Indy Companion
E.D. Meds

Why you won't get AIDS

Status
Not open for further replies.

chris222

New member
Aug 17, 2003
74
0
0
I highly suggest reading the US center for disease control's reports on HIV:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrlink.htm

I assume the canadian government has an equivalent report, but this is the one I've read and have posted from.

If you read through the data, what you will find is that, despite what the government has been trying to preach about "anyone can get AIDS":

1. In the US, AIDS is still primarily a disease of gay men and IV drug users. 75% of those diagnosed with HIV in the most recent year they have full statistics for (2001) were gay men or IV drug users (or both).

2. Among heterosexuals in the US, AIDS is mostly a disease of black americans. 70% of the women who came down with HIV in 2001 were black. Only 15% were white, the rest mostly hispanic. The statistics for straight men were similar.

3. AIDS is nearly impossible to catch through oral sex. I base this on the fact that the CDC has no category at all, in any of their tables, for female to female sexual transmission of HIV. Furthermore, some actual statistics on their attempts to find lesbian transmitted HIV:

Through December 1998, 109,000 women were reported with AIDS. They only had data on whether the women had had sex with women in half the cases (this missing data should not effect the results). Of those they had the data on, 2,220 were reported to have had sex with women; however, the vast majority had other risks (such as injection drug use, sex with high-risk men, or receipt of blood or blood products). Of the 347 (out of 2,220) women who were reported to have had sex only with women, 98% also had another risk-- injection drug use in most cases.

In other words, they could only find 7 women, out of 109,000 who came down with AIDS (ok, out of 50,450 if you count the missing data), who claimed to have only had sex with women, no men, and to not be IV drug users or any other such thing.

Furthermore, "Women with AIDS whose only reported risk initially is sex with women are given high priority for follow-up investigation. As of December 1998, none of these investigations had confirmed female-to-female HIV transmission, either because other risks were subsequently identified or because, in a few cases, women declined to be interviewed. A separate study of more than 1 million female blood donors found no HIV-infected women whose only risk was sex with women".

So they haven't been able to confirm a single case of lesbian transmitted HIV, despite there being plenty of lesbians who clearly have it due to IV drug use or sex with men. It's in the lesbian community, but not being passed between them.

Now we know lesbians are performing oral sex, and various extreme (to heterosexuals) acts like fisting on a regular basis. So clearly these acts do not spread HIV.

It is difficult to find the truth out about these things, because for some reason the CDC is determined to spread the "everyone can get AIDS, don't do anything which might possibly be risky" message, to the point where they are simply straight out lying to the public. If they can't find ONE case of lesbian transmitted AIDS, then what the hell are they doing advising everyone to use dental dams when performing oral sex on a woman?

I suggest that this message they're spreading is politically motivated, in this case by a strange coalition of both left and right wing folks. The left wingers want to preach "everyone can get aids" to cover up the fact that it's gay men, drug users, and blacks which are really getting it, so that these groups won't be discriminated against.

The right wingers love the "Everyone can get AIDS" message, because they finally have some really great justification to preach against sex outside marriage. "have any sex outside marriage and you'll probably DIE!"

Meanwhile, you have to wade through pages and pages of statistics to find the buried truth: don't share needles with junkies, use a condom if you're going to have vaginal or anal sex, and you simply will not get AIDS.

A final statistic: number of people in the US who were diagnosed with HIV in 2001 who acquired it through heterosexual contact, 11,600.

Number of people who died in 2001 in the US due to FALLING DOWN: 5,173. (I don't know what sort of falls they were, wasn't specified)

Number of people who died in car accidents: 16,632.

So the AIDS risk of sex, for the average random heterosexual who likely periodically has sex without condoms, is less dangerous than being in a car, but slightly more dangerous than STANDING UP.

I'm going to go get nearer to the ground, so I will no longer face the terrible danger of dying from falling. Also, maybe I'll eat some pussy while I'm down there.
 

Yuppie

Member
Feb 23, 2003
901
1
18
other stats

The report does provide interesting stats, but what about gonorrhea? chlamydia? gential warts? There are lots of other STD s out there besides AIDs.

11,600 people that got AIDs thru heterosexual contact -> that may not seem like a lot, but I wouldn't want to be one of those unlucky 12,000 people (and of course, there is no cure for AIDs).

To put things into another perspective, one is more likely to be killed in a car accident or struck by lightening than win the lottery (1 in 13 million in Canada), yet there are huge line ups at the lottery center during the big lotto draw.

I am not sure of the religous/political motivations behind the AIDs campaign, but from a health perspective, it is much cheaper and easier to contain an infectious disease through prevention than by treating it.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,221
75
48
Upstairs
I agree with Yuppie. Better safe than sorry. There are a host of other infections out there - many without a cure. HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), commonly know as genital warts can cause cancers, is incurable and can penetrate condoms or cause problems at the base of the penis wher there is no condom. Chlamydia is rampant and can cause sterility. Don't forget herpes, which for some people is a one time outbreak, but ofr others is a life-long inconvenience at best and a regular misery for others that destroys their self confidence and sex lives. Even NGU's and NSU's are damn scary when they happen. This isn't scare mongering, but a caution to be careful and prepared for what could (but probably won't) happen. I've played high risk in the past and the worry about any tingle, twitch or sting is too much to worry about for me.
 

chris222

New member
Aug 17, 2003
74
0
0
SPK, of course anybody CAN get AIDS. Anybody can also die from falling down. Over 5000 people in the US do so every year.

Anybody CAN die from accidentally thrusting a steak knife through their eye socket into their brain, too.

But I don't see anyone spending their whole lives staying low to the ground, or wearing a catcher's mitt while handling kitchen knives.

My point is that we are all better off knowing the actual truth about what's going on, rather than government scare tactics based on various political agendas.

In Africa, AIDS >is< a disease of heterosexuals, spread mostly (from what I'm read, someone can correct me if they have more info) by widespread unprotected prostitution.

That is, sex with prostitutes is extremely common there, nobody is using condoms, and now in some countries the HIV infection rate is as high as 25%.

What I've read is that the men tend to go off to work for long periods of time, they're away for a week or two, then come back home to their families. (poor countries, so they aren't driving cars and the daily commute wouldn't work, I assume) This is the routine of their life, and they aren't about to just give up sex during all the times they're away from home, so prostitution is very widespread.

Also, in poor lowereducated rural areas of the world, sex tends to be a 5-10 minute experience, so the women may be servicing a couple dozen clients a day. Doesn't take too long till all the prostitutes have AIDS, and then in time the men start coming down with it all over the place as well.

Useful info to know if you're in Africa, useful for us to know that it could happen here under the right (or should I say wrong) circumstances.

My point is that we need actual facts, accurately reported results of actual studies, not government scare tactics and propaganda.

Why are they saying "everyone can get aids!", and not saying, "The aids rate is 30 times higher amongst blacks and gays then it is amongst the general population"? (in the US. I don't know if this is true for canada)
 

Lolita

Banned
Dec 12, 2002
373
0
0
Correction Chris222:

In Africa, AIDS is a heterosexual disease, spread mostly by widespread unprotected sex with women, underage girls (mostly virgins), often forcibly to rid themselves of the AIDS virus.

The lack of sex education in many parts of Africa have produced AIDS/HIV in epidemic numbers. And the infection rate is actually higher closer 40% and it is mostly contracted trough a violent sexual act rather than consensual.

It is believed amongst infected men, in several communities scattered throughout Africa and the world (notably India and Southeast Asia), sleep with a virgin you will be cured of the disease, as stated from a close friend of mine who is an aide for Amnesty International. Only recently has the organization partnered with a subsidaiary of the United Nations, have they started to incorporate sex education as part of their relief efforts.

And I do believe that heterosexual women have highest incidence of AIDS/HIV, anywhere!
 

Storm

Rainman
Aug 17, 2003
114
0
0
Cloud Nine
These men should be shot.
Originally posted by Lolita
It is believed amongst infected men, in several communities scattered throughout Africa and the world (notably India and Southeast Asia), sleep with a virgin you will be cured of the disease, as stated from a close friend of mine who is an aide for Amnesty International.
Now please excuse me while I hurl...
 

Lolita

Banned
Dec 12, 2002
373
0
0
Chris222,

My only advice after reading your stats are:
Believe NOTHING of what you hear, and only HALF of what you see.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,221
75
48
Upstairs
The African situation has more to do with factors other than prostitution. The lack of sanitary conditions, medical care and condoms is large reason. Many cultures practice anal sex as a routine method of birth control. Combine that with a lack of water or basic medications and even the most minor wounds can beome serious. These conditions are also the reason so many diseases never even mentioned here are huge problems in undeveloped countries.
 

PiL

Banned
Jul 16, 2003
52
0
0
chris222 said:
My point is that we need actual facts, accurately reported results of actual studies, not government scare tactics and propaganda.

Why are they saying "everyone can get aids!", and not saying, "The aids rate is 30 times higher amongst blacks and gays then it is amongst the general population"? (in the US. I don't know if this is true for canada)
I think you are suffering from the same problem as many of the people you condemn for quoting statistics: you are making it out to be a problem of race instead of a problem of habit/situation. People catch AIDS because of poor sexual health habits (notably not using condoms), not because they are in black or gay. People in these groups are more likely to not have safe sexual practice due to their situation, such as the proliferation of gay men actively *trying* to get AIDS or catching it out of "love" for a partner. As for Africa, the problem is one of poverty and a lack of education/resources (there a rarely condoms to be had anyways) but stating that it is a prostitution problem is inaccurate as well. The rates for HIV infection are comparable with men sleeping with other partners for free and then transmitting it back to the family. Hell, sometimes the women are sleeping around while the men are gone and they end up passing it through him to the prostitute! But Lolita is correct in stating the biggest problem are the ones forcibly infecting the young because of the equivalent of an old wives' tale (with reports of some men trying to "cure" themselves with numerous young girls because the others he has tried *obviously* couldn't have been virgins). The point is the problem is far more complex and far-reaching than people are giving credit and the bottom line is that having sex with ANYONE without a condom is taking an unnecessary risk, especially since people can rarely know 100% of someone's past.

Do you know where the highest rates of transmission of AIDS take place in Canada? Men and women who hook-up for one-night stands (like after a night at the bar/night club). Prostitution is in fact one of the safest groups in North America and Western Europe due to persistent concern for safety because the chance of a condom breaking over the higher number of sexual encounters is still *much* lower than the stupid people who have unprotected sex once with that stranger.

I don't see anything wrong with the government stance on AIDS because they are in fact right.....if you don't know where your partner has been, the risk is simply too high when the use of a condom will prevent that risk. They are not misrepresenting the facts so much as representing the medical truths of transmission.

PiL
 

Lolita

Banned
Dec 12, 2002
373
0
0
Chris222

I'd have to say those stats regarding demographics of AIDS/HIV contraction DID carry some racial undertones. I'd be careful.
 

Big Trapper

Sr. Member***
May 13, 2002
665
0
0
Thanks for pointing this out, chris. It's a good read.

And as always, I'll take my bj's bb!

BT

PS. And in Africa, many countries don't know what the HIV/AIDS statistics are. They can't afford to do the blood tests. So they have this thing called the "field test". If the patient shows enough of the following symptoms: like nausea, vomiting, the shits, weight loss, etc. then they put a tag on their toe that says AIDS and send them away to die at their own expense regardless of what they really have. Neat way of keeping statistics, huh? And cheap too!

As I said, I'll take my bj's bb!
 

Yuppie

Member
Feb 23, 2003
901
1
18
another viewpoint

To emphasize a good point posted above - stats are just numbers. How you interpret them is another story.

It was noted in this thread that the overall risk of contracting AIDs is statisticallly low based on reports - but perhaps the reason why they are low is due to the 20 years of "government propoganda". If public eduation about AIDs did not begin 20 years ago, we could be in a much scarier situation now.

Case in point - the recent SARs outbreak in Canada. 44 people in Canada died due to SARs, it may not seem like much considering 2000 people die per year due to influenza, so why did public health officials go to all that trouble of quarantening thousands of people? Because without government/health intervention, the dead rate could have been a lot higher (I am not commenting on whether the outbreak was handled efficiently or not). And all the paranoia from the general public was fueled by media hype.

Communicable diseases and public health is a whole field in itself (see - Ebola, Spanish flu 1914).

If society were to live based on statistics 1) everyone would stop smoking and excercise regularly, 2) no one would wear seat belts or bike helmets and 3) very little people would buy health insurance and 4) no one would buy lottery tickets.

My point is that stats are just numbers, be cautious in taking them at face value without appreciation of the overall context. And social and group psychology and perception has a huge factor as well.
 

Big Trapper

Sr. Member***
May 13, 2002
665
0
0
Sorry, I don't do Africa.

JackFrost said:
Hell, if I could afford it, I'd buy you a ticket to Africa.
I wouldn't go. A friend went there a few years ago, got bit by an insect, and now he's counting the days - incurable.

My point is - who knows what the fuck all those people are dying from - they don't have the money for sophisticated blood tests!

I'll still take my bj's bb - always have, always will, and a whole lot of fellow pooners agree, always have, always will - and all those ladies are still around and still doing it. Sorry, there is alsolutely nothing you can say that will convince me differently.

Other practices obviously require protection.

BT
 

chris222

New member
Aug 17, 2003
74
0
0
Response to 3 statements from Lolita:

"And I do believe that heterosexual women have highest incidence of AIDS/HIV, anywhere!"

Not true in the US. Half of those with AIDS here are still gay men. The other half are heterosexuals, half of which are men as well. Women are at a bit higher risk of heterosexually contacting AIDS than men are; however, AIDS is still primarily being spread by gay male sex and needle sharing amongst IV drug users.

"I'd have to say those stats regarding demographics of AIDS/HIV contraction DID carry some racial undertones. I'd be careful."

Be careful of what? I pointed out that the AIDS rate is massively higher among blacks than among whites in the US. I also pointed out that lesbians are utterly safe from it, as long as they stick with women and don't share needles with junkies.

"Being careful" is what the government is doing, and in their efforts at political correctness they're aiming their education efforts at people who will likely never get aids, and under advertising to those who are at massive risk. Don't you think black americans deserve to know that their risk of getting AIDS is 30 times greater than the general population?

"My only advice after reading your stats are:
Believe NOTHING of what you hear, and only HALF of what you see".

If you don't believe my version of the CDC statistics, you might have noticed that I began my original message with a link to the portion of their website on HIV, and advised that everyone go there.

If you don't believe the US center for Disease control's statistics, try your local canada version. Or just call the Psychic Friends Network and have them psychically predict the statistics for you. Get your winning lottery numbers while you're at it.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,221
75
48
Upstairs
Trapper - I was exactly the same as you. Nuttin' could touch me. Luckily all I got from bbbj's were a couple of urethra infections, but it stopped me from bare backs. Hell - I can remember a time when we got full service and nobody bothered with condoms, but I'll bet you wouldn't try that now.
 

PiL

Banned
Jul 16, 2003
52
0
0
Warning: if you have a short attention span, you might want to move along now..... :D

chris222 said:
Women are at a bit higher risk of heterosexually contacting AIDS than men are; however, AIDS is still primarily being spread by gay male sex and needle sharing amongst IV drug users.
See, you prove yet again that your preconceived notions are leading you astray from the truth. Please do tell what about "gay male sex" is causing the spread of AIDS? Is there something different that gays do with sex that makes their rate of infection higher? The answer is they don't but you are skewing the reality to reflect a bigotted viewpoint. The problem with the interpretation of the results above is that they are being improperly sorted: what is causing AIDS to spread isn't whether these people are gay males or women, but because they are performing sex acts without a condom or sharing needles. Therefore the obvious way to treat that is to preach NOT to do these things....which is what education programs are all about.

Be careful of what? I pointed out that the AIDS rate is massively higher among blacks than among whites in the US.
Actually, you come across as portraying it is *because* they are black or gay that I think is the problem people are having, when in truth it is merely a coincidence that most blacks in America live in such a way that promotes the spread of AIDS (from cultural norms that encourage misogynism to increased rates of IV drug use among the downtrodden in society). When you look at these real factors in the promotion of infection, the rates become nearly equal amongst all races....which proves that race is not *actually* a factor in the spread so much as habit and lifestyle is.

I also pointed out that lesbians are utterly safe from it, as long as they stick with women and don't share needles with junkies.
This is both untrue and misleading. While it is true that DATY is very low risk, the risk of transmission is still present and can be multiplied extraordinarily if the receiver has an unrelated infection that results in open sores in the genital area and if the giver has either mouth sores or even something as simple as gingivitis (which causes continual bleeding of the gums and acts as a conduit for diseases like AIDS in both directions).

"Being careful" is what the government is doing, and in their efforts at political correctness they're aiming their education efforts at people who will likely never get aids, and under advertising to those who are at massive risk. Don't you think black americans deserve to know that their risk of getting AIDS is 30 times greater than the general population?
Actually, they deserve to know the *real* reasons why the rate is much higher, which of course is the higher incidence of unprotected sex and sharing needles and not simply because they are black. The problem in many of these cases is a lack of education across the board (which is exasperated by the fact that the rate of drop-outs and truancy is also higher among blacks for poverty/gang-related reasons, which makes educaton that much harder). The government is right to continue pressure on the education front because it is foolish to relent when treating the disease costs more. In Ontario, there was an alarming rise in STDs among teenagers (I believe it was chlamydia) that was traced back to a deficiency in education programs. The point is to prevent low-risk groups from becoming high-risk through lack of education.

If you don't believe my version of the CDC statistics, you might have noticed that I began my original message with a link to the portion of their website on HIV, and advised that everyone go there.
The problem isn't the statistics but how they are being read and presented. People catch cancer by breathing in asbestos fibers so does that then lead you to say people should stop breathing? Stats can say many things if you want them to and I suggest those not well-versed to not attempt it. You clearly have just read what someone else has written without any consideration of the purpose or intent of the report. I suspect the person who put the CDC figures up for their website was told to present them in a certain way because they certainly read with a bias just by looking at the categories they pick and how they word them.

Sad when the CDC should be trying to shine light on the truth instead of an administration's interpretation of the truth.

PiL
 

chris222

New member
Aug 17, 2003
74
0
0
PiL said:
Warning: if you have a short attention span, you might want to move along now..... :D



See, you prove yet again that your preconceived notions are leading you astray from the truth. Please do tell what about "gay male sex" is causing the spread of AIDS? Is there something different that gays do with sex that makes their rate of infection higher? The answer is they don't but you are skewing the reality to reflect a bigotted viewpoint.


You haven't figured out what about gay male sex is causing the spread of aids? Or what it is that gays do with sex that makes their rate of infection higher?

Gay men are rampantly promiscuous, compared with heterosexuals, and a very large percentage of them have anal sex. Anal sex is about 100 times more likely to transmit the HIV virus than vaginal sex, according to the US CDC.

If you don't believe that gay men are promiscuous, as a group, again go check the statistics on this. This is not a criticism of gay men, straight men would love to be just as promiscuous, but straight women just won't go for it.

Actually, you come across as portraying it is *because* they are black or gay that I think is the problem people are having, when in truth it is merely a coincidence that most blacks in America live in such a way that promotes the spread of AIDS (from cultural norms that encourage misogynism to increased rates of IV drug use among the downtrodden in society). When you look at these real factors in the promotion of infection, the rates become nearly equal amongst all races....which proves that race is not *actually* a factor in the spread so much as habit and lifestyle is.
No, I don't come across as portraying that it's because they're black or gay, nor do I have a bigotted viewpoint. Perhaps you're so used to political correctness that you can no longer handle hearing anything which sounds like it >might< be a criticism of any minority group.

The reason that the black community in the US became so highly infected by AIDS is, I am guessing, due to needles shared amongst IV drug users. Heroin use is higher in the poor inner city areas where black people tend to live, and so you end up with black people getting AIDS. Of course, now that it has entered the black population to such a large extent, heterosexual communication of it is now a factor.


This is both untrue and misleading. While it is true that DATY is very low risk, the risk of transmission is still present and can be multiplied extraordinarily if the receiver has an unrelated infection that results in open sores in the genital area and if the giver has either mouth sores or even something as simple as gingivitis (which causes continual bleeding of the gums and acts as a conduit for diseases like AIDS in both directions).
This is your theory, which is not backed up in any way based on studies of hundreds of thousands of people, millions of blood donors, etc. It's fine to have your own theories. My friend has a theory that aliens are influencing the human race, and she suspects they may have planted something in her head (I am not making this up). Until you find some scientific proof for your theory, and in fact considering that all the scientific evidence opposes your theory, you might not want to state your theory as fact.

Actually, they deserve to know the *real* reasons why the rate is much higher, which of course is the higher incidence of unprotected sex and sharing needles and not simply because they are black. The problem in many of these cases is a lack of education across the board (which is exasperated by the fact that the rate of drop-outs and truancy is also higher among blacks for poverty/gang-related reasons, which makes educaton that much harder). The government is right to continue pressure on the education front because it is foolish to relent when treating the disease costs more. In Ontario, there was an alarming rise in STDs among teenagers (I believe it was chlamydia) that was traced back to a deficiency in education programs. The point is to prevent low-risk groups from becoming high-risk through lack of education.



The problem isn't the statistics but how they are being read and presented. People catch cancer by breathing in asbestos fibers so does that then lead you to say people should stop breathing? Stats can say many things if you want them to and I suggest those not well-versed to not attempt it. You clearly have just read what someone else has written without any consideration of the purpose or intent of the report. I suspect the person who put the CDC figures up for their website was told to present them in a certain way because they certainly read with a bias just by looking at the categories they pick and how they word them.

Sad when the CDC should be trying to shine light on the truth instead of an administration's interpretation of the truth.

PiL
I'm not sure what you're trying to say at the end here, it almost sounds like you're agreeing with what >I'm< saying. I have indeed read the statistics without considering the purpose or intent of the CDC, and they did indeed attempt to present some of their reports in such as way as to prevent people from reaching certain obvious conclusions.

And, I really would prefer to discuss this rather than argue it. Don't make baseless accusations of bigotry or accuse me of having no idea when I'm talking about, and we'll keep this civil.
 

chris222

New member
Aug 17, 2003
74
0
0
Point 1: Government is sending a blanket "everyone can get AIDS" message, rather than specifically targetting those who are truly at high risk.

Point 2: Government is failing to specify that some activities will give you a near 100% chance of getting AIDS, some will give you a 10% chance, some a 1% chance, and some about a 1 in a million chance, or perhaps no chance. Instead, government sends a blanket "don't do anything risky" statement.

It's like the anti drug campaigns where the US government will try to convince people that if they smoke pot they'll end up dead or brain damaged or in prison or end up killing someone or some such thing. Then they send the same message for truly dangerous drugs, like PCP or heroin. But if you send the same message whether it's true or not, you get the "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon.

Worse yet, in terms of AIDS eduction, is the fact that those who are truly at massive risk for getting it aren't being told this, because they're hearing "everyone can get aids", and nothing else.

A fire department which wants to be successful ought to spray water on those buildings which are actually on fire, and not simply make a half assed attempt at spraying every building in town, burning or not.
 

PiL

Banned
Jul 16, 2003
52
0
0
chris222 said:
You haven't figured out what about gay male sex is causing the spread of aids? Or what it is that gays do with sex that makes their rate of infection higher?
I do, but you keep proving that you do not. You state that anal sex is 100 times more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex, which is a complete an utter lie and I challenge you to quote where you got that piece of crap from. What you are likely misreading is that *unprotected* anal is more risky than *protected* vaginal sex. As anyone with a brain knows, the risk of transmission is equal for all people using a condom as the rates for the condom breaking are equal regardless of how it is used. You are comparing apples and oranges, which makes you an idiot with no clue as to what you are trying to say.

If you don't believe that gay men are promiscuous, as a group, again go check the statistics on this. This is not a criticism of gay men, straight men would love to be just as promiscuous, but straight women just won't go for it.
Funny, you previously stated het women have a higher rate of infection than het men...how is that possible if they "just won't go for it"? Regardless, I still find it amusing that you are tying the transmission to the fact they are gay and not to the real fact that THEY ARE PROMISCUOUS! Please note that transmission rates among monogomous gays is in line with monogomous hets, so your assertion that being gay makes you higher risk is totally groundless. The fact that they are gay has nothing to do with it....it is unprotected sex with multiple partners that is the problem. Again, you are shifting the numbers to defame a group for no other reason than bias instead of stating the true story told by the numbers.

The reason that the black community in the US became so highly infected by AIDS is, I am guessing, due to needles shared amongst IV drug users.
You're guessing? Didn't you read the numbers? Rates of transmission through drug use for black males is on par with hispanics and within statistical deviations of whites (black females are even half the rate of white females in drug use transmission) . It is the het sex category that push blacks upward in the stats (especially in women where the transmission through het sex is almot triple that of drug users). Why is that? It has always been an easy conclusion for statisticians because it i the same reason as in the third world: poverty leading to lack of education and resources. Again, the root cause is not getting condoms to people and teaching them the risks through education programs. Actually, if you combine the numbers for black men and women, the het sex transmission numbers are higher than all other factors. Do you know why? Promiscuity again....black men screwing multiple girls and being too cool to wear a condom.

This is your theory, which is not backed up in any way based on studies of hundreds of thousands of people, millions of blood donors, etc. It's fine to have your own theories.
There are studies done on this exact thing. It is the reason for people claiming BBBJ is safe because HIV is destroyed by stomach acid, but they fail to also say the study goes further to state that transmission through open wounds (as with sores and gingivitis). Of course, you can't wrap your head around the fact that gays are no more at risk than hets in respective categories of promiscuity, so I don't expect you to understand any of this either. If anyone else is curious, these reports get quoted every month or so on TERB.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say at the end here, it almost sounds like you're agreeing with what >I'm< saying.
Unless you are trying to say that HIV/AIDS is transmitted through unprotected sex acts and needle sharing caused by two key factors of 1) lack of resources for protection and 2) lack of education as to the risks, then we are in no way agreeing. The breakdowns by race only tell you where the two key factors are most prevalent and more effort required in getting more condoms out there and more education.

PiL
 

PiL

Banned
Jul 16, 2003
52
0
0
chris222 said:
Point 1: Government is sending a blanket "everyone can get AIDS" message, rather than specifically targetting those who are truly at high risk.
The government is right because everyone *CAN* get AIDS regardless of who they are or what race they are, if they are taking part in high risk activity like unprotected sex with multiple partners or sharing needles. If you avoid these risks, it doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, black, white or purple with polka dots.

Point 2: Government is failing to specify that some activities will give you a near 100% chance of getting AIDS, some will give you a 10% chance, some a 1% chance, and some about a 1 in a million chance, or perhaps no chance. Instead, government sends a blanket "don't do anything risky" statement.
I have seen education brochures that break down risk by activity, so I don't understand where you are getting this notions that they don't do it.

Worse yet, in terms of AIDS eduction, is the fact that those who are truly at massive risk for getting it aren't being told this, because they're hearing "everyone can get aids", and nothing else.
Actually, the problem with the groups you try to say are higher at risk is that they are either suffering a condition that makes them outside normal channels of education (poverty and gang issues), or they practice in a social group that denies the need for protection an no amount of education will change that (some gay groups and men who think going bareback is macho).

A fire department which wants to be successful ought to spray water on those buildings which are actually on fire, and not simply make a half assed attempt at spraying every building in town, burning or not.
Your analogy is flawed. The real analogy is that the fire department tries to go around teaching people fire safety (like don't smoke in bed) and use of smoke alarms so that they don't have to come to put out the fire in the first place (a tactic that works). Your analogy would be akin to treating HIV by giving every person on Earth the cocktail of drugs that inhibits the virus, which is clearly not what is going on.

PiL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vancouver Escorts