Does HIV Cause AIDS?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

Damici,

This is humorous. Dude, I’m asking for CLARIFICATION of YOUR stance. You don’t clarify something by saying the same damned thing over and over again.

You draw out some examples. You consider the question and provide some further insight.

You’ve done none of this and berated me for not accepting the same statements over and over again as the answer to those questions.

You simply don’t get what I’m asking, which is fine, and it means I really have no need to ask it anyway – as I’ve already explained as well.

Maybe you should say the same thing a fourth time, perhaps that will suddenly provide additional insight into YOUR thinking for me?

Believe whatever you want. This is just plain silly.

162

[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici,

This is humorous. Dude, I’m asking for CLARIFICATION of YOUR stance. You don’t clarify something by saying the same damned thing over and over again.

You draw out some examples. You consider the question and provide some further insight.

You’ve done none of this and berated me for not accepting the same statements over and over again as the answer to those questions.

You simply don’t get what I’m asking, which is fine, and it means I really have no need to ask it anyway – as I’ve already explained as well.

Maybe you should say the same thing a fourth time, perhaps that will suddenly provide additional insight into YOUR thinking for me?

Believe whatever you want. This is just plain silly.[/quote]

CLARIFICATION OF MY STANCE, YOU STUPID FUCK??! WHAT TO YOU IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT #'S (1) AND (2)?? ARE YOU DENSE?? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE??! THAT IS MY STANCE AS IT EXISTS. THAT IS WHAT I THINK, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE SO FAR, OUGHT TO BE DONE. WHAT DON’T YOU GET, YOU FUZZY-HEADED FUCK???

Figure it out or piss off.

Un-fucking-believable.

163

Damici,

I’m beyond caring you moron. Yes, your points one and two FINALLY represented some clarification.

However, like I said, it’s not needed, it’s pointless, I don’t need to see it because you completely missed the gist of my concern.

So, if you can, relax. Funny how you’ve been saying that I’m upset, that I am a sore loser, this and that about my emotional state.

Take a look in the mirror there buddy. You’ve gone off the deep end.

Anything else I can help you with?

164

[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici,

I’m beyond caring you moron. Yes, your points one and two FINALLY represented some clarification.

However, like I said, it’s not needed, it’s pointless, I don’t need to see it because you completely missed the gist of my concern.

So, if you can, relax. Funny how you’ve been saying that I’m upset, that I am a sore loser, this and that about my emotional state.

Take a look in the mirror there buddy. You’ve gone off the deep end.

Anything else I can help you with?[/quote]

I’m glad that, after about 387 tries, you realized what a dense fuck you were and that my answer was there all along, only reiterating it in bullet point format for you made it easier for your pea-brain to comprehend, I guess.

Funny, you mentioned that my 2 points “finally” represented some clarification when, if you read what I’d said prior to that again (utilizing at least second-grade reading comprehension skills here), they were there all along, plain as day for all (except you, apparently) to see.

You should feel stupid now, because this should be a major “DUUUUH! (slap self on forehead)” moment for you, you bumbleheaded bore. Now that your idiocy has (again) been made all the more blatant for all to see, I once again ask you to go play in traffic. :slight_smile:

Have a nice life.

165

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

No. Its my belief that AIDS is simply a made-up name for diseases that are mostly confined to drug users and gays. Most Americans would not endorse funding for diseases caused by that behavior; so it got re-packaged as AIDS.

[/quote]

A growing number of luckless and poorly educated Africans would beg to differ.

166

LMAO!

I look forward to reading your pearls of wisdom on other threads you halfwit.

The more you berate me for my reading comprehension the funnier this gets, this is great!

167

[quote]vroom wrote:
LMAO!

I look forward to reading your pearls of wisdom on other threads you halfwit.

The more you berate me for my reading comprehension the funnier this gets, this is great![/quote]

I look forward to having you ask me on other threads, over and over and over, what it is that I’ve already spelled out in writing. It’s been a hoot.

Adios, fuckwit!

:slight_smile:

168

… last word.

169

[quote]vroom wrote:
… last word.[/quote]

Nope, mine.

:wink:

170

Vroom, miss Rainjack much?

He is back. Go pick a fight with him. It is more entertaining.

171

I’m not in a rush… I’m savoring the suspense of not knowing when a fight might arise… because the potential is there… just like some dark storm clouds drifting overhead… not quite sure if and when lightning might strike.

Ah, the beauty of nature!

172

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You guys are too funny! You probably don’t know the first thing about medical biology and virology and yet you say it’s a fact! You only say that because you believe in the person who stated that, not because you know what the hell you are talking about.

Aren’t you a nurse? Have you been faking all your Continuing Ed? You should know more about HIV than most of the folks here except for me and a couple of other guys.

Do you use Universal Precautions? Do you ignore bloodborne isolation signs? This is relevant to the discussion, because the reason we have such things in the medical field is the exact same reason we know that the HIV virus directly causes AIDS.

Virology. Immunology. Pathology.

Please tell me that you observe proper hand hygiene, and aren’t likely responsible for nosocomial infections, Lorisco. I can’t help but call your professional integrity into question when I read your posts about this subject.[/quote]

Dude,

You need to read more carefully. I never stated HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. What I stated was that the chance of getting the disease was overblown and hyped. That is what I stated.

173

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You guys are slamming headhunter because he is pushing an unpopular non-PC version of the truth, not because he is wrong. You all follow the crowd so damn much you can’t even think for yourselves.

Maybe there is HIV that causes AIDS and maybe not. But what seems very clear is that the homosexual community, with willing physicians, hyped the chance of getting HIV to the non-gay and non-IV drug using population much more than was scientifically supported.

So with the willing (left) media they overblew this issue on purpose to get funding for AIDS research. They tried to scare the general population making them believe they were at-risk for AIDS in order to get money for their special interest issue. I say “special interest” because millions more people die of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes each year than AIDS. So they lied to get money that would have rightfully gone to diseases that affect a much larger population.

So whether or not HIV is real and causes AIDS is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the AIDS “crisis” was misrepresented from day one. So if the risk was misrepresented it is not inconceivable that the disease itself was misrepresented as well.

But nooo, you guys will continue to go on believing what the media tells you like good little drones.

You sound like a world-class idiot, and are trying to confuse the issue by bringing up a somewhat related, secondary point about the politicization of the disease. Arguing that there is a drug company conspiracy and HIV does not cause AIDS is basically intellectually and morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust: either you’re really stupid/easily persuaded or you allow your hatred for a group of people (gays or Jews) to overpower your reasoning.

Whether straight people are as likely to catch AIDS as gays is a very different issue (and again, look at Africa).[/quote]

You need to learn to read first, then we can discuss the issue.

I never stated anything about drug companies and conspiracy. My point is that the media and many health care practitioners deliberately exaggerated the chance of a non-gay, non-IV drug using populations’ chances of getting HIV. This is a documented FACT as the info coming out in the media was conflicting with the CDC statistical and medical findings.

So my only issue is the deception used to con straight people out of money to support a disease that statistically only affects a small percentage of the US population.

Many, many, many more people die each year of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than AIDS. So that is where most of the money and research should be directed.

174

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Many, many, many more people die each year of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than AIDS. So that is where most of the money and research should be directed.[/quote]

That is an extremely ignorant statement.

As others have mentioned, HIV / AIDS research has allowed us to get an unprecedented level of understanding about viruses and our immune system. And considering viruses are a tremounds threat to humanity, any such research is indeed vital. Much of the work that we did for HIV / AIDS is helping understanding and fighting other viruses, including, but not limited to, the bird flu virus.

Just the latest discovery:

Do you even understand how important this stuff is, for much more than just finding a cure for AIDS?

175

[quote]hspder wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Many, many, many more people die each year of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than AIDS. So that is where most of the money and research should be directed.

That is an extremely ignorant statement.

As others have mentioned, HIV / AIDS research has allowed us to get an unprecedented level of understanding about viruses and our immune system. And considering viruses are a tremounds threat to humanity, any such research is indeed vital. Much of the work that we did for HIV / AIDS is helping understanding and fighting other viruses, including, but not limited to, the bird flu virus.

Just the latest discovery:

Do you even understand how important this stuff is, for much more than just finding a cure for AIDS?
[/quote]

So what? Maybe MORE and BETTER discoveries would have been made if the money had been funneled into mainstream diseases. Maybe MORE lives would have been saved. We know there is no cure for AIDS but we DO know that cancer can be defeated for some.

While HIV may be a cause for AIDS, I totally agree with Lorisco that the issue was hyped for $$$$$$.

176

It’s easy to complain about money spent after we learn about the disease…

I still contend that when it was simply a misunderstood epidemic and we didn’t know exactly how it would spread or who it would infect, that it was not a matter of purposeful hyping.

It’s great having 20/20 hindsight, but prudent decisions have to be made prior to having that knowledge.

If you want to reassess money priorities at this point in time, given our current state of knowledge, that seems a much more reasonable statement to be making.

I wonder how much research the Iraq war costs could have funded?

177

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You guys are slamming headhunter because he is pushing an unpopular non-PC version of the truth, not because he is wrong. You all follow the crowd so damn much you can’t even think for yourselves.

Maybe there is HIV that causes AIDS and maybe not. But what seems very clear is that the homosexual community, with willing physicians, hyped the chance of getting HIV to the non-gay and non-IV drug using population much more than was scientifically supported.

So with the willing (left) media they overblew this issue on purpose to get funding for AIDS research. They tried to scare the general population making them believe they were at-risk for AIDS in order to get money for their special interest issue. I say “special interest” because millions more people die of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes each year than AIDS. So they lied to get money that would have rightfully gone to diseases that affect a much larger population.

So whether or not HIV is real and causes AIDS is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the AIDS “crisis” was misrepresented from day one. So if the risk was misrepresented it is not inconceivable that the disease itself was misrepresented as well.

But nooo, you guys will continue to go on believing what the media tells you like good little drones.

You sound like a world-class idiot, and are trying to confuse the issue by bringing up a somewhat related, secondary point about the politicization of the disease. Arguing that there is a drug company conspiracy and HIV does not cause AIDS is basically intellectually and morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust: either you’re really stupid/easily persuaded or you allow your hatred for a group of people (gays or Jews) to overpower your reasoning.

Whether straight people are as likely to catch AIDS as gays is a very different issue (and again, look at Africa).

You need to learn to read first, then we can discuss the issue.

I never stated anything about drug companies and conspiracy. My point is that the media and many health care practitioners deliberately exaggerated the chance of a non-gay, non-IV drug using populations’ chances of getting HIV. This is a documented FACT as the info coming out in the media was conflicting with the CDC statistical and medical findings.

[/quote]

You said “Maybe there is HIV that causes AIDS and maybe not.” Then you stuck up for the loon squad by writing “You guys are slamming headhunter because he is pushing an unpopular non-PC version of the truth, not because he is wrong.”

Your somewhat legitimate point about HIV not being as bad for heterosexual men as previously thought is intertwined with the above idiocy.

178

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So what? Maybe MORE and BETTER discoveries would have been made if the money had been funneled into mainstream diseases. Maybe MORE lives would have been saved. We know there is no cure for AIDS but we DO know that cancer can be defeated for some.[/quote]

Again, you are showing that you do not understand the issue at hand.

First of all, a good slice of medical discoveries were achieved while looking for something completely different. Penicillin is the most famous example, but there are many others.

Second, the biggest problem with many current cancer “treatments” (chemo and radiation) is that they kill our immune system as effectively as they kill cancer cells (more so with lymphoma than with other cancers, of course, but those treatments universally affect our T-cells). HIV research has been pivotal in understanding our immune system and how to boost it (HIV patients serve as great guinea pigs that have nothing to lose…), and hence it directly applies to improving the chances of survival of cancer patients…

Many doctors I know here at Stanford Hospital and Clinics feel that there actually ISN’T ENOUGH HIV and AIDS research, for which they blame in great part the pharmaceutical companies, which feel that finding a cure of HIV/AIDS is not a profitable endeavor (because contrary to cardiovascular conditions, diabetes and cancer, they are not prevalent in affluent people). So it falls in the hands of governments – and hence taxpayers – to do the smart thing and fund it.

179

[quote]hspder wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Many, many, many more people die each year of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than AIDS. So that is where most of the money and research should be directed.

That is an extremely ignorant statement.

As others have mentioned, HIV / AIDS research has allowed us to get an unprecedented level of understanding about viruses and our immune system. And considering viruses are a tremounds threat to humanity, any such research is indeed vital. Much of the work that we did for HIV / AIDS is helping understanding and fighting other viruses, including, but not limited to, the bird flu virus.

Just the latest discovery:

Do you even understand how important this stuff is, for much more than just finding a cure for AIDS?
[/quote]

Do you understand that many more people are dying of other non-virus related disease each day and yet people like you want to focus all the money and research on this area that has much fewer deaths.

How can you justify letting more people die of other diseases just because the public has been frightened into believing that HIV is more of a threat than heart disease, cancer, etc…?

Wake up man!

180

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s easy to complain about money spent after we learn about the disease…

I still contend that when it was simply a misunderstood epidemic and we didn’t know exactly how it would spread or who it would infect, that it was not a matter of purposeful hyping.

It’s great having 20/20 hindsight, but prudent decisions have to be made prior to having that knowledge.

If you want to reassess money priorities at this point in time, given our current state of knowledge, that seems a much more reasonable statement to be making.

I wonder how much research the Iraq war costs could have funded?[/quote]

Vroom, your point is well taken and would be reasonable aside from the fact that the CDC did have info about HIV at the same time that the media and the popular medicine talking heads were putting out their “facts”. And the problem is that the CDC did NOT support the PC version that was being pushed in the media. So either the media was irresponsible or they deliberately wanted to mislead the public. Either way is was not as innocent as you portray.