Somewhat off on a tangent here, Lorisco was onto one thing: if any of you have read the book “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS” by Michael Fumento, he makes a pretty compelling case for the fact that the risks of acquiring the disease in the heterosexual population were greatly overblown for political reasons. His bottom line is not that heterosexual sex cannot result in transmission of HIV (it can), but rather that transmission of HIV has almost never (or perhaps never at all) been proven to have taken place in the direction of going from female-to-male via sexual intercourse. From male-to-female, certainly, but the reverse is not true, according to Fumento. Which leads to the conclusion that a heterosexual male who does not inject drugs (and has not received any blood transfusions) essentially has just about zero risk of acquiring HIV, as he isn’t going to get it from having sex with a woman.
This obviously has massive political and sociological rammifications, and his book has caused a massive uproar. It also might lead to the unfortunate result of straight males thinking that they’re “free and clear,” and that they don’t need to use condoms, which would be unwise on their part, since herpes, HPV, gonorhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis B, etc. (pardon my spelling – it’s late) can easily be acquired by a male from a female.
Nevertheless, just something to ponder. I’m not sure if he’s right, but when you read his stuff carefully, it makes a LOT of sense . . . .
I think what folks need to remember is that HIV is NOT a venereal disease. So many people forget this. It is a bloodborne pathogen. It lives in your blood and stuff that has white blood cells in it. Technically, it is a mistake to compare HIV to the clap and chlamydia, etc., it is more appropos to compare it to Hepatitis B (another bloodborne pathogen).
It’s just common sense to realize that risks for catching a bloodborne disease are associated with activities that involve exposure to blood. Butt sex (hetero or otherwise) involves more blood than vaginal sex. Therefore, do the math. What happens when you share heroin needles, or get a blood transfusion? Exposure to blood.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
There are also studies that conclude that smoking tobacco has no correlation to lung cancer. Don’t belive everything you read.[/quote]
Chinadoll, were you referring to my post? Perhaps you didn’t read it right . . . or check out any of Fumento’s writings. You can find a lot of it online, even if you don’t pick up the book. Feel free to dispute any of his specific points if you’d like; I’m all ears.
Incidentally, “The Myth of Hetersexual AIDS” was first published in 1989, at a time when many who read and reviewed it immediately called the auther (Michael Fumento) an immoral, homophobic antichrist, but his predictions in terms of how the disease would spread and in what populations, which went against almost all accepted predictions by the CDC and the medical community at the time, have since proven to be quite accurate. His book and viewpoint have now been much more widely accepted by the medical and epidemiological community, if somewhat grudgingly.
[quote]johnny boy wrote:
And my girl is a doctor and I am a pharmaceutical researcher so …I KNOW AIDS exists…
And for the guy who started the thread is that a point karate or taekwondo avatar??? Effective point karate or taekwondo…now there is something that doesn’t exist.
HOLY CRAP[/quote]
The thread is about what causes AIDS and whether AIDS was trumped up to get $$$. There was no question about whether it exists.
Please enter any Ohio state tournament in TKD. I fight in the over 35 division. I will happily show you how I score TWO points (hence my user name).
[quote]johnny boy wrote:
I am home sick today and came across this thread. I never cease to be blown away by the stupidity of people posting on the internet.[/quote]
I think what folks need to remember is that HIV is NOT a venereal disease. So many people forget this. It is a bloodborne pathogen. It lives in your blood and stuff that has white blood cells in it. Technically, it is a mistake to compare HIV to the clap and chlamydia, etc., it is more appropos to compare it to Hepatitis B (another bloodborne pathogen).
It’s just common sense to realize that risks for catching a bloodborne disease are associated with activities that involve exposure to blood. Butt sex (hetero or otherwise) involves more blood than vaginal sex. Therefore, do the math. What happens when you share heroin needles, or get a blood transfusion? Exposure to blood.[/quote]
So, if you don’t engage in those activities, you won’t get the disease? Does this fit in with how a plague spreads?
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
johnny boy wrote:
I am home sick today and came across this thread. I never cease to be blown away by the stupidity of people posting on the internet.
Not necessarily stupid. He is simply questioning what other people tell him.
Is that so wrong? DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT AIDS EXISTS? No, unless you know someone who is afflicted with the disease or know someone who researches this you have no reason to believe it.
I do believe it. But that is simply because I have been taught that way. I have studied biology in many forms for a while and continue to do so at univeristy so I have the proof I seek to believe in AIDS.
To headhunter I say: Good job! Don’t believe anything because it is hyped up! Even if lots of people believe it doesn’t mean its true. Look for your own answers. (I would suggest you start reading medical journals and other scientific publications to get the facts before they are watered down and/or misconstrued by the media.)[/quote]
This is one of the most intelligent and mature posts I’ve read on T-Nation. I’m the first to admit that my knowledge is very limited in many things. I like, though, to question what I’m told and in fact what most people accept as ‘gospel’. So, I expect a lot of ‘flames’ — comes with the territory.
I think what folks need to remember is that HIV is NOT a venereal disease. So many people forget this. It is a bloodborne pathogen. It lives in your blood and stuff that has white blood cells in it. Technically, it is a mistake to compare HIV to the clap and chlamydia, etc., it is more appropos to compare it to Hepatitis B (another bloodborne pathogen).
It’s just common sense to realize that risks for catching a bloodborne disease are associated with activities that involve exposure to blood. Butt sex (hetero or otherwise) involves more blood than vaginal sex. Therefore, do the math. What happens when you share heroin needles, or get a blood transfusion? Exposure to blood.
So, if you don’t engage in those activities, you won’t get the disease? Does this fit in with how a plague spreads?
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “how a plague spreads,” and I’m not scientist or doctor, so I looked up the word plague, and here’s how Merriam-Webster defines it:
Go to Ohio and enter some Taekwondo tourney… I’d rather do BJJ and boxing.
Taekwondo is too lethal…2 points…OMG!
Some people questioned the existence of AIDS. And the link of HIV to AIDS is established. One shady website does not make a great case. The idea that some are resistant to HIV through the CCR5 mutation, the idea that hetero men are less likely to get it and other political issues are all real. Sure, some people have overstated the risk of HIV/AIDS in hetero men. That is as wrong as understating it. Just be cause the ‘establishment’ says it doesn’t mean it’s true, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t either. Sometimes, the establishment is right because it’s actually very committed and interested biologists who the ‘establishment’ gets their info from. My problem is with all the conspiracy theories out there. I know hundreds of scientists and dozens of doctors working on HIV. They have no hidden agenda and this type of BS is ridiculous. People need to understand that while it is certainly easier to get HIV/AIDS as a drug user or homosexual male, it is a horrible disease and is worth researching. The main goal of all the BS is to say what exactly? Do they have a better idea to treat it? Quarentine. Maybe. But that will be hard. So what are they offering us? AIDS isn’t caused by HIV and straight guys can’t get it. That is retarded.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
johnny boy wrote:
And my girl is a doctor and I am a pharmaceutical researcher so …I KNOW AIDS exists…
And for the guy who started the thread is that a point karate or taekwondo avatar??? Effective point karate or taekwondo…now there is something that doesn’t exist.
HOLY CRAP
The thread is about what causes AIDS and whether AIDS was trumped up to get $$$. There was no question about whether it exists.
Please enter any Ohio state tournament in TKD. I fight in the over 35 division. I will happily show you how I score TWO points (hence my user name).
I knew I should never have posted in the non-training section. Kina Mutai is an exotic, rare and lethal martial art centered on biting for those that don’t know.
I guess if you don’t believe in HIV-AIDS link…that is an effective counter HAHAHA
BJJ is a counter for that and many dirty tactics actually. Biting has always been something fighters have had to deal with. IT’s no newer than grappling and a counter to some people, doing some things, some times. It ain’t a counter to BJJ…Whatever.
My point is there is no conspiracy around the science of HIV/AIDS. There are some political agendas, but you just have to think critically about them. That takes balance. The balance to know that if a group of homosexuals says everyone will die from AIDS next year so you better spend all your money researching it, well they may not be shooting you straight (no pun intended).
And if a group of moral control freaks tells you AIDS is not worth researching cause it’s a disease of gays and junkies, they may not know it all either. The truth is out there…It’s just not always on the internet. What was the point of this thread anyway? To say what exactly? HIV does not cause AIDS. How many sources did you check before you were ‘convinced’ of this? Is the point to say heterosexual males are safe and don’t need to worry?
Have you seen the 2004 survey report of HIV/AIDS in the US? Have you ever seen the cases in Africa? I’m done, never should have posted. I guess in the back of my mind I’m afraid someone will listen to this.
[quote]Damici wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
There are also studies that conclude that smoking tobacco has no correlation to lung cancer. Don’t belive everything you read.
Chinadoll, were you referring to my post? Perhaps you didn’t read it right . . . or check out any of Fumento’s writings. You can find a lot of it online, even if you don’t pick up the book. Feel free to dispute any of his specific points if you’d like; I’m all ears.[/quote]
Damici~
I was referring to the original post.
I did go back and read yours about HIV though. Interesting. My opinion (soapbox warning)- based upon my experience with certain populations and not upon reading any kinds of studies-- I do disagree with Fumento’s statement about HIV transmisson through heterosexual intercourse, although HIV is much more prevalent in the IV drug user population for obvious reasons, it’s still very transmissible through heterosexual sex, only you have to be with a partner who has HIV. Also, hardcore IV drug addicts by nature of being very involved with their activities, hang around other IV drug users and less around mainstream people, so their societal exposure to the mainstream is a lot less, and hence single heterosexuals with healthy lifestyles and careers, who have their own lives, communities and peers, will be less likely to ‘find’ an HIV Positive-IV Drug Addict for a heterosexual partner and hence are much less likely to become HIV positive.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
Damici wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
There are also studies that conclude that smoking tobacco has no correlation to lung cancer. Don’t belive everything you read.
Chinadoll, were you referring to my post? Perhaps you didn’t read it right . . . or check out any of Fumento’s writings. You can find a lot of it online, even if you don’t pick up the book. Feel free to dispute any of his specific points if you’d like; I’m all ears.
Damici~
I was referring to the original post.
I did go back and read yours about HIV though. Interesting. My opinion (soapbox warning)- based upon my experience with certain populations and not upon reading any kinds of studies-- I do disagree with Fumento’s statement about HIV transmisson through heterosexual intercourse, although HIV is much more prevalent in the IV drug user population for obvious reasons, it’s still very transmissible through heterosexual sex, only you have to be with a partner who has HIV. Also, hardcore IV drug addicts by nature of being very involved with their activities, hang around other IV drug users and less around mainstream people, so their societal exposure to the mainstream is a lot less, and hence single heterosexuals with healthy lifestyles and careers, who have their own lives, communities and peers, will be less likely to ‘find’ an HIV Positive-IV Drug Addict for a heterosexual partner and hence are much less likely to become HIV positive. [/quote]
Transmissible among heterosexuals, true, as I acknowledged. But it’s the direction that is key here, and it is transmissible mainly, if not exclusively, from male to female, and not the reverse. THAT’S the interesting point around which most of his whole thesis hinges, and one that appears to be true.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Somewhat off on a tangent here, Lorisco was onto one thing: if any of you have read the book “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS” by Michael Fumento, he makes a pretty compelling case for the fact that the risks of acquiring the disease in the heterosexual population were greatly overblown for political reasons. His bottom line is not that heterosexual sex cannot result in transmission of HIV (it can), but rather that transmission of HIV has almost never (or perhaps never at all) been proven to have taken place in the direction of going from female-to-male via sexual intercourse. From male-to-female, certainly, but the reverse is not true, according to Fumento. Which leads to the conclusion that a heterosexual male who does not inject drugs (and has not received any blood transfusions) essentially has just about zero risk of acquiring HIV, as he isn’t going to get it from having sex with a woman.
This obviously has massive political and sociological rammifications, and his book has caused a massive uproar. It also might lead to the unfortunate result of straight males thinking that they’re “free and clear,” and that they don’t need to use condoms, which would be unwise on their part, since herpes, HPV, gonorhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis B, etc. (pardon my spelling – it’s late) can easily be acquired by a male from a female.
Nevertheless, just something to ponder. I’m not sure if he’s right, but when you read his stuff carefully, it makes a LOT of sense . . . .[/quote]
Sorry, I didn’t read your post well. I see what he’s saying. There are valid points. I’d like to read the book. Interesting.