Comments on: HIV is the government’s fault?

By: aaron

aaron — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:25:57 +0000

Its only in the std catagory because scientists developed it that way! But it can be aquired (get infected) in other ways besides sex, which tells me its not just a sexually transmitted disease, HIV itself is a very smart disease, yes i said smart! HIV thinks, it grows and adapts to its environment. It mutates over a million times a second to counter attack red blood cells like an army counter attacks its enemy! It screams military just in its characteristics, its too smart of a disease to have not been created by man. So everyone affected by HIV is and always has been a victim of government manipulation and control!

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 15 May 2011 00:42:13 +0000

AIDS and HIV are nobody’s fault. Governments do what they can but lets face it, it’s all down to the human race. No matter how many policies and initiatives a government puts out there.

People seem to be forgetting in this the numbers of infected people from mother to child groups, IV drug users with second hand needles, needle stick injury and rape/sexual assaults.

MSM is not the ONLY transmission route!

Reply to Terrance: Unfortunately for your argument, i can sit and type here that HIV/AIDS is fact. AIDS is basically the terminal stage of HIV infection. The cells that HIV attacks in the blood are the CD4 T helper lymphocytes. These are white blood cells that protect the immune system from attack. HIV effectively kills these cells meaning that the person becomes immuno-suppressed. This is the point of AIDS. When the CD4 count drops below 200 per cubic millilitre (bearing in mind it should be between 600 and 1200) the person is diagnoses as having acquired immune deficiency syndrome because he is DEFICIENT IN IMMUNE SYSTEM CELLS!

Thanks

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:14:26 +0000

Yeah, I’m getting pretty tired of the victim mentality of AIDS carriers and their groups.

Mary,

I agree. I also think the only victims are innocent children and the unknowing spouses who trusts their husband.

By: Terence

Terence — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:06:11 +0000

You can’t sit there and say that hiv/aids is a fact. It is as of yet a still unproven theory as to the cause of aids. There are other theories such as the chemical/aids theory which states that repeated drug use, the medicines they give you, and malnutrition are the cause of aids. You’re still treating the hiv/aids theory as a proven fact.

By: mary

mary — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:42:08 +0000

I am amazed at how willing a person is to put themselves at risk for hiv/aids. Let’s see, I do not engage in any risky behavior and lo and behold do not have any std’s or for those who think otherwise – I do not have hiv nor aids. Hmmmm. Seems like even if all the scientific evidence is not in that some things would hold water like – say being gay and sharing bodily fluids increases your risk for contracting hiv/aids (no matter the odds!) That being a hemopheliac or coming into contact with blood that has tested positive for HIV (and now that person has aids) is pretty convincing to me.

Conspiracy theories, hidden agendas and unprotected (or broken condom) gay anal sex are on two different levels. One you cannot prove – the other is a pretty sure fire way to get sick – no matter what you call it, or what the odds, or who started it. I don’t care and neither should anyone else. We have the knowledge to stop HIV/AIDS today. And yet, someone believes that it is not their problem or their concern and that the odds are in their favor – so go ahead an do what you want to do with whomever (you don’t need to tell anyone you have tested postive for HIV because of the odds and the conspiracy theories) and you have taken a huge step towards helping others (socially.) Yeah, I’m getting pretty tired of the victim mentality of AIDS carriers and their groups.

By: Terence

Terence — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:30:56 +0000

*message is a typo I meant medicine

By: Terence

Terence — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:29:22 +0000

I’m with duesberg on this one even though the once exalted molecular biologist is now shunned by the rest of the scientific community. HIV hasn’t been proven to do anything and just by the behavior of the virus it doesn’t make any sense that it would cause the multitudes of diseases associated with aids. The virus couldn’t survive if it killed off more t blood cells than what your body could reproduce and it behaves exactly like passenger virus. The 5-10 year waiting period of aids from contraction follows more closely the patterns of other lifestyle cancers and diseases such as lung cancer from smoking. The medicines that are prescribed to the hiv positive people (the test is to see if you have antibodies against hiv not for the actual virus itself which at no point in time exceeds approximately 1/500 t cells) have the side effects that are associated with aids. Every study done by hiv/aids supporters have been horribly biased and are counted as science because the cdc made it impossible to have evidence contrary to that with thier 1993 definition of aids as being someone who has the symptoms and tests postive for hiv. Also, the cases of perfectly healthy people who tested positive for hiv and then refused the message only to live healthily from that point on for up to a recorded 23 years only show further proof that even though hiv is sexually transmitted rarely and is a virus, that it is probably not the cause of aids.

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:27:13 +0000

AFTAH is reporting that NGLTF is giving out “Leather Leadership Awards” now, so apparently the whole crew has gone off the reservation.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:38:50 +0000

J. James said in post 87267:

The important data is this: For 175 HIV-discordant couples, ten years of condomless anal sex yielded NO SEROCONVERSIONS. Why do you suppose that is if HIV is a highly-contagious, sexually-transmitted disease? How do you account for that?

1st, your initial claim, (10 years of condomless anal sex) isn’t correct. Take a look at table 3. (p.355) of the study. In the 175 couples you referred to: abstinence and condom use significantly increased over the 10 years, while anal intercourse significantly decreased. The paper notes (p. 354) the most significant change occurred at the beginning of the study. 2nd, I said it is an STD, not that it was highly contagious.

And on what data (re: transmission via anal intercourse) is this analysis based? Be specific.

It is based on the data from the other 267 couples you didn’t think were important. I suggest you actually read the study before you respond again.

Also, in the future, when someone makes highly questionable claims, I would suggest you 1st check the facts before repeating it.

By: Jim Phelan

Jim Phelan — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:39:22 +0000

J. James,

HIV which leads to AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Sorry, you feel otherwise. Please give the reference to who said otherwise.

I said we had highr rates, you said rates where on the decline. We still have high rates, regardless of the trends, which are fluid.

Even HIV advocates admit that the chance of contracting HIV is 1/1000 if you have sex with an HIV+ individual. Compare that chance to the chance of contracting gonorrhea (a real STD) if you were to have sex with someone with gonorrhea: 1/2.

Please give the citation for this claim.

Please reread The Padian study you like to cite. Did you overlook the part that said: “results presented here are not necessarily reflective of trends in the population”

Nice try, but California couples don’t represent the rest of the world!