

40

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
tedro wrote:
MrChief wrote:

Anyways, I say we forget about HIV. At some point we have to start letting natural selection run it’s course again, lest we continue this reverse evolution.

Pretty good counter argument, and do you or anybody else know the list of diseases that have been completely cured in the last 50 or so years?
This is the 2nd argument I always hear from the conspiracy theorist.

Tedro: Do you believe this only for HIV, or for all the other diseases also? What point do you decide to reverse evolution agian?[/quote]

When I say to completely forget about HIV, it is a bit tongue in cheek. I don’t hold anything against a drug company trying to find a cure for a disease to boost profits. I’m also not really going leave all HIV sufferers out to dry. The fact of the matter is that most with HIV are well into their reproductive years already, and with the current drugs available, they continue to have many years in which they are capable of reproducing. Obviously, HIV isn’t genetic, but the intelligence that one must lack to make such decisions to get the disease certainly is. Since HIV doesn’t prevent anyone from breeding, it in itself doesn’t really effect natural selection.

I would make a similar argument for any other disease that is a result of the choices one makes, which would include lung cancer, but exclude most other cancers.

I don’t think there is any way to stop reverse evolution, and if we don’t kill ourselves off in some other creative way first, it will definitely contribute to the downfall of human civilization. The problem is that virtually everyone now makes it to breeding age, and virtually everyone is allowed to raise children. Also, those of higher IQ’s and success tend to have less children than the unintelligent. Since intelligence is inherited, humans as a whole are getting dumber.

The only way to stop this without taking away an individuals right to life is to introduce a eugenics program. Of course if a eugenics program was used, it would lead to a huge revolt, so obviously the program would have to be structured in such a way that the majority of the power resides in the hands of those in favor. This means the requirements would likely have to be fairly loose, lest the revolting party would get too large and overthrow the eugenists. People are too selfish to give up their own ability to breed for the bettering of civilization.

Since the requirements would be sufficiently low, the results would be unsatisfactory, leading to a dismantling of the program and a return to reverse evolution.