Skip to comments.
Sorting out the facts on AIDS
Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^
| 12/4/03
| Michael M. Bates
Posted on 12/02/2003 7:58:03 AM PST by mikeb704
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Oprah, Klintoon, the Most Rev. Jackson. . .several of the usual suspects.
1
posted on
12/02/2003 7:58:03 AM PST
by
mikeb704
To: mikeb704
Since there's an easy way to keep from getting the disease I find it hard to be very sympathetic to anyone other than those who contract it through a blood transfusion or a cut during surgery, in other words through no fault of their own.
Anyone who gets it from sharing needles or risky sexual practices is on their own as far as I'm concerned.
To: mikeb704
Some advocate abstinence and chastity as ways of reducing AIDS. In many quarters, such views are considered patently absurd.Well, those that are smart enough to realize it works and have the discipline to practice it will live, the rest may die off. Perhaps this is simply a case of natural selection.
3
posted on
12/02/2003 8:02:52 AM PST
by
FormerLib
To: mikeb704
Perhaps that sense partially explains why, despite substantial increases in government spending on AIDS, the number of cases each year has been holding at about 40,000. Total Federal expenditures for HIV/AIDS were estimated to be close to $15 billion last year
What is even more amazing is that diseases that are not politically correct, that kill far more Americans, that are mostly unpreventable, get far less money.
4
posted on
12/02/2003 8:09:25 AM PST
by
2banana
To: FormerLib
SHEESH....YES, what YOU said....suppose some of us decided that we all should be able to SPIT anywhere we wanted...(I was going to use something else as an example, but ...)..while others thought this "spitting" habit was not healthy...soooo...if abstinence of spitting reduces disease....and someone considers "such views are considered patently absurd" guess who's running the health of our culture? (DOES this make sense?)
5
posted on
12/02/2003 8:10:08 AM PST
by
goodnesswins
(Aren't you glad you LIVE IN THE USA?)
To: scripter
Ping
6
posted on
12/02/2003 8:20:51 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
To: mikeb704
7
posted on
12/02/2003 8:31:44 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
To: 2banana
What is even more amazing is that diseases that are not politically correct, that kill far more Americans, that are mostly unpreventable, get far less money.Amen and preach on!
8
posted on
12/02/2003 8:37:36 AM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: mikeb704
Perhaps that sense partially explains why, despite substantial increases in government spending on AIDS, the number of cases each year has been holding at about 40,000.
Wesley Clark has pledged to increase spending for AIDS research, prevention and health care to $30 billion a year by 2008.
Please check my math someone. I can't believe this number. Wesley Clark is proposing giving $750,000 for every infected AIDS individual in care and research funds per year. What??? What about breast cancer, heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's...? It appears that politically correct medical research has condemned the majority of sick Americans to near certain suffering and death. Thank you Democratic panderers.
To: 2banana
What you said too.
To: mikeb704; *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; ...
Bump and ping. Thanks for the heads up, EdReform.
Some very important highlights from the article:
The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. In that order. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2001 fewer than 10,000 Americans contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact.
It may be tempting to think that tossing more dollars at a problem will cure it, but that rarely, if ever, is what happens. A lot of them are just squandered.
Yet its interesting that the African nation thats had singular success in curtailing AIDS uses [abstinence as a preventative measure]
These days were most reluctant to "impose" our views on others. But the fact is that combating AIDS effectively will require a change of behavior by some individuals.
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
11
posted on
12/02/2003 8:55:41 AM PST
by
scripter
(Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
To: goodnesswins
I'm sure the Demonrats still believe that AIDS is spread by the oppression of homosexuals.
To: George W. Bush; Dr. Eckleburg
ping
13
posted on
12/02/2003 9:09:17 AM PST
by
xzins
(Proud to be Army!)
To: FormerLib
"Perhaps this is simply a case of natural selection."You make a very interesting point. However AIDS actually threatens all human life on the planet over the very long term. (The fewer humans there are, the greater the chance of species extinction.)
There are credible genetic researchers who theorize that humans once before declined in number (they guess ten thousand or fewer survived over the whole earth as the result of an ice age)and that humans today are descended from that small number. AIDS could do the same thing to the human species.
14
posted on
12/02/2003 9:15:11 AM PST
by
NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats and fools to boot.)
To: NetValue
However AIDS actually threatens all human life on the planet over the very long term. (The fewer humans there are, the greater the chance of species extinction.)Pure and utter nonsense! As we've seen in our country, the only people with AIDS are those who engage in non-monogamous heterosexual activity, IV drug users, and those who have sex or receive blood products with those in the previous two groups.
Outside of this nation, AIDS spreads due to heterosexual activity completely outside of our societal norms.
We will survive this epidemic of the perverse.
To: mikeb704
The antiviral medicine apparently only slows down the progression of the disease, during which time the infected feel good enough to spread it further.
This is my impression...if someone can prove otherwise I would like to hear it.
16
posted on
12/02/2003 9:57:30 AM PST
by
Voltage
To: FormerLib
I will be more respectful than you were. You write:
" the only people with AIDS are those who engage in non-monogamous heterosexual activity, IV drug users, and those who have sex or receive blood products with those in the previous two groups."Diseases evolve, rather efficiently, and the HIV is no exception. In fact given its constant rate of change, you can almost predict that surviving variations will be seen. Please note; I am not talking about next year. We are talking many decades (ten year periods). Consider this AIDS has been with us for about 20 years. The infection rate has gone from a handful to an intercontinental epidemic spreading silently and growing by millions every year. Diseases do not spread in percentage increments. They spread by geometric progressions. If you see 20 million infected today, you can expect to see 40 million in 5 years, and 80 million in 10 years, and so on. I grant you that good behavior helps but diseases transmitted by body fluids will not be deterred by such moral behavior because people worldwide have poor hygiene. All living things, from viruses to humans propagate - life finds a way. The HIV will too. It is only a question of whether it will propagate faster than our ability to interdict it with a cure or an immunization.
17
posted on
12/02/2003 10:26:44 AM PST
by
NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats and fools to boot.)
To: mikeb704
The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. That's only true in the first world. In the third world, various factors such as malnutrition, immune systems weakned by tropical diseases, female genital mutilation, and empidemics of other venerial diseases make HIV infection much easier through normal sexual intercourse.
To: NetValue
Explain to me how AIDS will infect someone who only has monogamous heterosexual sex after marriage, does not use IV drugs, and does not receive blood products from someone who practices high-risk behaviors.
Sorry that you find my habit of referring to nonsense as "nonsense" but unless you believe that mosquitoes are going to start carrying AIDS, please explain how people who avoid that behaviors that spread AIDS are going to get it.
To: mikeb704
I can't help noticing that homosexuals are trying to be removed from the banned list and be allowed to donate blood. It would appear that they are angry about the fact that AIDS is NOT spreading to the heterosexual community. Since propaganda campaigns such as the one addressed in this campaign aren't working, perhaps they are looking for another avenue.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson