Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MortalWombat · 09-13-2002, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
I figure that HIV/AIDS is a socio-political tool much like global warming.

As far as I know, no HIV virus has ever been seen.

You must not know much then.

<a href="http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is a site with many electron micrographs of HIV.

Quote:

Anti-body tests were reverse engineered to test positive for people who were defined as having AIDS.

Care to quote your sources?

Quote:

To have AIDS a person only has to test positive and have one or more conditions on a list. It's a long list.

What the hell is your point? Maybe you need to check out the <a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm" target="_blank">overwhelming evidence</a> that hiv causes AIDS.

abe smith · 09-13-2002, 06:08 AM

VIXSTILE: what the hell do you mean? >>>> "There was never any break from the gay community into the strait {Nice Freudian slip} Community. Evidence? Common sense." If you MEAN this statement to mean what it seems to mean, Vixstile, you are WAY OFF BASE! and nobody better take your statement seriously! There certainly ARRRRRRRRGH "breaks from the gay community into the straight community"; and bi-sexual secretly-gay males (of whom, it seems, there 're many many BLACK practicers of "DOWN-LOW" who refuse to admit that they EVUH do 'queer" stuff)... such unadmitted doers are the *most-dangerous* carriers of all; and it is they who bring home AIDS to their innocent & unsuspecting WIVES & female paramours. YOU are talking what you don't KNOW!

Claudia · 09-13-2002, 06:32 AM

Quote:

the myth that homosexuals can contract AIDS while heteros can't.

My husband's cousin died of AIDS. She got it from her husband (who died 2 years earler). He got it from blood factors used to care for his hemophilia

So of course, heteros can't contact AIDS.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Claudia ]

vixstile · 09-13-2002, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith:
VIXSTILE: what the hell do you mean? >>>> "There was never any break from the gay community into the strait {Nice Freudian slip} Community. Evidence? Common sense." If you MEAN this statement to mean what it seems to mean, Vixstile, you are WAY OFF BASE! and nobody better take your statement seriously! There certainly ARRRRRRRRGH "breaks from the gay community into the straight community"; and bi-sexual secretly-gay males (of whom, it seems, there 're many many BLACK practicers of "DOWN-LOW" who refuse to admit that they EVUH do 'queer" stuff)... such unadmitted doers are the *most-dangerous* carriers of all; and it is they who bring home AIDS to their innocent & unsuspecting WIVES & female paramours. YOU are talking what you don't KNOW!

I THINK YOU MISINTERPRETED MY POST

Yes, in the beginning the overwhelming majority of AIDs cases were gay males, but at no point did AIDs exclusively inhabit gay males. IMO, this is a myth perpetuated by homophobia, trying to lay the blame of AIDs on the gay community.

[Edit: I was in no way implying that bisexuals don't exist. How you got that from my post, i'm not sure.]

[Edit: this is the 5ith time I have edited this post. I need caffeine!]

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

vixstile · 09-13-2002, 07:55 AM

delete

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

Dr Rick · 09-13-2002, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
I figure that HIV/AIDS is a socio-political tool much like global warming.

huh?

Quote:

To have AIDS a person only has to test positive and have one or more conditions on a list. It's a long list.

...followed by a shorter life.

Rick

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

vixstile · 09-13-2002, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
I figure that HIV/AIDS is a socio-political tool much like global warming.

As far as I know, no HIV virus has ever been seen. Anti-body tests were reverse engineered to test positive for people who were defined as having AIDS. To have AIDS a person only has to test positive and have one or more conditions on a list. It's a long list.

Not another kooky AIDS skeptic! I suggest you do some reading on the subject. A start would be here: <a href="http://skeptic.com/archives23.html" target="_blank">http://skeptic.com/archives23.html</a>

RoddyM · 09-13-2002, 11:44 PM

Basically I'm suggesting that the blind acceptance of a bunch of theories rushed through in the early eighties has had the effect of strengthening these theories to the the point where the average person takes them as fact.

Maybe there is a virus worthy of the title HIV. Maybe some people test truly positive to that virus.

I've worked in hospitals for 20 years and found that most diagnoses are either incorrect or useless. The way diagnoses are made and the method by which symptoms are treated is largely done to satisfy the wishes of the uneducated public.

Amen-Moses · 09-14-2002, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by vixstile:
Yes, in the beginning the overwhelming majority of AIDs cases were gay males, but at no point did AIDs exclusively inhabit gay males.

If you add the word "diagnosed" in there then the point is made much stronger, now that investigators have been looking at the African situation they have pushed the first known AIDs case back to at least the 50's and maybe even back to the late 30's. By the time AID's was diagnosed in the US Africa already had an estimated few million cases, they were just being misdiagnosed due to the fact that it isn't AID's that kills you but whatever disease that AID's is stopping you from fighting off.

IMO, this is a myth perpetuated by homophobia, trying to lay the blame of AIDs on the gay community.

I agree with you and if the heterosexual variant had hit the US I doubt whether anyone would have discovered it for many more years because it is far less virulent and would not have shown up in such a marked way in a single community. It was purely because the new variant suddenly showed up in a basically multiracial group where a substantial number of those infected had no resistance whatsoever that a doctor was able to see the link immediately, i.e all those infected and dying within a short period were homosexuals.

One line of investigation that I think should be followed up is to see whether the victims of the early 20th century flu pandemic were HIV positive or not, it may well be that HIV has been around in the population for centuries but has only in the last century or so become so virulent due to medical and nutritional improvements affecting the immune system.

Amen-Moses

Ut · 09-14-2002, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Chid:
The major cause of heterosexual AIDS in the West however is male to male to female transmission.

i.e. Bisexual men - bisexuals are the most promiscuous group in society, partly because they have the widest choice of partners! Also MANY bisexual men hide their true sexuality from their female partners who, believing themselves in monogamous relationships do not insist on condoms.

Very few men in the West have contracted HIV from their female partners - even prostitution is relatively safe in the West (Since western prostitutes insist on condoms unlike in the 3rd world).

Mark, your analysis is very long on prejudice and very short on fact.

Let's take some real numbers given by the study "Watching AIDS -- cumulative cases 1979-2001" done by the Quebec Department of Health and Social Services (Quebec is a province of Canada):

55% of women having AIDS came from a country where HIV/AIDS is endemic, and it is strongly suspected that they were infected by HIV/AIDS in their country of origin, not in Canada. 17% of women were users of intraveinous drugs. Only 25% of women are thought to have been infected by heterosexual sex while in Canada.

Of this subset of women who were infected by heterosexual sex, 35% had a partner who originated from a country where HIV/AIDS is endemic, 18% had a partner who used intraveinous drugs and only 12% had a bisexual partner.

Thus, only 3% (12% of 25%) of women infected got AIDS through contact with a bisexual male.

That's a far cry from the picture you painted.

09-13-2002, 07:55 AM	#35
vixstile Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,029	delete [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2002, 06:08 AM	#32
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	VIXSTILE: what the hell do you mean? >>>> "There was never any break from the gay community into the strait {Nice Freudian slip} Community. Evidence? Common sense." If you MEAN this statement to mean what it seems to mean, Vixstile, you are WAY OFF BASE! and nobody better take your statement seriously! There certainly ARRRRRRRRGH "breaks from the gay community into the straight community"; and bi-sexual secretly-gay males (of whom, it seems, there 're many many BLACK practicers of "DOWN-LOW" who refuse to admit that they EVUH do 'queer" stuff)... such unadmitted doers are the most-dangerous carriers of all; and it is they who bring home AIDS to their innocent & unsuspecting WIVES & female paramours. YOU are talking what you don't KNOW!

09-13-2002, 11:44 PM	#38
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	Basically I'm suggesting that the blind acceptance of a bunch of theories rushed through in the early eighties has had the effect of strengthening these theories to the the point where the average person takes them as fact. Maybe there is a virus worthy of the title HIV. Maybe some people test truly positive to that virus. I've worked in hospitals for 20 years and found that most diagnoses are either incorrect or useless. The way diagnoses are made and the method by which symptoms are treated is largely done to satisfy the wishes of the uneducated public.

09-14-2002, 02:23 AM	#39
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by vixstile: Yes, in the beginning the overwhelming majority of AIDs cases were gay males, but at no point did AIDs exclusively inhabit gay males. If you add the word "diagnosed" in there then the point is made much stronger, now that investigators have been looking at the African situation they have pushed the first known AIDs case back to at least the 50's and maybe even back to the late 30's. By the time AID's was diagnosed in the US Africa already had an estimated few million cases, they were just being misdiagnosed due to the fact that it isn't AID's that kills you but whatever disease that AID's is stopping you from fighting off. IMO, this is a myth perpetuated by homophobia, trying to lay the blame of AIDs on the gay community. I agree with you and if the heterosexual variant had hit the US I doubt whether anyone would have discovered it for many more years because it is far less virulent and would not have shown up in such a marked way in a single community. It was purely because the new variant suddenly showed up in a basically multiracial group where a substantial number of those infected had no resistance whatsoever that a doctor was able to see the link immediately, i.e all those infected and dying within a short period were homosexuals. One line of investigation that I think should be followed up is to see whether the victims of the early 20th century flu pandemic were HIV positive or not, it may well be that HIV has been around in the population for centuries but has only in the last century or so become so virulent due to medical and nutritional improvements affecting the immune system. Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.