Posted on 11/29/2007 9:00:25 AM PST by Finally Awake
"Cultural promiscuity?" Just can't "sexual promiscuity." Might offend a certain group of people?
If people would follow the Judeo/Christian/Muslim prescription for sex only within mariage, every STD would be eliminated from Earth in one generation.
No
The rape and or sexual enslavement of Christians, Jews and any other non Muslims is sanctioned by Islam...In fact it is part of their duty to “punish” “non believers”.
We are not all the same ..
Islam is not a Religion of Peace
Nor are it’s followers peaceful people “just like us”...
Stop pretending..
W
Everybody's disease? Somehow I think it's mainly concentrated around Dupont Circle. And it's not spread by cultural promiscuity but by sexual!
By “cultural promiscuity,” she means that our culture has been deformed, and that kids are taught promiscuity from every direction. From the covers of magazines at the supermarket checkout. From ads in “respectable” newspapers. From the majority of Hollywood movies. From TV. From the examples of Hollywood celebrities. From sex ed courses in the public schools. And so forth.
They are taught that “safe sex” means doing whatever you like, but using a condom, which is very far from safe. And they are taught that homosexual behavior is just fine.
All this means that if you are a parent who thinks differently, you will have a very hard time protecting your children from these influences.
The culture changed around 1968, and we are still feeling the consequences. The solution is not condoms, but somehow changing the culture back again. Unfortunately, liberals control most of the levers of cultural power.
“Heterosexual Contact” is almost entirely bad data.
“Claimed Heterosexual Contact” is more accurate. When investigators look into the real causes in such cases, they invariably find concealed homosexual activity or drug use.
(Of course in Africa, the prevalence of genital sores from other STDs is a vector for hetero transmission that does not exist in the developed world (even the ghetto).
Also, it is a virtual medical impossibility for a healthy male to be infected by sex with an infected woman.
And a healthy woman is VERY unlikely to infected by an infected man, unless engaging in “gay-style” sex, to put it politely. (And the silence on that issue is a medical crime, since it is the type of sex, not merely the fact that it is “sex” that makes the difference.)
But virtually all of these “heterosexual” cases are those whose partners use drugs or receive gay-style sex.
Stating the obvious. If this was a play then DC=Africa lite and congress would be playing the part of the U.N..
This just cannot be true. I thought AID’s was caused by conservatism.
“When investigators look into the real causes in such cases, they invariably find concealed homosexual activity or drug use.”
“But virtually all of these “heterosexual” cases are those whose partners use drugs or receive gay-style sex.”
Interesting, any statistics or studies to back that up?
It shows even more that even in recent years HIV/AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem. Simply no other honest and rational way to look at it.
Also, it is a virtual medical impossibility for a healthy male to be infected by sex with an infected woman.
***************************************
The numbers I’ve seen put the odds at 600:1 on female==>male transmission , I would however not put much faith in those numbers as there is just too much uncertainty in the data.
“But virtually all of these “heterosexual” cases are those whose partners use drugs or receive gay-style sex.”
>>Interesting, any statistics or studies to back that up?
Yes, the NYC Health department used to do such follow up, like asking to use the person’s bathroom on a home visit, then peeking in the medicine chest to find needles. Or interviewing and finding that the heterosexual was accustomed to practices such as “fisting.” You see, a case is only verified when they test the presumed source, and medically verify that it is the same strain. They have NEVER been able to verify a case of female to male, except one ( a guy with bleeding gums who preferred performing oral sex on prostitutes). M->F is more common, but it takes on average 500-100 unprotected encounters to infect the woman. In most such relationships, the guy dies before he can infect the girl.
Lots of studies, and they are all discussed in Michael Fumento’s “Myth of Heterosexual AIDS” and at his website www.fumento.com.
>>It shows even more that even in recent years HIV/AIDS is mainly a homosexual problem. Simply no other honest and rational way to look at it.
And guys like Fumento have been saying that for 15 years, and been proven correct.
The numbers I’ve seen put the odds at 600:1 on female==>male transmission , I would however not put much faith in those numbers as there is just too much uncertainty in the data.
The good news is the research is probably applicable to other diseases involving the immune system. Like the space program, even if you didn’t like paying for it, it probably did lead to advances in other areas. For example, Tang, now used to clean aging dishwashers.
More seriously, they never come out and say the one type of behavior that spreads HIV more effectively than any other type of behavior. And that’s true whether it’s done by straights or gays, though it’s still much more prevalent in gays. Between that particular behavior and bisexuality, that is probably responsible for the so called “heterosexual” AIDS epidemic on a particular continent that is always cited as evidence that we are all at risk.
Gad, to even lump islam in with the Jewish and Christian religion when it comes to sex...unbelievable.
Do your self a favor and take time to study the difference. You are going to be shocked, including what is considered homosexual sex there and what is not. Just sick and not safe from HIV.
Thank you.
It is amazing how easily lie is bought. So many Americans cannot think critically anymore, my daughter got a full tuition deferment scholorship yet bought the lie. Why is this? Apathy? Truth sacrificed on the altar of opinion?
1. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, it must be abundant in AIDS patients based on “exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases.”
But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most patients. Therefore, “HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation.” But, HIV can only be “isolated” from rare, latently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro – away from the antibodies of the human host. Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
2. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, there is no AIDS in HIV-free people.
But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIVfree AIDS cases according to one survey – irrespective of, or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for HIV-free AIDS cases.
3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells.
But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral DNA integrated into cellular DNA. Thus, T-cells infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diagnosis of AIDS are immortal.
4. Following “exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases”, HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace. Thus T-cells or “CD4 lymphocytes . . . become depleted in people with AIDS”.
But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells “that become depleted” are ever infected by HIV. This rate of infection is the hallmark of a latent passenger virus.
5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if it is a passenger.
But, HIV is said to be “the sole cause of AIDS”, or of 26 different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2). Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the definition of a passenger virus.
6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity. Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.
But, AIDS is observed – by definition – only after anti- HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test. Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by “the same criteria” as conventional viruses.
7. HIV needs “5–10 years” from establishing antiviral immunity to cause AIDS.
But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs per cell. Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically most active, within weeks after infection. Thus, based on conventional criteria “for other viral disea ses”, HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks – if it could.
8. “Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years” – the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with the DNA chain terminator AZT.
But, of “34×3 million . . . with HIV worldwide” only 1×4% [= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHO’s cumulative total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000, and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years. Likewise, in 1985, only 1×2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence of 1×2–1×4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life ex pectancy of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.
9. A vaccine against HIV should (“is hoped” to) prevent AIDS – the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an AIDS vaccine since 1984.
But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to this day. Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV, and since natural antibodies are so effective that no HIV is detectable in AIDS patients, even the hopes for a vaccine are irrational.
10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host to host, which is said to be mediated “through sexual contact”.
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV, and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected. Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic.
11. “AIDS spreads by infection” of HIV.
But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread” of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained constant at 1 million from 1985until now. By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined ever since.
12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood transfusions in the US for life-threatening diseases, should have developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.
But there was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era, and no AIDS-defining Kaposi’s sarcoma has ever been observed in millions of transfusion recipients.
13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients – particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.
But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years. Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS. And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes. Thus AIDS is not contagious.
14. Viral AIDS – like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past should spread randomly in a population.
But, in the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981 to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male homosexual drug users.
15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve, rising exponentially via virus spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity, within months.
But, AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12 years and is now declining since 1993 (figure 1a), just like a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from smoking.
16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is transmitted “from mother to infant” at rates of 25–50%, and because “34×3 million people worldwide” were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal transmission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth.
But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric. Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in newborns.
17. “HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders" just like all other viruses.
But, the presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and epidemiologically. The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.
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.