[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Ad Makkun i think youre one of the liberals who attacks anyone who doesnt share your point of view. So you attack me because you dont have any evidence of AIDS not being a gay disease, when theres mountains of evidence that it is. Did you bother to read any of the links i posted?
A homophobe is someone winning a battle with a liberal.
So anyone that see’s how ignorant and ridiculous you are has to be a liberal?..interesting. Well not really…this makes sense coming from you. [/quote]
Besides how you feel about me, how is what im saying ridiculous. I keep posting evidence, but the more links i give you to evidence, the more I get attacked. My evidence never gets attacked, just me.
To forlife, you yourslef may be in a committed relationship. If you are , amen to you. But I didnt say theat forlife is spreading or responsible for the spread of HIV did I?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just skimmed thru the source materials posted by the OP. I can’t find much fault with it. Why doesn’t someone debate the relative merits of the source material?[/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just skimmed thru the source materials posted by the OP. I can’t find much fault with it. Why doesn’t someone debate the relative merits of the source material?[/quote]
Did the same. The fault I find with it, is that this it all is one journalist’s work, he mixes in a lot of conspiracy theories and none of the quotes numbers are fresher than 1998, and the last text is going back to 1992. HIV/AIDS knowledge has moved on substantially since then.
But more specifically: I have no problem with Fumento’s claim that the hetero-sexual epidemic never took place in the US. Although it’s the most affected country in the western world, the epidemic was kept within the risk groups it broke out in first. I’ve also got no problem with him claiming that there is a socio-political component to campaigning and securing funds. Not all diseases gain the appropriate attention, and there were many mistakes made with regards to HIV/AIDS. But - one of the central claims of Fumento is that the CDC doesn’t recognise the socio-economic factors on risk behaviours and that they don’t divide out the ways of transmission. That’s outdated, just refer back to ZEB’s helpful (and often selectively) read source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
This source specifically maps out 15% as high-risk heterosexual transmission. This is supported by a lot of research (see some PubMed sources below, which map out the risks involved), and the claim that there hasn’t been any real research in MSM risk behaviour is simply spurious in the face of peer-reviewed research available (some of it I linked to in my first post). No one denies that the main number of patients and new infections have stayed within the risk groups identified in the US - but that is because of the efforts to warn the population back in the 80s. So, ironically, the panic about HIV/AIDS has helped prevent what has happened in the countries that weren’t so lucky.
What gets my back up over the OP, is the incessant attempt to blame a specific group for the spread of HIV/AIDS. That’s a pattern he has consistently shown, and that’s why I use the troll label. But I shall answer him directly, as this post was to explain to you were I see the problem with Fumento’s claims.
Some sources for you to read, should you want to follow up:
Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. European
[Edit:] PS: I’ve just seen that the OP used also a text from Fumento (again, no one else out there?) from 2005, which claims that the African epidemic cannot be explained by hetero-sexual vaginal transmission. My first PubMed source addresses this point. While I understand the appeal of the self-proclaimed underdog, I rather trust proper science - but I know that’s not the done thing for some people.
If i said that all gays were wonderful and they should all get married and live happily ever after, then I guess I wouldnt be trolling right Makkun?[…][/quote]
I have faith - I’m sure you would find another topic to rile others whom you perceive as inferior. Funnily enough, if people got married (and stayed monogamous and practised safer sex if not), then you probably would have this specific topic less to troll about.
[quote]Yea i did say that and…!!! What! Thats has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
That doesnt make the fact of aids being a gay disease pretty much everywhere outside of Africa a gay disease any less true!
And if you read any of the links i posted it’ll tell you how the CDC fabricates evidence and how they come to their conclusion. Even in Florida, the so-called “outbreak” among heterosexuals turned out to be a hoax![…][/quote]
Well, if I have decide whether to trust medical experts, or you and Michael Fumento, I know where my choice lies. Just so you get this one - I trust the CDC rather than you and Fumento, but I’ve been told that I’m a cynic.
[quote]Makkun, if a man is diagnosed with HIV and the CDC interviews them, that man couldve had sex with 1000 men, if he says he got it from a woman, theyll lump him in with the heterosexual category with out any investigation. The question is, why wont they investigate? Its because they know that theyll get an answer thats not politically correct. They dont want to know. Its really out of sight out of mind.
Thats why time and time again, heterosexual AIDS scares have proven to be frauds. In one of the articles I posted, if you read them, it mentioned one man that was an HIV patient that had to be interviewed four times before he admitted to having gay sex. And as we know, some men would rather swallow poison than admit to something like that, so it makes sense a lot of them would lie about how they got it.[…][/quote]
Sources, numbers, peer-reviews, anything else than anecdotal ‘evidence’. Non? Thought so.
It would help if you just decided to leave people in peace.
A lot of things are legal, but some things still make you a bit of arse if you do them. Let’s do the math - you’ve got seven years on that girl, and a number of sexual partners. I haven’t checked your posts with regards to drug use, but let assume you went through a ‘normal’ teenage existence, which would include at least some mild drug use and some alcohol - probably in conjunction at some point with some (unprotected?) sex. The last three lines define your risk factors. She’s 16 and on the pill - which adds probably a number of risk factors on her behalf as well. But let’s stick with you - do you get an HIV test with every new partner you ‘do raw’ as you so lovingly phrased it? HPV, etc.? Do you take into account the lead times you need for your tests? The list is long - and leaving out the risk of pregancy (did you have a guarantee that she was on the pill?), and should you have done as you planned, you would have introduced a high number of risks for you as well as her. And that would have been your fault - as you’re supposed to be the adult; I guess the verdict is still out on that one. But no, let’s rather talk about them evil gays.
Yeah, I’m really known for my foul language and bad manners. I admit that I give special attention to your posts on occasion within PWI, as they tend to lower the level of debate and are one of the reasons why regularly people look down on us in PWI.
Yes, I read your links, and I’ve addressed them in my answer to The Bodyguard. I’ve also quoted a number of sources which say your point is incorrect.[/quote]
I deduce you see yourself as ‘winning’ this argument, hence you just called yourself a homophobe. Thanks, I shall make note of that and quote you on occasion.
AIDS is transmitted heterosexually in Africa; homosexually in America
The first AIDS researchers on the ground in Africa were amazed to find such a different dynamic from their experience in the United States, which involved going right to the patient population and their bathhouses in San Francisco, etc
Actually Makkun, im living proof that heterosexual transmission of hiv is next to impossible. I have been with a number of women and am disease free. I tried going to the Air Force and didnt get in because I got scoliosis, but otherwise im healthy as a bull. And they do mandatory HIV test, so no HIV over here. Then again, I never sleep with men, so thats a given. If a baby pops up, I can take care of it. In your opinion me sleeping with a 16 year old makes me an “arse” whatever that is, but the state of MI seems to think its ok.
And by the way, theres probably a lot of 16 y/o girls around this city thats probably more experienced than you and could teach you a thing or two. Alot of girls prefer men older than them. I know a woman, shes 26 now, but when she was 16 her boyfriend was 24. Alot of girls I went to hs with had boyfriends in their 20’s and this was while we were in high school. When I was 16, I couldnt get any girl at my school, because they were taken by 25 year old men with cars and money. And i been with a 18 year old and its no difference between a 18 y/o and a 16 so give it a rest!
But the same stae also doesnt think gay marriage is ok. Yes I was one of the bad ppl that voted against it to keep it illegal in this state. In the article, it explains how ppl lie about how they got HIV and the CDC doesnt investigate, so yeah it would have “heterosexual” cases.
But if everyone told the truth, it would be far fewer heterosexual cases. Another point is, why did Magic Johnson get HIV from supposedly sleeping with a woman, yet all the other athletes that do the same remain HIV free? Then again he was rumored to be bisexual, then he pops up with HIV. Coincedence? I think not! Michael Jordan was doing the same thing, thats why he and his wife divorced, but Michael Jordan doesnt have HIV. But he was never rumored to be bisexual either.
Even your CDC statistics show HIV as still being a majority gay disease. And alot of the heterosexual cases have been falsified!
And Makkun, its interesting to note the CDC mention “high risk heterosexual contact”. Regular sex between a man and a woman doesnt fit that description, unless the man is a drug user or closet bisexual.
And the poor women who dont know that the man theyre sleeping with is bisexual and sleeps with other, and then she gets HIV because of him. Its really sad. My mother had a friend who caught HIV that way. Her husband liked to sleep with other men and she didnt know it. He caught it from a man and passed it on to her.
After she was diagnosed, thats when he admitted it to her the way he really was. He’s dead now. He died in 1994 from AIDS. Shes still alive and healthy.
Question: I read this source and it did mention young women getting it from heterosexual sex, but it didnt mention the men getting it the same way. I wonder where the men who infected them got it from, but we all know the answer to that by now!
And heres a quote from thus source you posted http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g… African-American, Latino, and White men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) may be a bridge of HIV transmission from men to women.
Once again we see the only “heterosexual infections” are given to women that sleep with men who sleep with men.
'For black men, the most common ways of getting HIV are (in order)
having unprotected sex with another man who has HIV
sharing injection drug works (like needles or syringes) with someone who has HIV 3. having unprotected sex with a woman who has HIV’ http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm
Points 1 and 2 are not debated by any of us - so let’s concentrate on 3: Besides sources by Michael Fumento, you have only quoted anecdotal evidence (read: rumours) that the CDC falsifies its data. I have seen so far no sources or meta-studies showing any evidence of that assertion.
Sorry, if I wasn’t clear so far, read this:
‘Pooled female-to-male (0.04% per act [95% CI 0.01-0.14]) and male-to-female (0.08% per act [95% CI 0.06-0.11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0.38% per act [95% CI 0.13-1.10]) and male-to-female (0.30% per act [95% CI 0.14-0.63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher.’ Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Hetero-sexual female to male transmission (albeit less likely) is not a myth. Believing in that, and engaging (and promoting) unprotected sexual contact with multiple partners (whose sexual histories you don’t know) is risk behaviour. Starting threads on it on a site full of young people is questionable and letting it happen borders on the negligent by the moderators.
With regards to your personal activities - besides fitting so many of the risk factors discussed in the CDC’s guidance - I recognise that you won’t take advice. Too bad, because chances are it may go wrong for you (not so bad as you make your choices obvious) or someone else (very bad). I shall also take none of yours as I wouldn’t seek to sleep with a girl who isn’t even half my age. I understand that you wouldn’t trust anyone over the internet - except conspiracy wielding journalists - so I suggest once you join the forces to speak with your medical personnel there. Just disclose and discuss - you may one want to thank someone for this advice.
I never said heterosexual contact wasnt a risk factor, but dont try to put it on par with homosaexuality as being just as much of a risk factor…thats all Im saying and lying to the public about it. Its just a move to be politically correct and not offend homosexuals.
Its like if you were a security officer at an airport and you saw a group of young arab males and an old white couple in their 70s or 80s. To be politically correct, you would have to say “Well that old white couple can commit a suicide bombing just as much as those young arab males, so ill keep just as much of an eye on them.” But realistically, how many suicide bombings have been committed by a 70 or 80 year old white couple? Someone trying to be pc might say “Well 100 years ago an old white couple rode a horse drawn carriage full of dynamite into a saloon, so that proves they are just as capable of doing a suicide bombing.” When in reality, that one isolated incidence means nothing at all.
Its the same with HIV. To be pc, the media wants to make it seem like everyone is at equal risk and that homosexual behavior is no more likely to spread disease, when in fact, its disease infested! HIV is just one of many diseases that plague practicing homosexuals.
And im not saying all arabs are suicide bombers, before someone starts whining about that. I was just trying to make a vivid example we all could picture.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
To forlife, you yourslef may be in a committed relationship. If you are , amen to you. But I didnt say theat forlife is spreading or responsible for the spread of HIV did I?[/quote]
I just wanted to make the point that being gay doesn’t necessarily mean you are at any risk of catching HIV or other diseases.
You can’t point to rates of HIV among gays, and conclude that people should not be gay. Not that you’re saying this, but I’ve heard it in the past.
It’s about sexual responsibility, not about sexual orientation.
And if anyone just thinks i hate gays, one of the best singers in my opinion, was rumored to have been gay Luther Vandross. And my ipod is filled with his music.
[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
To forlife, you yourslef may be in a committed relationship. If you are , amen to you. But I didnt say theat forlife is spreading or responsible for the spread of HIV did I?
I just wanted to make the point that being gay doesn’t necessarily mean you are at any risk of catching HIV or other diseases.
You can’t point to rates of HIV among gays, and conclude that people should not be gay. Not that you’re saying this, but I’ve heard it in the past.
It’s about sexual responsibility, not about sexual orientation.[/quote]
I agree with you forlife. It’s just that it seems the majority of homosexual men have no “sexual responsibility”.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
It’s not about sexual orientation, it’s about safe sexual behavior. People in a committed monogamous relationship are at zero risk of catching HIV, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.
But that doesnt address the concern of HIV being a primarily gay disease, which is like the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Did you know that it was once called the gay plague?[/quote]
When I was at school in the 80s, the kind of jokes that went round were that AIDS stood for Arse Injected Death Sentence.
When Aids and HIV first hit the news, most people talked about it as just a gay issue. The large amount of propeganda about hetrosexual risk was a reaction to the initial view.
Books like the one mentioned are just the pendulum swinging back.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
It’s not about sexual orientation, it’s about safe sexual behavior. People in a committed monogamous relationship are at zero risk of catching HIV, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.
But that doesnt address the concern of HIV being a primarily gay disease, which is like the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Did you know that it was once called the gay plague?
When I was at school in the 80s, the kind of jokes that went round were that AIDS stood for Arse Injected Death Sentence.
When Aids and HIV first hit the news, most people talked about it as just a gay issue. The large amount of propeganda about hetrosexual risk was a reaction to the initial view.
Books like the one mentioned are just the pendulum swinging back.[/quote]
I’m not sure which book you are referring to, but it appears that Michael Fumento’s book was published in 1990.
In other words, around the same time period that Oprah Winfrey was telling her audience, ‘Research studies now project that one in five – listen to me, hard to believe – one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years.’
