-
Prokofiev:
the website aidsrealitycheck cites the CDC 2001 mid-year report in the following quote:
<CDC Finally Releases Its "Midyear Report" for 2001
As a nation of 270 million people, the U.S. has less than 5% of the world's population, but we have almost *29%* of the world's reported "AIDS" cases! In fact, the U.S. has the highest per capita rate of "AIDS" of ANY nation, industrialized OR developing.
The CDC's "Midyear Report" for 2001 is finally available on the internet. It shows a 6% DECREASE, yes, *DECREASE* in annual cases of "AIDS" from the previous year. Pediatric cases of so-called "AIDS" saw a DECREASE of over 13% annually over last year's figures. In total, in a nation of 270 million people, the CDC reports only 793,000 cases of "AIDS" in OVER TWENTY YEARS OF *CUMULATIVE* REPORTING!>
Less than 1 million deaths in 20 years ... This is far less than car crashes, lung cancer, gunshots, and so many other causes of death that plague the American society.
Such a phenomenon could easily have gone unnoticed for a long time.
It is about definition and statistics: pneumonia without HIV = pneumonia, pneumonia with HIV = AIDS
-
Dickhead,
Sorry, that came out stronger than I meant it to -- in no way did I intend to imply (as on rereading I may have) that you were in favor of what I was saying.
But I must confess I never pictured you as utopian dreamer: an entire generation sacrificing sexual pleasure to keep future generations safe. Wow.
-
JZ, I AM in favor of what you are saying and I agree with your position almost completely. But Dickhead is no utopian. Dickhead is the ultimate pragmatist. Remember I said to fuck twice as much to make up for the lost pleasure (wouldn't help me much right now as 2 x 0 = 0). Quantity is quality when it comes to sex, if you're a
Dickhead
-
seydlitz,
reading through most of your website links is like talking to ufo/ roswell advocates or any conspiracy theorists - it's a series of facts and true statements that mysteriously morph into questionable ideas and dubious links and then goes on to make far-fetched associations, totally unwarranted by the original statements. when written by a literate - though misguided - author with an air of authority, it can read as if it has scientific credence.
.
. an example - one article gives a long list of symptoms of benzyne poisoning and then links the info to benzoic acid and benzoates which are common preservatives in food/drinks. it then links perrier water, fat-free foods and diet soda which contain benzoates to cronic fatigue syndrome "of yuppies" and in turn to aids because both have similar symptoms! please!!!
.
it seems that sexual lubricants, silicone, trojan condoms (and most other latex-types) are a major cause of aids! when used in the rectum these products cause toxic reactions and attack the immune system. according to one article, since almost all anal sex and lubricants were associated with gays (huh??) the problem first appeared among gay "botttoms". o.k. - a couple questions. prior to 1985, how many gay men used condoms? do you think more straight or gay couples used condoms? do you think anal sex only occured among gays? do you think women having anal sex didn't use lubricants? crazy! but the most disturbing aspect of this line of reasoning is that it is completely contrary to safe sex practice. latex condoms - trojans included - are the #1 recommendation for safe sex. lubricants for anal sex? a very good idea.
.
don't confuse the ramblings of fringe thinkers and psuedo-scientists who post their "findings" on the inter-net with ideas critiqued by peer review in scientific and medical journals. i don't claim that the cdc and the "medical establishment" have all the answers or that some of the duesberg objections are quite interesting and need to be addressed. maybe anti-aids drug therapies are not the right answer for all hiv+ people. it certainly appears that the number of aids deaths has been inflated and confused with other diseases -especially in africa. but over-all, the hiv-aids link appears strong and explains so much about what we know. the majority is not always right but, it's usually right. _ p
-
Prokofiev:
now that you have read some of the material, you will have noticed that those websites are a repository of articles written by different persons at different times. All they have in common is that the authors question some or al af the majority view on HIV/AIDS.
Regrettably, they do not agree with each other on fundamental issues. Some deny that HIV exists, most say that HIV and AIDS are not related, etc. In fact the "denialists" are not a lobby. They could use a bit more coordination and need to articulate their views if they want to be able to convince people, not just add to the confusion.
Please bear in mind that I have written none of those articles, and that I do not endorse everything in those websites. I have formed my opinion, as you can do with yours, based on that material, and some more.
Your point about condoms and lubricants is fine with me. That part of the material on the websites is very dubious, even if there are serious allergies to latex, and if many lubricants can be toxic when used intensively or aggressively, as can be the case in anal gay sex.
-
The truth about AIDS:
1). A lot of it is caused by anal gay sex.
2). A lot more of it is caused by shooting up dope.
Both of these practices are very disgusting in my opinion.
-
DickHead,
How about straight anal sex? A little hot backdoor action with a cute and willing woman who gets-off with anal penetration? Or is that disgusting too? It can have the same net effect. Both boy and girl butts will bleed when stretched.
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prokofiev
[i]DickHead,
How about straight anal sex? A little hot backdoor action with a cute and willing woman who gets-off with anal penetration? Or is that disgusting too? It can have the same net effect. Both boy and girl butts will bleed when stretched. [/i][/QUOTE]
Yes, FWIW I find straight anal sex disgusting also, although for some reason not QUITE as disgusting as gay anal sex = prejudice (feelings aren't rational). YEMV. I recommend digital penetration or using dildos if one's female partner is anally oriented.
Anal sex without the use of condoms is just way, way, way disgusting to me, and you can get SO many fucking diseases that way without even considering AIDS.
Anal sex with the use of condoms is merely way, way disgusting to me (one fewer "way").
Live like you want to live, but anyone who is having condomless anal sex is
1) affecting me personally by increasing the incidence of STDs, and
2) dumber than dirt.
This is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of WSG, my employer, my family, my pets and blah blah blah.
I think another poster said it best when he said "the anus is an exit, not an entrance."
-
Mr. Richard Head,
Why do you feel that there are "so many ***** diseases" associated with anal sex? AIDS -yes. But others (herpes, clap, syphillis, etc) are no more likely encountered from behind. No, I would NOT recommend condom-less anal sex (or vaginal) with pros or pick-ups, but if you have a wife or girlfriend and you KNOW you are both disease-free, what is the big deal? Having had several significant others who were "anal-oriented" I have gone that route perhaps a 1000 or more times. Enjoyable for both parties - and more so without latex. Lambskin seems to be particularly enjoyable (although I know it is NOT recommended as effective against the HIV virus).
.
I find it interesting that so many sources connect anal sex with gay men, but not with women. In overall numbers (not %) I'm sure there is more female anal sex than male. Or do I just live in a different world? I can't believe that my women over the years were SO different from the norm. Most women do not want to admit or talk about anal sex, but in my experience it is not at all uncommon. And looking at this web-site, it appears plenty of men want it as well. But to each his own, Mr. Head. Whatever floats your boat . . . Peace - P
-
Epididimitis (sp?) in particular is transmitted by condomless anal sex. This makes your balls swell up real bad and often leads to sterility. Urinary tract (primarily bladder) infections are relatively uncommon in men as opposed to women, but are relatively much more common in men who engage in anal sex (with whatever gender). In neither case does it matter if both partners are "clean," monogamous, or whatever as these are bacterial rather than viral in nature.
I know a lot of guys (and gals, unfortunately) like anal sex, and before you ask, yes, I've tried it, several times. I personally don't like it and think it's dirty and dangerous. Dickhead aims to please but is no longer willing to do that just to please a woman.
But as long as guys use condoms, I don't take it personally. I DO take it personally if they don't use condoms, cuz that affects ME.
Richard "Dick" Head (all my friends and most of my enemies just call me Dick!)
-
Personally, I'm fine with people having sex with whomever, whatever, and in whatever ways they want to, as long as there aren't kids or unhappy livestock involved (and I could probably be convinced the livestock is consenting in some instances.) I'm just not particularly thrilled with that behavior affecting me if I've slept with someone who's slept with someone and those folks I've not had the pleasure with have managed to pass infection to me.
The whole gay sex/druggie thing I find a complete and unfortunate distraction. The US has a higher proportion of transmission in those areas than many other places, but that (unless you follow the alternative theory viewpoint) is less about the disease itself and how it acts and more about being close to the danger zone. Of course sharing needles is a prime scenario, because there's direct blood exchange. Same with gay anal sex -- there's tearing involved, and in general the lifestyle, similar to the one we discuss here, involves multiple partners. I'm not about to be comforted to hear that there's a rampant epidemic of smallpox in, say, Wyoming, just because mostly cowboys are getting it and I'm not a cowboy and I'm not in the west. One ranch hand with a bad sense of direction (and really, really tireless horse) and I'm at risk.
-
Okay, JZ, you brought it up. Speaking of consenting livestock, how does a lazy cowboy screw a mule? (consenting mule over the age of 18 and using a condom of course):
"Giddyup. Whoa. Giddyup. Whoa. Giddyup. Whoa."
PS: You said: "The whole gay sex/druggie thing I find a complete and unfortunate distraction"; I did not understand what you meant by this. Can you amplify or explain further? DH
-
Joe,
I agree with your position exactly. It's all very well to say that you're "careful" in choosing your sexual partners...but who's to say that your partners are taking as much care as you are?
For instance, if it WAS only a gay/IV drug users disease (not that I believe for a second that it is) I may sleep with a man who I know is neither gay nor a drug user, thinking I'm safe. But HIS last partner may have been an IV drug user...and HER last partner may have been a gay IV drug user! Who knows? Or what about the wealthy businessmen in a suit who I feel completely safe with...who neglected to tell me that he has just returned from an unprotected sex junket to Thailand???
It's pretty darn stupid to claim it's an African/IV drug user/gay male/Thai prostitute problem. Even if that WAS the case...these people still get around, (they are not the "exclusive" groups that people think they are and they still mix with the general community whether people like it or not), and suddenly it lands in YOUR backyard too.
-
exactly, rn. dickhead, what i meant is that it's not as if hiv/aids is genetically connected to gay folks, looking for some sort of chromosome (as with sickle cell anemia, for example) and then going to town. it's not as if hiv/aids is a true byproduct of intravenous drug use, being something that's an interaction of particular illicit drugs. these groups are more at risk, yes, because their behavior and who they're with leads them toward more possibility of exposure, but that has nothing to do with the disease itself. and because these groups are marginalized, people can focus on that as opposed to the danger of the disease to themselves. it's "others" who get it, people who are different than i am -- gays, druggies, foreigners. in the us, despite hearing from the ryan whites (hemopheliac kid who contracted it, for those non-us readers) and mary fischers (socialite mom who caught it from her husband), we still are busy feeling mostly safe because we're not "them" where them is a member of one of the groups where the incidence is higher.
it's now a decade since fisher made her famous speech to the republican national convention -- "hiv asks only one thing of those it attacks. are you human? and this is the right question. are you human? because people with hiv have not entered some alien state of being" -- and i don't see where the prevailing sentiment has changed all that much. we still want to marginalize and blame the victims as opposed to worry we might be next.
-
Personally, my interest is not in placing blame but figuring out how risky it is to get a BBBJ from someone I've known for a long time and whom I'm certain is not bisexual or an IV drug user, but who sleeps with a couple of other people whom I'm also certain are not bisexual or IV drug users. Certainly the risk is not zero but people take risks every day.
Motorcycle helmets are a possible parallel. I believe they reduce risk and I use one 100% of the time when I ride, but I could still get killed, and even with a helmet, motorcycling is riskier than driving a car (although approximately 75% of car/motorcycle accidents are the car driver's fault, I'd still be dead). There is no helmet law in my state, and if others choose to ride without a helmet, the increased medical costs fall on the general population to a certain extent. There are reasonably reliable statistics I could look up as to what percentage of motorcycle fatalities are wearing helmets, and I could compare the death rates to states where helmet laws are mandatory (so you could assume almost all the riders were wearing helmets), but that really doesn't tell me what I need to know. What I need is the fatality and injury rates per mile for helmeted vs. helmet-less riders.
Of course, you can tell if someone is wearing a helmet or not but you can't tell if someone has HIV or AIDS. In the case of HIV/AIDS, what I need to know is what percentage of what sex acts result in the transmission of AIDS, and I doubt very seriously if there will ever be reliable numbers on that. So I choose to use condoms all the time when I am with hookers, and I try to use them with amateurs but here is where the problem lies: the women don't want to use them and think that my wanting to use them "says something" about them. Well, it does "say something" about them; it says that there is a non-zero probability that they (or even perhaps me although I get tested every six months) are HIV positive. Nothing more and nothing less. So a lot of times I lie and say we should use them for birth control even though Dickhead only fires blanks.
Then plus even if I am in a long-term relationship and we have both been tested, women always cheat (that has been my experience 100% of the time), and then they lie about cheating. This then leads to a situation where I want to keep using condoms even after we've been together a while and been tested, and then they think I'M cheating. Dickhead doesn't cheat, ever. I'll break up before I'll cheat.
So it sucks, and I can't win, and this is why I proposed that condoms be used for an entire generation until this whole plague goes away. I know it won't happen but the death rate is one per capita regardless and I've already had more fun than I ever dreamed of.
End of rant. Sorry.