HIV causing AIDS, and "dissidents"

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:14
Thora wrote:
Don't be so ridiculous.

While I think revrugger is being overly aggressive, it's easy to understand his anger, particularly as a gay man. A recent study of over 1,000 gay men in UK bars showed about 10% were HIV+, this is very very serious. Not to mention the other 40 million people (which is still increasing) dying from it already. People saying it's not infectious are dangerous. And a large proportion (most?) of people within the gay "community"/scene know at least one person who is dying or has died of it. And not meaning to have a go, but your contributions so far have not exactly been very serious ("I'm come to the conclusion that I don't really believe in science" etc.)

Quote:
I didn't realise there was any debate/controversy around this, and I'm interested to see what raw and coffeemachine have to say on the subject.

There's as much "controversy" about this as about does ZOG really run the world - and a lot less than whether evolution is real.

There is no "controversy" other than in the minds of a few deluded crackpots.

raw wrote:
Also this may be of interest:
http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_aids_inconsistencies.h...

Whatever you may think, this is not "nutters" that are writing this stuff.

Yeah you can see from their banner that they're very intelligent and serious

roll eyes

Quote:
Again, I think AIDS is used as a catchall term related to HIV where infact there is huge poverty and malnutrition which causes the collapse of the immune system.

As asked of you before a few times (why are you so reluctant to answer simple questions?) -
What are all the western HIV sufferers infected with then?

If HIV's not a virus, how is it that it does actually exist and has been identified - as your own source showed - and how is it that antiretrovirals are effective?

Grace, short technical point - AIDS isn't a disease, it's a collection of symptoms. HIV is a virus which attacks the immune system. HIV sufferers become diagnosed with AIDS if their antibody T cell count drops below a certain level and they acquire an opportunistic infection due to this. More info from wikipedia.

Also then raw and cm, if HIV doesn't exist and it's not infectious, should the NHS "waste" money screening blood donations for it? Should the anti-HIV condom programmes in Africa be suspended?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:15
arf wrote:
There's masses of evidence against various vaccinations. Some may be useful, some are irrelevant, and some may be harmful. It would be naive to believe that they are all necessary, or that the medical industry itself is completely trustworthy or "scientific" or evidence based.

What have you been reading Thora?

This is a discussion about HIV/AIDS. If you want to talk about vaccinations please start a new thread.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 23:15

This comment has been moved here.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:16
raw wrote:
Also this may be of interest:
http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_aids_inconsistencies.h...

Whatever you may think, this is not "nutters" that are writing this stuff.

Another excellent bit from your respectable source that's not run by nutters at all (how did I miss this?):

Genius.

edit - and looking through the rest of that page, it's insane. How could you not immediately see it's bollocks? Right at the beginning they start off with some long words - is that what confused you? - then later on they just descend into a mixture of statements of the obvious which no one denies*, and absolute cretinous nonsense** - not to mention homophobic shit that all of this HIV denial stuff reeks of***. Honestly raw I'd expect this of cm but I actually thought you had half a brain.

* like "The viral load test gives false negatives" - all tests have mistakes; "After many billions of dollars of research effort over 20 years there is no vaccine and no cure" - what's this supposed to prove? You can't cure some cancers, does this mean cancer doesn't exist? Morons.

** "The USA was found to be the world's most sexually promiscuous nation" - you what?

*** "In 1985 HIV incidence in Southern Africa was confined to homosexuals who had been to the US and those who had had sex with them"; not to mention cw+raw's beloved Martin J Walker moaning about the media lionising the "innocent homosexuals" and "gay martyrs"

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 26 2006 23:20
John. wrote:
Grace, short technical point - AIDS isn't a disease, it's a collection of symptoms. HIV is a virus which attacks the immune system. HIV sufferers become diagnosed with AIDS if their antibody T cell count drops below a certain level and they acquire an opportunistic infection due to this.

Ah yeah I understand that, I obviously got confused with terminology. So basically what I said AIDS does is what the HIV virus does i.e. weaken the immune system.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 26 2006 23:31
pingtiao wrote:
revolutionrugger: I agree that these antiscientific ideas are extremely harmful

?? Explain yourself why are they anti-scientific if there conclusions are based on scientific analysis.

pingtiao wrote:
and I also understand that they proliferate in the kind of self-regarding subcultures that see The Man as being behind everything and are not averse to throwing the baby out with the bathwater (see the credence given to 9-11 conspiracists etc).

Again what are you on about? So Aid Dissenters are part of a sub-cultural politics?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 26 2006 23:32
revolutionrugger wrote:
I don't know why I bother. Accomadate whatever you like, you straight liberal pseudo-revolutionaries. Its not your friends dying. Why should you care?

God you are a joke aren't you!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:35
raw wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
revolutionrugger: I agree that these antiscientific ideas are extremely harmful

?? Explain yourself why are they anti-scientific if there conclusions are based on scientific analysis.

Raw, sorry to disappoint you, but someone using long words doesn't make something good science.

Now, how about you answer some of the questions you've been asked?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 26 2006 23:47
John. wrote:
Thora wrote:
Don't be so ridiculous.

While I think revrugger is being overly aggressive, it's easy to understand his anger, particularly as a gay man. A recent study of over 1,000 gay men in UK bars showed about 10% were HIV+, this is very very serious. Not to mention the other 40 million people (which is still increasing) dying from it already. People saying it's not infectious are dangerous. And a large proportion (most?) of people within the gay "community"/scene know at least one person who is dying or has died of it. And not meaning to have a go, but your contributions so far have not exactly been very serious ("I'm come to the conclusion that I don't really believe in science" etc.)

Quote:
I didn't realise there was any debate/controversy around this, and I'm interested to see what raw and coffeemachine have to say on the subject.

There's as much "controversy" about this as about does ZOG really run the world - and a lot less than whether evolution is real.

There is no "controversy" other than in the minds of a few deluded crackpots.

raw wrote:
Also this may be of interest:
http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_aids_inconsistencies.h...

Whatever you may think, this is not "nutters" that are writing this stuff.

Yeah you can see from their banner that they're very intelligent and serious

roll eyes

Quote:
Again, I think AIDS is used as a catchall term related to HIV where infact there is huge poverty and malnutrition which causes the collapse of the immune system.

As asked of you before a few times (why are you so reluctant to answer simple questions?) -
What are all the western HIV sufferers infected with then?

If HIV's not a virus, how is it that it does actually exist and has been identified - as your own source showed - and how is it that antiretrovirals are effective?

Grace, short technical point - AIDS isn't a disease, it's a collection of symptoms. HIV is a virus which attacks the immune system. HIV sufferers become diagnosed with AIDS if their antibody T cell count drops below a certain level and they acquire an opportunistic infection due to this. More info from wikipedia.

Also then raw and cm, if HIV doesn't exist and it's not infectious, should the NHS "waste" money screening blood donations for it? Should the anti-HIV condom programmes in Africa be suspended?

Those links were put just to direct people to some content. Its not to say I agree with all whats been said as what I'm saying is that there is an interesting argument around the causes of AIDS. As an anarchist I question alot of what stands for the scientific authority that capital needs to justify biopolitical manipulations. There is nothing crackpot or nutty about it. To attempt to look at an issue from many angles and not take the first answer thats given or fed to you. I'm not a sciencetist and I could spend alot of my precious time researching these debates (which I might do in future who knows), again the issue here is that we are presented with a given, true idea - one which when questioned brings abusive (like the twat from philidelphia) and dismissive responses.

No one holds the final answer on this issue, things will unfold and people (like the AIDs DISSENTERS) will continue to critique the validity of the science behind HIV/AIDS, surely its up for anarchists to keep an open mind (and yeah my mind is open to theories around 9-11 as well - does that make me a nutter?).

Anyway, the articles are out there. I've posted a few snippets I found. Continuum magazine is also a good start.

end of

Raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 26 2006 23:51
John. wrote:
As asked of you before a few times (why are you so reluctant to answer simple questions?) -

??

John. wrote:
What are all the western HIV sufferers infected with then?

No idea

John. wrote:
If HIV's not a virus, how is it that it does actually exist and has been identified - as your own source showed - and how is it that antiretrovirals are effective?

Don't know

John. wrote:
Also then raw and cm, if HIV doesn't exist and it's not infectious, should the NHS "waste" money screening blood donations for it?

who knows

John. wrote:
Should the anti-HIV condom programmes in Africa be suspended?

none of the above

happy, all questions answered

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:52

edit - posted before seeing reply, above

There you go yet again trying to avoid saying what you actually think.

raw wrote:
Those links were put just to direct people to some content. Its not to say I agree with all whats been said as what I'm saying is that there is an interesting argument around the causes of AIDS. As an anarchist I question alot of what stands for the scientific authority that capital needs to justify biopolitical manipulations.

Do you question the "authority" of scientists who say that evolution happened? What about the "authority" of scientists who showed that nazi race theory was wrong?

Quote:
There is nothing crackpot or nutty about it.

Yes there is - those links you and CM posted are full of socially dangerous insanity, lies, pseudoscience, bullshit, conspiracy theory and homophobia.

Quote:
surely its up for anarchists to keep an open mind (and yeah my mind is open to theories around 9-11 as well - does that make me a nutter?).

Not keeping your mind so open your brains fall out.

So you're not going to answer anyone's questions then I take it?

Ok well coffeemachine, you've stuck your flag in the sand (is that the right saying?) unlike your fudging friend, why don't you answer them then?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 23:56
raw wrote:
John. wrote:
As asked of you before a few times (why are you so reluctant to answer simple questions?) -

??

John. wrote:
What are all the western HIV sufferers infected with then?

No idea

John. wrote:
If HIV's not a virus, how is it that it does actually exist and has been identified - as your own source showed - and how is it that antiretrovirals are effective?

Don't know

John. wrote:
Also then raw and cm, if HIV doesn't exist and it's not infectious, should the NHS "waste" money screening blood donations for it?

who knows

John. wrote:
Should the anti-HIV condom programmes in Africa be suspended?

none of the above

happy, all questions answered

Well well it's good to see that you're spouting this rubbish - which if people listened to you would cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions - with a lot of solid evidence and knowledge to back it up. Well done.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 26 2006 23:57
pingtiao wrote:
There is evidence "against" pretty much anything that doesn't give a binary answer but deals with aggregate effects on populations. The media and untrained/non-statistically literate people pick up on some of these studies and give them much more attention than other studies that might show different conclusions.

What matters is to fund enough studies to be able to show via a meta-anysis a decent level of proof, and then make decisions based on that. If I am going to trust anyone to tell me what is and is not safe to put in my body (and the bodies of my kids- when I have them) it will be the evil medical community, who, whilst undoubtably flawed, are still infinitely more reliable and trustworthy than untrained activists and lefties.

The medical community are completely divided on this issue as all issues. Medical experts contradict each other. Not all activists and lefties are untrained or uneducated regarding medical matters. Those of us who are, are still mostly able to read and learn from a vast selection of materials that give all sides, and make our own, self educated, minds up. We have access to information in a way that has never been dreamed of before. We don't need to blindly and obediently take our medication any more, to do so without question or consideration is naive and negligent.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 27 2006 00:15

This comment has been moved here.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 27 2006 00:20

Common Denialist Arguments Debunked.

Alleged suppression of debate

"far from being suppressed, dissident theories have been published and discussed at length in peer-reviewed journals and have failed to convince more than a minority of scientists; for example, Peter Duesberg has had 43 AIDS-related articles and letters published in the scientific literature. AIDS has been the subject of many thousands of peer-reviewed studies since it was first detected in 1981, and a clear scientific consensus has developed that HIV causes AIDS. For this group, the "orthodox" view of HIV is not a question of a "closed" viewpoint, but rather an acknowledgment of medical reality as derived from empirical data."

Koch's postulates

"Koch's postulates have never been universally applicable. Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease in spite of the fact that they did not fulfill all of the postulates; Koch himself disregarded three postulates for cholera and typhoid fever. Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.

Regardless, HIV does, in fact, fulfill Koch's postulates completely.In cases such as those cited by Duesberg, where HIV cannot be isolated, PCR shows that the virus is present."

Pattern of spread

"Regional variability in the pattern and spread of HIV/AIDS results from differences in the time of introduction of the virus, the social fabric of a given community, its culture, its sexual networks, the mobility of its people and the reaction of the government in mounting an AIDS control program. Regional variation in infection rates and infected populations is not unique to HIV/AIDS; for example, the epidemiology of hepatitis B is very different in the U.S. as compared to Asia. Transmission via bodily fluids has been well-demonstrated and is typical of an infectious disease: HIV behaves exactly like many other viruses in terms of its transmission through blood, sexual fluids, and breast milk, suggesting that HIV does in fact spread like an infectious disease."

HIV harm questioned

"the long period of HIV infection preceding AIDS manifestations is to be expected; HIV can take years to cause the immunosuppression necessary to permit opportunistic disease to occur. Extensive studies conducted before treatment was available found the mean duration between HIV infection and the development of AIDS to be eight to ten years.[37] By this measurement, Hepatitis C would also be a "harmless" virus, as its latent stage may run longer than 20 years.[38] There are many other well-known infectious diseases that develop slowly with a long latency period between infection and disease, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, syphilis, and leprosy; AIDS is hardly unique in this respect."

HIV TEST ACCURACY

"virologists contend that the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR, which are widely accepted "gold standards" in microbiology.[46][47] The consensus view of the scientific community is that current methods of HIV antibody testing are remarkably accurate. The false-positive rate among the American public ranges from 0.0006 to 0.0007 percent.[47][48] The false-negative rate for HIV antibody testing ranges from 0.001% to 0.3%, depending on the risk factors of the tested population.[49][50][51]

Critics assert that many AIDS dissidents' claims of inaccuracy result from an incorrect or outdated understanding of how HIV antibody testing is performed and interpreted.[52][53] In the USA, the standard HIV diagnostic procedure combines two methods of detecting HIV antibodies: ELISA and Western blot.[54] While either of these tests (ELISA or Western blot) individually may yield a significant number of false-positives and false-negatives, the combination of these two methods results in the extremely high accuracy rates cited above. Many of the AIDS dissident claims focus on the inaccuracy of one individual component of HIV antibody testing, without acknowledging that the tests are used in combination to accurately diagnose HIV infection."

Antibodies to HIV
(saying that HIV can't cause AIDS because its neutralized by the presence of anti-bodies)

"Robert Gallo and others, in a rebuttal to Farber's article,[56] pointed out that, in reality, a number of other viruses can cause disease in spite of the presence of antibodies. Examples include herpes zoster,[57] herpes simplex,[58] and hepatitis C.[59] Gallo et al. emphasized the well-documented mechanisms by which HIV can evade the antibody response, such as cell-to-cell spread and rapid mutation.[56]"

HIV TREATMENT TOXICITY

"Harmful side effects do occur, and in some cases these can be severe or even deadly. However, multiple studies — conducted IN AFRICA AS WELL AS WESTERN COUNTRIES — have found that, overall, anti-retroviral drug treatment is associated with a greatly decreased incidence of opportunistic infections and increased survival among HIV-positive people. [61][62][63][64]"

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 27 2006 00:20
John. wrote:
Well well it's good to see that you're spouting this rubbish - which if people listened to you would cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions - with a lot of solid evidence and knowledge to back it up. Well done.

just as well I'm on a crappy lefty web forum and not at the nuremberg stadium. Anyway checkout the cool tagline, niceone!

raw

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 27 2006 00:26
raw wrote:
John. wrote:
Well well it's good to see that you're spouting this rubbish - which if people listened to you would cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions - with a lot of solid evidence and knowledge to back it up. Well done.

just as well I'm on a crappy lefty web forum and not at the nuremberg stadium. Anyway checkout the cool tagline, niceone!

Yeah well you can act like an idiot if you want, but that is actually true. You don't even know whether blood for transfusions should be screened for HIV. I'm not sure whether the over 40 million HIV+ people would think your clever tagline was very funny, including of course people who contracted HIV through being raped - quite common in some war zones. Hilarious isn't it. But I suppose they didn't really catch it because it doesn't exist, right?

edit - revrugger if you want to post long texts please just include an abstract a link to the text online, thanks.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 27 2006 00:35

Sure Here is the full text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal

I edited it down already. Its a pretty fair accounting I think. Notice the accounts of negative effects in south africa and the prevalence of this myth in the north american gay community. Perhaps its gauche to quote wikipedia but alot of the ACT-UP texts I'm familiar with are no longer up. sad

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 27 2006 08:46
raw wrote:
As an anarchist I question alot of what stands for the scientific authority that capital needs to justify biopolitical manipulations.

terminological pedantry: the whole point of biopolitics according to Foucault was a qualitative shift in the logic of sovereignty from 'inflicting death' to 'protecting life', and it has been commented (e.g. by Sylvia Federici), that this echoes the shift from social relations based on the appropriation of goods (tithes, tributes and the like) to one based on the appropriation of labour itself (i.e. capital). Thus biopolitics in this context would be about preventing disease and protecting the 'social body', that is collective labour-power.

Foucault did comment that the sinister underside of this was that in the name of protecting life, anything is permissible (e.g. the extermination of the sick), but that doesn't seem to be what you mean by 'biopolitical manipulations'. Should we all get AIDS just to fuck up the reproduction of labour power and stick two fingers up to capital?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 27 2006 11:55
Joseph K. wrote:
raw wrote:
As an anarchist I question alot of what stands for the scientific authority that capital needs to justify biopolitical manipulations.

terminological pedantry: the whole point of biopolitics according to Foucault was a qualitative shift in the logic of sovereignty from 'inflicting death' to 'protecting life', and it has been commented (e.g. by Sylvia Federici), that this echoes the shift from social relations based on the appropriation of goods (tithes, tributes and the like) to one based on the appropriation of labour itself (i.e. capital). Thus biopolitics in this context would be about preventing disease and protecting the 'social body', that is collective labour-power.

Foucault did comment that the sinister underside of this was that in the name of protecting life, anything is permissible (e.g. the extermination of the sick), but that doesn't seem to be what you mean by 'biopolitical manipulations'. Should we all get AIDS just to fuck up the reproduction of labour power and stick two fingers up to capital?

Be my guess, let me know how it works out.

I'm fully aware how biopolitics has beed defined, I used it in this context to describe AIDS (and alot of diseases) as biopolitical manipulations in the service of capital. Thats not to say its all a tin-foil-on-head conspiracy just that the needs capital and state domination to control the cure as well as the disease is a fundemental of its biopolitical remit.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 27 2006 12:05

right

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 27 2006 22:51

RR might be a bit over the top but he's put up some pretty damnng evidence that counters RAW's points and is not contradicted by his stuff.
And he is right, ignorance kills people. In the same way that the belief that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS is killing people in Africa and Russia (and other places too I'd imagine), this denial is leading to deaths. People cannot protect themselves if they do not know how to do so. Spreading this stuff is dangerous, I don't mind it here because RR and everyone else has shown you up as gullible and wrong. A few long words and you think it's science.

Science is hard, but lets not be stupid about it.

Thabo Mbeki wrote:
How can HIV cause AIDS, when HIV is a virus and AIDS is a syndrome ?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 09:53

So then, of the (ex-)womble aids dissidents raw has just answered "I don't know" to everything - how about you coffeemachine? Where are these answers you assured us would be here?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 28 2006 11:24

John, I'm not here to answer your cunting questions! :-0)

I would say that the "Aids Dissenters" position is a critical one towards the theory of HIV being the cause of AIDS. The research in Africa (and yeah I know I have to find the appropriate sources) suggests a difference in approach to AIDS diagnosis than in the western world. AIDS (as far as I know) is when the immune system collapses, which can be caused by many different factors. In fact in some parts of Africa people are diagnosed with AIDS WITHOUT having a HIV test! (Again will dig out relevant resources). The problem I see here is the blanket use of "HIV leads to AIDS" theory masks a fundemental social problem of class, exploitation and poverty. Like I said before it has become a catchall term, which has allowed the funding of clean water systems and sanitation systems to be cut in favour of anti-HIV drugs.

Finally, why is there more people in Africa apparently effected with HIV and/or dying of AIDS than in the UK (per capita) is it because blacks have sex more (a racist proposition) than white people in the UK? How come HIV/AIDS has affected more the Gay community in the west than hetrosexuals but effects predominantly all communities in Africa?

And yes there are wide views held by some AIDS dissenters but that shouldn't divert people from enquirying deeper.

raw

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 28 2006 11:31

Has funding of water systems been cut in favour of anti-HIV drugs? As I said in my earlier post, the impression I had is that the arguement against hiv/aids was motivated by the high cost of hiv treatment ...

raw wrote:
Finally, why is there more people in Africa apparently effected with HIV and/or dying of AIDS than in the UK (per capita) is it because blacks have sex more (a racist proposition) than white people in the UK? How come HIV/AIDS has affected more the Gay community in the west than hetrosexuals but effects predominantly all communities in Africa?

lack of affordable available condoms plus higher levels of poverty resulting in higher levels of prostitution - I'm just guessing but these seem plausable explanations to me.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 11:41
raw wrote:
In fact in some parts of Africa people are diagnosed with AIDS WITHOUT having a HIV test! (Again will dig out relevant resources).

Please do, but it wouldn't surprise me anyway. Africa's obviously very poor and HIV tests probably cost a lot. AIDS was actually first spotted by people becoming infected with illnesses that no one had had for years. It was later realised this was because a virus had destroyed their immune systems. So people with AIDS can be about the only people who get these opportunistic infections.

Quote:
The problem I see here is the blanket use of "HIV leads to AIDS" theory masks a fundemental social problem of class, exploitation and poverty. Like I said before it has become a catchall term, which has allowed the funding of clean water systems and sanitation systems to be cut in favour of anti-HIV drugs.

I don't see how you can say that. That's like arguing that mosquitoes cause malaria causes clean water funding to be cut to pay for mosquito eradication or protection programmes. You can't argue against telling the truth about something because some people can use it as an excuse to cut funding from things! (Which I don't think anyone is doing anyway - sources?)

Quote:
Finally, why is there more people in Africa apparently effected with HIV and/or dying of AIDS than in the UK (per capita) is it because blacks have sex more (a racist proposition) than white people in the UK?

It started there, so of course more people will be infected by it. Also of course condoms have always been less widely available. A big factor is also the sex industry and migrant working; for example of thousands of workers from the same mines sleeping with prostitutes who also sleep with thousands of other men.

If the AIDS conspiracists were listened to by these people, HIV would continue to spread unabated because there would be no need to use condoms.

Another big factor is the original suffering community, which there was heterosexuals but here is homosexuals. As it's sexually transmitted it will mostly stay in the "community" where people were first infected.

Starting to use the word "racist" is silly, because a: nobody is, and b: if people in Africa did have more sex than here (which I doubt) it wouldn't be racist to say so.

Quote:
How come HIV/AIDS has affected more the Gay community in the west than hetrosexuals but effects predominantly all communities in Africa?

Because it first came to west via gay men. As gay men mostly have sex with other gay men and it's sexually transmitted, mostly other gay people get infected. Obviously over time it will still spread out, as has happened (accelerated by immigration).

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 28 2006 12:26
sovietpop wrote:
lack of affordable available condoms plus higher levels of poverty resulting in higher levels of prostitution - I'm just guessing but these seem plausable explanations to me.

There have been studies in Haiti of prostitutes (and also in the philipines & indonesia) that show that prostitutes had a much lower rate of "HIV" infection/AIDS than the rest of the population. This goes against some current theory on how HIV spreads.Again will dig up the Haiti research paper later.

cheers

Raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 28 2006 12:35
John. wrote:
It started there, so of course more people will be infected by it. Also of course condoms have always been less widely available. A big factor is also the sex industry and migrant working; for example of thousands of workers from the same mines sleeping with prostitutes who also sleep with thousands of other men.

Please can you show me studies of the infection rate of prostitutes and their role in speading the disease.

John. wrote:
If the AIDS conspiracists were listened to by these people, HIV would continue to spread unabated because there would be no need to use condoms.

Why do you insert these statements, we're (supposedly) discussing the issue aren't we not implementing a world-wide programme!

John. wrote:
Another big factor is the original suffering community, which there was heterosexuals but here is homosexuals. As it's sexually transmitted it will mostly stay in the "community" where people were first infected.

How about bi-sexual men? Surely once it "crosses communties" there should be an equal distribution like in Africa.

John. wrote:
Starting to use the word "racist" is silly, because a: nobody is, and b: if people in Africa did have more sex than here (which I doubt) it wouldn't be racist to say so.

We don't live in the abstract, and Africans have been racially stereotyped as being AIDS ridden.

John. wrote:
Because it first came to west via gay men. As gay men mostly have sex with other gay men and it's sexually transmitted, mostly other gay people get infected. Obviously over time it will still spread out, as has happened (accelerated by immigration).

HIV/AIDS has been accelerated due to immigration!! Sorry you were saying it was unprotective sex which passed the virus on.

Raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 28 2006 12:38
revol68 wrote:
this is pure genuis. raw I honestly took you as alot smarter than this shit.

Considering I am atleast twice (maybe three) times smarter than you, any devaluation of my percieved intelligence reflects badly on you. Be warned!

Raw

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2006 12:59
raw wrote:
John. wrote:
It started there, so of course more people will be infected by it. Also of course condoms have always been less widely available. A big factor is also the sex industry and migrant working; for example of thousands of workers from the same mines sleeping with prostitutes who also sleep with thousands of other men.

Please can you show me studies of the infection rate of prostitutes and their role in speading the disease.

See - I did answer your question there, don't try to question a minor part of it to make it look like I didn't explain. I can't see any actual studies offhand, but this data about the percentage of HIV+ prostitutes in Thailand:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/aidsdb/Map11c.gif
can be compared to this one of pregnant women:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/aidsdb/Map12c.gif
and you can see the massively higher rates amongst prostitutes. This page has other maps too of cambodia, vietnem, etc. all showing the same picture:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/hivmaps.html

Quote:
John. wrote:
If the AIDS conspiracists were listened to by these people, HIV would continue to spread unabated because there would be no need to use condoms.

Why do you insert these statements, we're (supposedly) discussing the issue aren't we not implementing a world-wide programme!

You're pretending to just be "sceptical" and not offering any actual opinions, though your actual opinion is obvious. Coffeemachine on the other hand is at least honest about his dangerous ideas - and he has argued them in public a lot, trying to win people over to his idea that HIV doesn't exist (and isn't infectious, of course). Didn't he even help do an "AIDS dissident" magazine or something? Was that the continuum you rave about? That is fucked up and very dangerous.

Quote:
John. wrote:
Another big factor is the original suffering community, which there was heterosexuals but here is homosexuals. As it's sexually transmitted it will mostly stay in the "community" where people were first infected.

How about bi-sexual men? Surely once it "crosses communties" there should be an equal distribution like in Africa.

Are you serious? Do you not understand these very simple things?

Raw, things take time. Sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted when people have sex, not instantly to an entire population (even if you are messy). Other factors contribute to its slower growth - as I've already said, and as is blatantly obvious - in the UK; these are free + universally available contraception + good sex ed. Also contraception use is (and definitely was hugely) more widespread amongst straight people since gay men can't get pregnant.

Quote:
John. wrote:
Starting to use the word "racist" is silly, because a: nobody is, and b: if people in Africa did have more sex than here (which I doubt) it wouldn't be racist to say so.

We don't live in the abstract, and Africans have been racially stereotyped as being AIDS ridden.

Now you're switching your statement from having sex to being AIDS-ridden. You were the one characterising them all as being malnourished and dirty-water drinking, even though wealthy ones die from AIDS as well, because it's from an infectious disease.

Quote:
John. wrote:
Because it first came to west via gay men. As gay men mostly have sex with other gay men and it's sexually transmitted, mostly other gay people get infected. Obviously over time it will still spread out, as has happened (accelerated by immigration).

HIV/AIDS has been accelerated due to immigration!! Sorry you were saying it was unprotective sex which passed the virus on.

I think you might really have an inflated sense of your own intelligence raw. If HIV positive people from the 3rd world migrate to the west, it causes numbers of HIV infected people in the west to rise. Is that simple enough for you? Shall I draw you a picture?

Topic locked