Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wednesday Is National HIV Testing Day
yahoo.com ^ | June 27, 2012

Posted on 06/27/2012 6:11:41 AM PDT by grundle

Federal health officials are urging everyone between the ages of 13 and 64 to get tested for HIV at least once as part of routine health care.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: healthcare; hiv; hivtesting
I remember back in the 1980s, they had all these public service announcements telling you how hard it was to contract HIV - that you couldn't get it from shaking hands, touching a doorknob, sitting on a toilet seat, etc.

But now they're saying that everyone between 13 and 64 should get tested, as if it's now somehow gotten easier to contract the virus.

1 posted on 06/27/2012 6:11:46 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

It still takes weeks or even months for the virus to show up in standard blood panels. Additionally, false-positives are common and could leave someone devastated thinking they have the disease before taking the test again after a few weeks.

If you’re in a heterosexual monogamous relationship, there’s absolutely ZERO need for an HIV test. This is a disgusting ploy by our government and the media.


2 posted on 06/27/2012 6:18:29 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

It never ceases to amaze me that the very people who wouldn’t dare let tap water touch their lips or who begin coughing uncontrollably when near the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke don’t give a damn about homosexuals spreading AIDS or about getting ink injected under their skin for a tattoo.


3 posted on 06/27/2012 6:18:53 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'll cling to my religion, cigars and guns till they're pried from my cold dead fingers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

This is conditioning. It is the mainstreaming of aberrant behavior.


4 posted on 06/27/2012 6:22:19 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

NAMBLA initiative?


5 posted on 06/27/2012 6:30:03 AM PDT by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
If you’re in a heterosexual monogamous relationship, there’s absolutely ZERO need for an HIV test. This is a disgusting ploy by our government and the media.

That being said it is even very difficult to get HIV by most forms of sex. Drug needles and anal sex is about it-blood contamination. Even infection rate by oral sex, semen contact is only .04%

6 posted on 06/27/2012 6:33:00 AM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I’ve looked into adopting babies with HIV from other countries. Surprise, there are babies born IN THE USA with HIV! Yes, more people should be tested. Especially sexually active (even just with your man/husband) Latinas and black women.

No, people not I risk groups don’t need testing. But there are good, religious married women in the above groups who get it, don’t know it, and pass it to their unborn.


7 posted on 06/27/2012 6:33:07 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

The same government who is discouraging at risk populations from getting proven life saving mammograms and PSA tests because they are being done “too frequently” now is telling us that everyone between 13 and 64 should have regular HIV testing just because.


8 posted on 06/27/2012 6:36:57 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The same government who is discouraging at risk populations from getting proven life saving mammograms and PSA tests because they are being done “too frequently”
9 posted on 06/27/2012 6:41:00 AM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grundle

And what do they plan on doing if everyone gets this? I don’t trust ‘em.

Isn’t it great not to trust the intent of your gov’t? Its not like they’ve never done anything to have me lose this trust or question the motivation...eh?


10 posted on 06/27/2012 6:41:11 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

I didn’t want to quote anything out of my sphere of knowledge. I knew the contraction rate was low for normal, heterosexual sex.


11 posted on 06/27/2012 6:42:27 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The same government who is discouraging at risk populations from getting proven life saving mammograms and PSA tests because they are being done “too frequently”

Most doctor groups are now saying these test are done too frequently. Lot of these "frequent test" arose from lawyers torts cases...docs afraid of getting sued so they did every test every year to cover themselves.

12 posted on 06/27/2012 6:47:26 AM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grundle

we wouldnt want the true high risk people to feel stigmatized by being singled out now, would we?

this is like the TSA- submit everyone to useless instrusive procedure to be “PC”

And who is responsioble for the damage if a 13 yr old gets a false positive and commits suicide?


13 posted on 06/27/2012 6:53:05 AM PDT by silverleaf (Every human spent about half an hour as a single cell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Alright you Sheeple, line up in columns and submit yourself for HIV testing, the data will of course (snicker) be confidential and private (and stored securely in the 0bamaCare national database, you suckers.)
14 posted on 06/27/2012 7:00:49 AM PDT by mkjessup (Finley Peter Dunne- "Politics ain't beanbag")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKUHilltopper
And what do they plan on doing if everyone gets this? I don’t trust ‘em.

Isn’t it great not to trust the intent of your gov’t? Its not like they’ve never done anything to have me lose this trust or question the motivation...eh?
__________________________________

We are being conditioned for Obamacare.

I feel certain, that if obamacare is fully implemented, we WILL take any dang test that the government tells us to - to “keep down costs”.

15 posted on 06/27/2012 7:05:59 AM PDT by KittenClaws (A closed mouth gathers no foot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Everyone has AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!
Everyone has AIDS!

And so this is the end of our story
And everyone is dead from AIDS
It took from me my best friend
My only true pal
My only bright star (he died of AIDS)

Well I’m gonna march on Washington
Lead the fight and charge the brigades
There’s a hero inside of all of us
I’ll make them see everyone has AIDS

My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades

Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog ‘ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C’mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20


16 posted on 06/27/2012 7:15:49 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
we wouldnt want the true high risk people to feel stigmatized by being singled out now, would we?

this is like the TSA- submit everyone to useless instrusive procedure to be “PC”

Exactly. A local TV station where I live runs abstinence ads (cartoons) and cites that group of people for "high risk". The particular group in the ad is not LGBT. But it has the highest HIV rate in the country.

17 posted on 06/27/2012 7:18:20 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

That gets me too. I am not involved in the risky behaviors which spread HIV. So why should I be routinely tested?


18 posted on 06/27/2012 7:19:55 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BerryDingle

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-dc-hiv-infection-rate-nearly-doubles-for-some-poor-black-women/2012/06/20/gJQAXIqKrV_story.html

“Unlike other cities where the at-risk population might be concentrated among intravenous drug users or men who have sex with men, Washington has a very “mixed epidemic,” with a huge burden falling on heterosexual African Americans. Officials said 90 percent of all women with HIV are black. Pappas estimated that 20 percent to 30 percent of the District’s HIV-positive population “is probably walking around infected and don’t know it,” he said.”

the HIV infection rate for black heterosexual women in DC is estimated at 12%

I can remember back when that rate in Zimbabwe was used to predict a pandemic

So the real need is to HIV test minority teenagers (12 and up) and anyone who has sex with them, from poverty infected areas, maybe save a few lives


19 posted on 06/27/2012 7:29:39 AM PDT by silverleaf (Every human spent about half an hour as a single cell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: grundle
OK, for the 8 trillionth time, this is useless. This is an ANTIBODY test, not an ANTIGEN test. It proves nothing more than that at some point in your life you were exposed to a harmless, ubiquitous retrovirus that never killed anyone. Now AZT, a DNA chain terminator did KILL a lot of people, but not HIV.

My hat is off to the homos who have played this farce brilliantly since 1976. They duped millions and raked in millions on a totally fraudulent basis. And now we have same sex marriage and kindergarten kids being taught how to slip a condom on a banana. Good grief what we let these sleaze get away with right under our very noses. El stupido!

20 posted on 06/27/2012 7:40:44 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995
Ok, 9 trillionth time. You can't spread AIDs. It is an acronym for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. HIV is an acronym for the actual virus. AIDs is said to consist of more than 30 separate disease entities which HIV is said to cause. Both are lies. There is no virus, let alone a small 9 kilo subunit retrovirus capable of inducing 30 separate disease states. It is ridiculous on it's face.

So stop confusing AIDs with HIV. Here, I know this long and not paragraphed, but suffer through it anyway. Perhaps it may lead to new inquiry: 1983 AIDS had become big enough in the American and European press to pique the interest of the influential infectious disease establishment, particularly the cancer virus hunters.

At that time the virus hunters had been engaged for over a decade in president NixonÂ’s War on Cancer with unsuccessful attempts to find a human cancer virus (Duesberg 1996b; Fujimura 1996; de Harven 1999).

Now they were looking for new diseases that could be attributed to viruses (Duesberg 1987). Perhaps AIDS could at last yield clinically relevant lymphoma-, Kaposi’s sar- coma- or immunodeficiency-viruses (Duesberg 1996b). Indeed, virus hunters from the CDC were the first to alert the public that AIDS may be “transmissible” (Francis et al 1983).

A similar alert came from a French virus team, which had discovered a retrovirus in a homosexual man at risk for AIDS, which a year later became the accepted cause of AIDS (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983).

News, that the cause of AIDS may be a virus, and thus transmissible to the general population, immediately set off a national panic that opened the doors for new surveillance programs by the CDC and predictably set off a race among virus hunters for the AIDS virus (Shilts 1987).

According to an international press conference called by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington DC on 23 April 1984, that race was won by government researchers from the NIH who had found in some AIDS patients antibodies against a new retrovirus closely related to a hypothetical human leukemia virus (Altman 1984).

The virus was introduced as fortunate fallout of the failed War on Cancer. The next day the new virus was already termed, the “AIDS virus”, by the New York Times (Altman 1984). Overnight nearly all AIDS researchers dropped the lifestyle-AIDS hypothesis to work on the new “AIDS virus”, which was already endorsed by the US government.

The CDC’s director of the Task retrovirologists officially sealed the seemingly tight package of a new “AIDS virus” and the CDC’s assumption that immunodeficiency was the common denominator of the 26 AIDS-defining diseases (table 1) by naming it, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (Coffin et al 1986).

Even before the AIDS virus became the officially accep- ted cause of AIDS, the CDC had already made antibodies against the virus the only definitive criterion to diagnose any of the heterogeneous diseases as AIDS in 1985 (Cen- ters for Disease Control 1985, 1987, 1992).

Their unortho- dox decision to use antibodies against the virus (normally functioning as a vaccine), instead of the virus, for the diagnosis of AIDS was based on the flawed analogy with some bacterial pathogens. For example, syphilis bacteria can be pathogenic despite the presence of antibodies, e.g. the Wassermann test for syphilis (Brandt 1988).

But viruses are typically unable to enter cells in the presence of anti-viral antibodies – the basis for the effectiveness of Jennerian vaccines. Because of the CDC’s decision, AIDS is diagnosed worldwide if antibody against (!) HIV, rather than HIV, is detectable in a patient along with any of the CDC’s 26 diseases.

Since 1992 even low T-cell counts are diagnosed as a condition, termed “HIV/AIDS”, which is treatable with anti-HIV drugs provided it occurs in the presence of antibodies against HIV (Centers for Disease Control 1992), (see table 1, and § 4.2). 3.1 Discrepancies between the predictions of the virus-AIDS hypothesis and the facts.

Despite its spectacular birthday the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has remained entirely unproductive to this date: There is as yet no anti-HIV-AIDS vaccine, no effective prevention and not a single AIDS patient has ever been cured – the hallmarks of a flawed hypothesis. Indeed the hypothesis was born with several serious birth defects and has developed further defects since; most of these should have given pause to HIV-AIDS researchers to rethink and reconsider.

However, in the race to claim a share of the new viral cause for AIDS and of virus-based AIDS treat- ments, “The Trojan horse of emergency” (Szasz 2001) was saddled so quickly that there was little time and no interest to address these defects, not even the most fundamental ones (Weiss and Jaffe 1990; Cohen 1994; O’Brien 1997).

An analysis of the defects of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis based on its failure to predict AIDS facts is shown in table 4. Our analysis is based on the most recent and most authoritative case made for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis since 1984, namely the Durban Declaration that was published in Nature in 2000 and has been signed by “over 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinners” (The Durban Declaration 2000). It can be seen in table 4 that the HIV-hypothesis fails to predict 17 specific facts of AIDS.

The most fundamental discrepancy between the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and the facts is the paradox, that a latent, non-cytopathic and immunologically neutralized retrovirus [a virus that is inherently not cytopathic (Duesberg 1987)], that is only present in less than 1 out of 500 susceptible T-cells and rarely expressed in a few of those, would cause a plethora of fatal diseases in sexually active, young men and women.

And, that the plethora of the diseases attributed to this virus would not show up for 5–10 years after infection (table 4). As a result of the many discrepancies between the HIV hypothesis and the facts, we conclude that HIV is not sufficient for AIDS, and is most compatible with being a passenger virus. Surprisingly our conclusion is supported by a survey of AIDS researchers conducted by the New York Times, shortly after the publication of the Durban Declaration.

At the 20th anniversary of AIDS, on 30 January 2001, the New York Times interviewed a dozen leading AIDS researchers for an article that turned into a list of questions, “The AIDS questions that linger” (Altman 2001a), similar to those asked by us in table 4: “In the 20 years since the first cases of AIDS were detected, scientists say they have learned more about this viral disease than any other, and few have dispu- ted the claim. … Despite the gains … experts say reviewing unanswered questions could prove useful as a measure of progress for AIDS and other diseases.

Such a list could fill a newspaper, and even then would create debate. (E.g.): How does H.I.V. subvert the immune system? . . . Why does AIDS predispose infec- ted persons to certain types of cancer and infections and not others? . . . Dr Anthony S Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, ‘It is the rare person who gets up and strips himself of his personal agenda and articulates what we really do not know because by saying that they would diminish the impact of their own work, which is their agenda’.

(Regarding anti-HIV medications:) . . . the new drugs do not completely eliminate H.I.V. from the body, so the medicines, which can have dangerous side effects, will have to be taken for a lifetime and perhaps changed to combat resistance.

The treatments are now so complicated that it is difficult, expensive and time-consuming to answer basic and practical questions. What combinations of drugs should be started first and when? Why do side effects like unusual accumulations of fat in the abdomen and neck develop? . . . Anti-H.I.V. drugs suppress replication of the virus, which should give the functioning parts of the immune system a chance to eliminate re- maining virus.

That does not happen. ‘So something is bizarre about that, that we don’t understand’, Dr Fauci said. Is a vaccine possible? . . . many unanswered questions exist about whether and when one can be developed.” Thus HIV-AIDS researchers have not solved the discrepancies and paradoxes of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, but still do not follow the scientific method of searching for alternative explanations (Costello 1995).

Since 19 years of HIV-AIDS research have failed to produce tangible benefits for AIDS patients and risk groups, and since there are no paradoxes in nature only flawed hypotheses, the scientific method calls for an alternative, testable hypothesis. Here we offer one such hypothesis.

Our hypothesis extends the early, and now abandoned “lifestyle” hypothesis (§ 2) and subsequent drug-AIDS hypotheses from us and others (Duesberg 1992; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). “Historically, the first step in determining the cause of any disease has always been to find out if there is anything, apart from the disease itself, that sufferers have in common” (Cairns 1978).

However, the traditional search for the cause is only completed, if something that suf- ferers have in common can also be shown to cause the disease; in other words if Koch’s postulates can be ful- filled (Merriam-Webster 1965). This is true for viruses just as much as for drugs. Following this tradition, we try here to provide proof of principle for our drug and malnutrition hypothesis of AIDS – alias chemical AIDS. 4.1

The chemical-AIDS hypothesis and its predictions The chemical-AIDS hypothesis proposes that the AIDS epidemics of the US and Europe are caused by recreational drugs, alias lifestyle, and anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg.

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 (1–7)**. Therefore, “HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation.”

But, HIV can only be “isolated” from rare, la- tently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro – away from the antibodies of the human host (8). 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 HIV- free AIDS cases according to one survey – irrespective of, or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for HIV-free AIDS cases (55).

3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells (1–3).

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 (4, 25). Thus, T-cells infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diag- nosis of AIDS are immortal (9–15)!

4. Following “exactly the same criteria as for other viral disea- ses”, 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 (16–20, 54). This rate of infection is the hallmark of a latent passenger virus (21). 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 (22).

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 (23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by “the same criteria” as conventional viruses.

7. HIV needs “5–10 years” from establishing antiviral immu- nity to cause AIDS.

But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs per cell (24, 25). Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically most active, within weeks after infection (26, 27). 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 (§ 4).

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 (28). 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 expectancy 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 (31).

But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to this day (31). Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV (§ 3), and since natural antibodies are so effective that no HIV is detectable in AIDS patients (see No. 1), 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 con- tact”.

But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV (32–34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infec- ted (29, 30), (figure 1b). 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 1985 (29) until now (30), (see also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast, AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has decli- ned ever since (figure 1a).

12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood trans- fusions in the US for life-threatening diseases (51), 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 (52), and no AIDS-defining KaposiÂ’s sarcoma has ever been observed in millions of transfusion recipients (53).

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 (30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has con- tracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35). And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36–38). Thus AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).

14. Viral AIDS – like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past (41–43) – 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 (§ 1 and 4).

15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve (41–43), rising exponentially via virus spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity, within months (see figure 3a).

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 (figure 3b).

16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is transmitted “from mother to infant” at rates of 25–50% (44– 49), and because “34⋅3 million people worldwide” were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal trans- mission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (§ 4).

But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric (30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in new- borns.

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 (§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.

21 posted on 06/27/2012 7:48:31 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

That being said it is even very difficult to get HIV by most forms of sex. Drug needles and anal sex is about it-blood contamination. Even infection rate by oral sex, semen contact is only .04%


Good points. And it is notable that no healthy (no open sores or lesions) male has EVER been medically documented to have been infected by sexual contact with a woman.

EVER.

Healthy women have to have UNprotected sex with an infected man 500-1000 times before the odds are that they will be infected (see the Padian Berkeley study). (And it doesn’t matter if she has sex with 500 different infected men, or is monogamous to one infected man - monogamy is a red herring).

The responsible medical advice would simply be to make women very afraid of unprotected anal sex. That’s it for heterosexual transmission.


22 posted on 06/27/2012 8:01:17 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

the HIV infection rate for black heterosexual women in DC is estimated at 12%


Which coincidentally is the percentage who receive unprotected anal sex from their drug-injecting boyfriends.


23 posted on 06/27/2012 8:27:26 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Are you that backwards? Go to Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya; mostly heterosexuals between those ages (13-64, and some newborns as well)have AIDS, and the lack of testing helps that disease spread like wildfire.I should want to know if I had HIV before I infected my future wife or have intercourse with my girlfriend, and besides, I hear that if one can catch [it] early, there are new medications out there to keep one healthy for years. You could have it and not know till it’s too late.


24 posted on 06/27/2012 9:38:18 AM PDT by Joshua Marcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba; Joshua Marcus
And it is notable that no healthy (no open sores or lesions) male has EVER been medically documented to have been infected by sexual contact with a woman.

100% false. See Johua's remark..most cases of aids in Africa is hetero vagina transmission man to woman, woman to man. HIV is spread by vaginal secretions though it is easier for women to get hiv from a man versus the other way around but you can get it from a woman with vaginal sex.

25 posted on 06/27/2012 1:25:09 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

>>And it is notable that no ***healthy*** (no open sores or lesions) male has EVER been medically documented to have been infected by sexual contact with a woman.

100% false. See Johua’s remark..most cases of aids in Africa is hetero vagina transmission man to woman, woman to man. HIV is spread by vaginal secretions though it is easier for women to get hiv from a man versus the other way around but you can get it from a woman with vaginal sex.


You missed my key word: “Healthy.” The men in Africa who get AIDS from women are not healthy. STDs with their open sores are a badge of manhood, and rampant. Never mind the use of prostitutes by truck drivers, and the odd enthusiasm for rough “dry” sex.

My point remains.


26 posted on 06/27/2012 1:59:41 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I suspect this is largely about reducing stigma and fear of testing.

The higher rates of new cases are among blacks. Perhaps this can help some but that population is culturally averse to routine testing such as annual mammograms. The Obamas could've made inroads but it's just another area where they've failed to lead.

It is odd considering the push to reduce healthcare costs and eliminate unnecessary testing ...

27 posted on 06/27/2012 5:58:59 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson