A really cool report I found on HIV transmission
It's a little bit technical, but I thought it was interesting.
[url]http://home.uchicago.edu/~eoster/aids.pdf[/url]
Just some thoughts on this.
There was a lady in the UK who despite being HIV positive still slept with a number of men. The police contacted 4 of her previous lovers and one of them was infected. Whether he caught the virus from her or another was undetermined.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1801584,00.html[/url]
Well, i guess after you read this you chaps will whip of the condom and roger away contented... or perhaps not as the scientific article by Clandestine concludes that intervening to treat STD's will dramatically reduce HIV transmissions - so that basically comes down to the necessity of having open sores, blood contact.
In the west STD's are quickly treated, but in the rest of the world... perhaps not.
Excuse me. Did someone say "truth"?
I was just thinking:
If this section is called "The truth about......" , why all posted here is just endless repetition of the mainstream propaganda that we are brainwashed with every day? Is it the "truth"?
You as a distinguished sex-tourist surely must have your doubts occasionally: Is everything they tell me true? After all you are yourself not-mainstream. If you were then you would prefer to stay home with ol'mama and choose to copulate in the old boring positions twice a month, licking saggy tits and rooting a dried out hole.
Why do you instead choose to travel to find young fresh meat, when it is actually considered a very politically incorrect act, and is being despised publicly every day? Hmm..., Hmmm...
Dear gentlemen, instead of giving a piece of "our own mind" advice to each other, repeating the same old thing over and over, why not consider at least the following?
///////////////////////////////////////
1. Crime is caused by "law". (Of course this is extreme, but) If there was no law and eagerness by some to enforce it, no-one would be guilty of crime. The effect of more laws is in fact more "crime". And if you happened to build your livelihood on "fighting crime" then it is in fact good business for you.
2. Disease is caused by the eagerness to "treat it". It is created only by definition, calling "sick"something that is only different in some way, and not necessarily harmful (again, what is harmful?) .
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
So here too, if you happened to build your affluent lifestyle on "treating diseases" then you would be just too keen to defend their validity, in order to continue living as you do, to derive funds, to get recognition, to signify your own importance in the picture.
Even if you haven't built five castles and bought ten cars from "fighting the evil course" and you are just a third class nurse or assistant streetcop it is still your livelihood. Without it you would be floating out in the open space of hopelessness, out of job. Full stop. So, it is just one very significant reason why so many keep defending the cause of holy wars against diseases, crime, terrorists and so on.
.......................................................
Drugs are expensive. Jails are expensive. Court proceedings are damn expensive. Even if the end user does not pay for the cost of these, someone else will. The citizen, the taxpayer, the donor. However the one who always wins is the provider of the service or the product.
"Free medicines" for Africa are not free as such. Actually they are very expensive. The greater is our own fear the more keen we donors are to pay for them for the Africans. And as you can see: no expense is spared to make the monster of "aids, cancer, terror, etc" look more huge and dangerous.
..............................................
The truth is: as long as someone makes even one cent profit, even enough to go down to the corner shop and buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of beer after a hard days "research against cancer" or "fight against terror", you will always be told their own perspective of the "truth". And as sure as hell this "truth" will not ever be unbiased.
conclusion:
What I am saying that we have all have to realize the following. Some sooner, others later:
1./ This is a rotten, dark age we are living in.
2./ Keeping things muddled feeds an extremely large number of beings, directly or indirectly. While there is fight, there is funding, research, and all the accessories of good life for the fighters and researchers. The rest, out of pure fear for the dark and unknown, will fund their luxuries. Be that fight against terror (what the fuck is terror anyway?), cancer, global warming, aids, poverty or whatever"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the final paragraph of the argument by a "scientist" is quoted below. The whole (massive) text can be read at these addresses:
[url]http://www.righto.com/theories/nohiv.html[/url]
[url]http://www.righto.com/theories/lanka2[/url]
The "scientist says:
He seems not to have realised that he has thereby taken the ground from under the whole AIDS construct, for, were it not "official" that AIDS can afflict anyone, the enormous public funding for AIDS research ($96 annually per heart patient vs. $36,000 per AIDS patient) would not exist;
and equally, if the vast profits accruing to Wellcome through AZT fell by the wayside, the whole edifice of direct and indirect funding of HIV research would grind to a halt.
As Kary Mullis observed a while ago "who wouldn't be infinitely fascinated by how HIV causes AIDS if there is a $2000 million price tag attached to the question every year". As an assiduous student of epidemiology Harris might ask himself, why has HIV not spread, as according Farr's Law it should have done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Gentlemen,
just for fun, why not search some engines with the keywords: aids+profit, aids+business, crime+business?
After all, being a sex-tourist you are already a sceptic.