The Truth about AIDS [Archive] - Page 2

George90

09-18-05, 00:16

Though it is unfortunate that BB has misinterpreted the facts about HIV/AIDS, the facts he stated are true.

Almost each developed country has a DIFFERENT standard by which someone is determined to be HIV+, and by which someone is considered to have full-blown AIDS. The problem arises because ALL the test for HIV/AIDS are indirect. There are no DIRECT tests for these conditions because there are no DIRECT indicators of HIV or AIDS.

ALL the test for HIV look to confirm the presence or absence of about 20 proteins and enzymes which are BELIEVED to be associated with being HIV+. As BB stated, the health departments of different countries have different opinions about which proteins are most highly associated with HIV and therefore which are the most important in deciding whether a person who test positive for a particular protein has in fact been exposed to Virus. These proteins are divided into 3 groups, of 3-6 proteins each. Most countries have a standard that to be HIV+ a person must have a reaction for at least one protein in all 3 groups, or 2 or 3 proteins in 2 groups and none in the third. Which proteins must be present differs by country, and here in the US also differs by health agency. The CDC and the DHHS have different standards for being HIV+! This information is available on the Internet. Search for keywords like "HIV, test, standard, research" and you will find sites that provide the published research articles upon which the development of HIV tests is based.

As BB stated, the proteins, whose presence contributes to the HIV+ determination, can be caused by common illnesses such as a cold or influenza.

AIDS has similar sorry story. There is no AIDS disease; there are only already known diseases that opportunistically strike those who are HIV+ more frequently than they strike those who are not HIV+. So basically, the standard for having AIDS is based on statistics, not a definitive diagnosis. As the frequency of different diseases is also differs by country, the determination of having AIDS will also differ by country.

Where BB falls down, is in his statement that "HIV doesn't cause AIDS". Due to the wide variation around the world over what it means to be HIV+ and to have AIDS, research using worldwide data has not found a strong correlation between HIV+ status and AIDS. But, as I claim, and I hope convincingly, that is due almost entirely to differences around the world in the definitions of being HIV+ and having AIDS.

Be safe, but also don't fall for hyped up nonsense.

[QUOTE=Beelzy Bubb]You guys unfortunately have no idea how corrupt and politicized medical science, public health agencies and the media are. AIDS is a false construct and self-fulfilling prophecy. The same blood sample can be HIV positive in one country and negative in another, because there are no uniform standards for evaluation of the so-called "HIV tests." Even the test manufacturers themselves admit this in their fine print.

Over 70 different, common conditions, including the flu, the common cold, vaccination and recreational drug use have been proven to cause false-positive HIV tests.

Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven.

Clandestine782

09-18-05, 06:59

In reference to the statement that BeezlyBub made containing the word "theory." (And I only bring this up because I was trained as a chemist and the misuse of this word makes my colon clench.)

Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven."

NO NO NO!

Could we please use the word "theory" in the right way? No theory is ever proven, as they are ALL provisional (Newtonian Theories, etc). And a theory is meant to be something that explains something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED/ HAPPENS. So, barring outside interference, most people with HIV (whatever that is) will develop AIDS-- but a few won't (I have read that some groups of whites have some type of resistance to HIV). But this makes it not one bit less true that HIV will generally lead to AIDS. And it just so happens that BY DEFINITION, a T-Cell level below some point is the criteria for AIDS. I forget what the exact number is, but when you use this definition for AIDS, the semantic differences between who uses what antibody to define HIV are irrelevant. There is probably more than one different cause for AIDS.

If you are interested to read a little more about what a *theory* actually is, you can click on the link:

http://ourworld.cs.com/jamessfreeman16/TheoryandLaw.htm

GettingTang

09-18-05, 09:03

[QUOTE=George90]Though it is unfortunate that BB has misinterpreted the facts about HIV/AIDS, the facts he stated are true.

Almost each developed country has a DIFFERENT standard by which someone is determined to be HIV+, and by which someone is considered to have full-blown AIDS. The problem arises because ALL the test for HIV/AIDS are indirect. There are no DIRECT tests for these conditions because there are no DIRECT indicators of HIV or AIDS.
QUOTE]

The reason different countries have different guidelines for HIV diagnosis and AIDS diagnosis, is that different ethnicity have different normal CD4 count ranges. For example Caucasian will typically have a normal CD4 cell range of 500-1500, Asians are 200-400, huge difference there.

Also, I'm so sick of hearing this crap that HIV does not LEAD to AIDS. All HIV does is prevent your CD4 cells from being able to reproduce by attaching to them. Eventually your immune system wears down. Usually once those CD4 cells fall below 400 symptoms will occur, although at this level they will be mild, such of skin disorders, loss of energy etc, as they drop to around 200, this is when the major problems start popping up, below 150 and at any time one of hundreds of potential opportunistic life threatening illnesses can take over.

Current life expectancy for someone infected TODAY with HIV stands at 17 years. But I ask, how many of those 17 will be enjoyable? 10? 12? Maybe. This all depends on the strain of virus you may have caught. Get a strain from someone who has been on meds for years and has resistance, well then you have picked up where they left off. Options will be very limited for your treatment. You would die sooner. Get a virgin strain and you do well with meds, you could live 20-30 years.

There is no exact science to HIV infection. Some decline and die fast, some can take the meds and almost not notice them while others curl into a ball, while their body rejects the toxic potions and die rapidly.

Bottom line, stick your willy in places without a condom on and at best your gambling with the possibility of a horrible life or no life at all. It still amazes me the mongers here who do a different woman every night with no condom

Monger#77

09-23-05, 21:05

"Duerr and colleagues[15] presented further evidence for clade-specific transmission from men to women by comparing the efficiency of transmission of clade B HIV in 51 Italian couples (1.1 per 1000 episodes of intercourse) to clade E in 78 Thai couples (2.4 per 1000 episodes of intercourse); however, these differences were not significant."

"The most important cofactors are those that cause trauma or inflammation to the genital mucosa."

"It will take considerable time to complete studies of clade B vaccines in the United States because of the low prevalence and limited transmission of HIV in that country."

..."Evidence of the benefit of circumcision was provided by Buve and coworkers.[45] They reported on a community-based, cross-sectional study comparing African communities with high and low HIV prevalence. Two thousand people were studied in each of 4 towns. Subjects were interviewed, examined, and tested for STD pathogens and HIV. The investigators found that in Yaounde, Cameroon, and Cotonou, Benin, the prevalence of HIV was 3.8% and 4.4%, respectively. Ninety-nine percent of the men studied were circumcised. Conversely, in Kisumu, Kenya, and Ndola, Zambia, where the HIV prevalence was 21.9% and 25.9%, respectively, only 26.8% (Kisumu) and 7.6% (Ndola) of men were circumcised. Statistical analysis, including adjustment for sexual behavior, marital status, ethnic group, herpes simplex virus-2 antibodies, and syphilis, demonstrated that circumcision appeared to provide significant protection from HIV acquisition. The authors concluded that at least some of the regional variation in HIV prevalence in Africa could be ascribed to circumcision, and that this procedure might be introduced as an HIV prevention measure."

"A total of 187 HIV-negative men were in sexual partnerships with HIV-infected women. In the discordant couples, none of 50 circumcised men acquired HIV from his female partner. HIV was acquired in the uncircumcised men at a rate of 16.7 per hundred patient-years. In a related analysis from the same group,[47] Serwadda estimated that circumcision could prevent as much as 44.8% of cases of HIV acquisition."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418963

"Of the adults and adolescents2 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
* 22% were injection drug users (IDU)
* 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU."
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Turbo Pascal

10-25-05, 09:05

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is not spread easily. You can only get HIV if you get infected blood or sexual fluids into your system. You can't get it from mosquito bites, coughing or sneezing, sharing household items, or swimming in the same pool as someone with HIV.
Some people talk about "shared body fluids" being risky for HIV, but no documented cases of HIV have been caused by sweat, saliva or tears. However, even small amounts of blood in your mouth might transmit HIV during kissing or oral sex. Blood can come from flossing your teeth, or from sores caused by gum disease, or by eating very hot or sharp, pointed food.

To infect someone, the virus has to get past the body's defenses. These include skin and saliva. If your skin is not broken or cut, it protects you against infection from blood or sexual fluids. Saliva can help kill HIV in your mouth.

If HIV-infected blood or sexual fluid gets inside your body, you can get infected. This can happen through an open sore or wound, during sexual activity, or if you share equipment to inject drugs

Dickhead

10-25-05, 22:43

Revised statistics:

58% said they were queer
22% said they shot drugs
20% were lying

Yusta Vansel

11-10-05, 13:12

Adults and children living with HIV: 39.4 million
Newly HIV infected: 4.9 million
AIDS deaths: 3.1 million

Pedro Chilli

11-13-05, 14:19

13/11/2005 12:02:50 PM
( Source: Reuters)

Man claims to have beaten HIV virus
LONDON (Reuters) - A man claimed on Sunday to be the first person to become clear of the HIV virus, which can lead to AIDS, after earlier testing positive for it.

If true, the case of 25-year-old Andrew Stimpson -- reported in two newspapers -- could reveal more about the virus and possibly even provide a breakthrough in the search for a cure for HIV/AIDS.

A spokeswoman for Chelsea and Westminster Heathcare Trust in London confirmed that one of its patients had tested negative for HIV about 14 months after testing positive in May 2002.

"He did test positive and then later negative, but in terms of curing himself, we don't know because he hasn't been back for further tests," said the spokeswoman.

"We very much want him to return so we can try to find out what exactly has happened," she added.

There is no known cure for HIV/AIDS, responsible for the deaths of millions of people and especially virulent in parts of Africa. Some experts say there are nearly 35 million sufferers around the world.

Scientists cite anecdotal accounts from Africa of people shaking off HIV but say they have never seen firm evidence.

"I feel truly special and lucky," Stimpson, who is a sandwich maker, told the News of the World. "All the doctors have told me it is a medial miracle that I am clear.

Patrick Dixon, a doctor and HIV expert, told Sky News this was the first time someone had kicked the virus out of their body.

"(AIDS) is a hugely significant problem which at moment we have no cure for," said Dixon.

"It's just possible inside this man's body is a biological key. If we can find an antibody that he's produced that has enabled him to kick this virus out, we could in theory find a way of engineering that antibody and giving it as some sort of treatment," he said.

The hospital spokeswoman said subsequent DNA checks had proven there had been no mix-up in the identity of the patient and the HIV tests, but said she did not know whether there could have been any other error in the original test

Seydlitz

11-13-05, 15:31

13/11/2005 12:02:50 PM
( Source: Reuters)
Man claims to have beaten HIV virus
LONDON (Reuters) - A man claimed on Sunday to be the first person to become clear of the HIV virus, which can lead to AIDS, after earlier testing positive for it.

This is interesting. An individual was tested positive for antibodies that are linked to HIV and later was tested negative. There are two ways to explain this.

a. This fortunate individual owns a body that has been able to eradicate singlehandedly not only the deadly virus for which there is no known cure, but also all trace of the antibodies to that virus that made him test positive in the first place.

b. The HIV tests are unreliable.

In science, the easiest explanation is often the best one. In all fairness, if the second test had been run consecutively rather than after a long time, this would have been called a "false positive" and the lucky guy would hav been told he was OK right away.

The real problem with accepting that the tests are unreliable is that those possibly worthless tests are the only reason why people are diagnosed HIV positive and submitted to dreadful drug cocktails that are likely to destroy one's immune system as effectively as HIV itself is supposed to do it. This is called AIDS by prescription.

There is definitely something fishy about the whole AIDS theory.

Gimmedub

11-22-05, 20:41

For those IT/Internet savy users out there... a grid SW that uses spare computer cycles (screensaver) to help find drugs to battle HIV based on the molecular structure.

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/projects_showcase/viewFaahResearch.do

Zde

12-23-05, 06:27

I think that the main thing one needs to worry about with a sex worker is hiv. Now, here is my question for the medical savy, what is the chance for someone who uses sex workers to get hiv if he insists on condom. I know that many people say that the chance to catch hiv with a condom is low, but that does not make any sense. Because if that was the case how do you explain that as I read many sex providers in Thailand have aids. So what is the trueth there?

Streetlooker

12-28-05, 08:10

Not every sex worker in Thailand is useing a condom. Condoms are not 100% protection from HIV but they do lower the risk to almost nil.

Lorenz

01-12-06, 11:11

Fencing

01-25-06, 04:47

The risk is not high, according to loads of info I read on web after a similar accident, it is like 5% or something. The problem is that when you are risking your life even 5% is a big number. I would recommend to take a viral load test, not the antibodies test but viral load. It can detect in a month after exposure. You problem is psycological at this stage and testing helps a lot.

While fucking with a young (she said 19 yo) Thai girl (professional prostitute) taking her from the back my condom brokes.

I realized it just when I came out, so I have been fucking her for about 2 minutes with my glandis in contact with her vagina and sexual fluid.

I immediately washed it carefully with plenty of soap and water, I pissed, and I watched and carefully examinated my penis: no any sign of little scares, or cuts, or wounds or red skin, the skin was normal as usual.

Supposing that the girl is 100% HIV positive.

What do you think is the risk of getting HIV?

What the risk to get other diseases?

Should I use any special cream or medicaments to prevent other diseases?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge!

actually I'm quite sure that, as all the skin of my penis was perfectly intact, there is no way HIV could have been transmitted to me, but who knows?

DirkDingy

02-04-06, 05:04

that a man has a 1 in 214 chance of contracting hiv from unprotected vaginal sex with a hiv positive woman and a woman has a 1 in 14 chance of contracting hiv from unprotected sex with a hiv positive man.

Clandestine782

02-04-06, 09:39

Philippines HIV cases double over three years Tue Jan 31, 9:49 PM ET

MANILA (AFP) - An AIDS crisis threatens the Philippines as the number of people who are HIV carriers has doubled in just over three years, the health department warned.

A health department study projected the number of Human Im***odeficiency Virus (HIV) carriers to have risen to 11,168, from about 6,000 in 2002, Health Secretary Francisco Duque told reporters.

The widespread practice of unprotected sex makes AIDS a serious threat in the Southeast Asian country, he added.

Many people who are likely living with the virus are mixing with the general population and are unaware that they are infected, Duque said.

Men who have sex with other men, female sex workers, their male clients, and injecting drug users are the groups most at risk, Duque said.

However, these groups account for only 2,942 of the total HIV carriers estimated in the Philippines, said health department epidemiologist Enrique Tayag.

"A significant change in this estimation is that 8,000 of these HIV positives are now found in the general population. This means that current interventions miss a hidden population that would benefit and thus avert a major catastrophe," Duque said.

In the health department survey, one percent of injecting drug users in Cebu, the country's number-two city, are HIV-positive, Duque said.

"For the first time after nearly a decade of surveillance, another IDU (injecting drug user) has tested positive. This means that the transmission among IDUs has begun and, if left unchecked, will cause the repetition of an epidemic similar to that of Thailand," Duque warned.

World Health Organization country representative John Marc Olive said the discovery of HIV-positive injecting drug users should serve as a "red flag" for the Philippines taking into consideration Thailand's experience when those infected by the virus transmitted HIV by sharing needles.

Duque said many injecting drug users had multiple sex partners, did not practice safe sex, and shared needles.

Duque said the government had set aside 20 million pesos (383,000 dollars) to stockpile anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS sufferers. The virus destroys the human body's im***e system.

"It's a dilemma for the (health department) to have to manage opposition from the (Roman) Catholic Church because it views condoms also as a family planning method and not just a tool against HIV/AIDS," Duque said.

He urged the church to allow the government to promote condom use among the faithful in this mainly Catholic country.

Ace of Spades

02-06-06, 22:50

I don't know why anybody would believe any statistics concerning HIV and AIDS transmission coming from a third world country with astronomical populations. These are the same countries were fake birth certificates and health records can be produced. Common sense is the best way to prevent getting sick with something. Honestly, it would not take very much to get infected WITH or WITHOUT protection. In the course of a year, a bar girl for instance can potentially come in contact with hundreds of men from different parts of the world, who had their own partners elsewhere. These men also fuck other girls (sometimes bareback) in the host country and these girls also fuck other men. It does not take long for a domino effect to occur.

HIV/AIDS might be the worse of all scenarios because it is a slow and evitable, but how about other STDs that perhaps can equally fuck up your life. Imagine getting herpes and breaking out in rashes. It helps to use a condom, but really there is no gurantee.

Freaky

03-07-06, 17:23

Reality is condom or no condom every time you have sex you are playing russian roullette. I personally love bareback sex, however is ten minutes of pleasure worth your life? I think not. Face it as a person who mongers for a hobby it is pretty risky. However many other things in life can kill you, and are not half as much fun.

GettingTang

03-08-06, 00:34

While fucking with a young (she said 19 yo) Thai girl (professional prostitute) taking her from the back my condom brokes.

I realized it just when I came out, so I have been fucking her for about 2 minutes with my glandis in contact with her vagina and sexual fluid.

I immediately washed it carefully with plenty of soap and water, I pissed, and I watched and carefully examinated my penis: no any sign of little scares, or cuts, or wounds or red skin, the skin was normal as usual.

Supposing that the girl is 100% HIV positive.

What do you think is the risk of getting HIV?

What the risk to get other diseases?

Should I use any special cream or medicaments to prevent other diseases?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge!

actually I'm quite sure that, as all the skin of my penis was perfectly intact, there is no way HIV could have been transmitted to me, but who knows?

Sorry, it does not matter if your skin was intact, all the infected fluid has to do is get inside your urethra (hole in head of penis) to infect you. Does not mean if you got her vaginal secretions in there that it will happen for sure, but this is how many become infected. You see the urethra is lined with what is known as CD4 receptor cells, a form of white blood cells, these cells in the urethra are "on guard" to prevent infection of many types, when they detect an invading germ or virus they immediately attack it. They attack it by grabbing the germ (in the worse case HIV virus) and quickly backpacking it to your lymph nodes. BIG MISTAKE in the case of the virus being HIV! This is where your bodies own immune system works against you and how it actually causes infection in this type of circumstance.
Your protective white blood cells that your penis urethra is lined with actually can cause the infection by doing their job. They actually carry the HIV back to the lymph nodes where supposedly the white blood cells in the lymph nodes will kill an invading virus, only one problem, the HIV virus now has a field day and a feast of CD4 cells to replicate and attach itself too. By the time the rest of your immune system recognizes there to be a major problem it's too late and you have seroconverted.

This is why people who are uncircumsized are more then 7 times more likely to be infected. This is because the foreskin is lined with a large area of the receptor cells. Wear a GD condom and quit trying to beat mother nature! It always wins!
Do some google searches and see for yourselves.

Artisttyp

03-08-06, 01:51

I get really freaked out too.The only thing I can add is that a doctor told me if you've slept with someone that has hiv and you know it you can take a cocktail of drugs(I dont know which ones) and that will kill it providing it's done within a certain window of opportunity.Check with your doctor and see what he says.
My weakness is eating pussy.If I didn't do that I'd jump off a bridge.I go through the same thing...freaking out but I'd freak out even more without it.I hope it works out for you.

Chocha Monger

03-08-06, 02:13

The most effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is preventing exposure. The provision of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection after unanticipated sexual or injection-drug--use exposure might be beneficial. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Working Group on Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) made the following recommendations for the United States. For persons seeking care <72 hours after nonoccupational exposure to blood, genital secretions, or other potentially infectious body fluids of a person known to be HIV infected, when that exposure represents a substantial risk for transmission, a 28-day course of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is recommended. Antiretroviral medications should be initiated as soon as possible after exposure. For persons seeking care <72 hours after nonoccupational exposure to blood, genital secretions, or other potentially infectious body fluids of a person of unknown HIV status, when such exposure would represent a substantial risk for transmission if the source were HIV infected, no recommendations are made for the use of nPEP.
-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Sex is a calculated risk whether you are engaging sex with a professional or non-professional. Each time you engage in intercourse you accept a certain amount of risk for disease and death. The only thing between your penis and the virally loaded vaginal fluids is a latex condom. If the condom fails the only thing you can do is to begin immediate therapy with antiretroviral drugs. After 72 hours have passed it is too late to begin therapy as a preventative measure. The best that you can do for peace of mind is to have your Thai hooker tested for HIV.

Artisttyp

03-08-06, 21:56

The other thing to ask yourself is what was her reaction when the condom broke?If it didn't concern her then that would make me concerned.Some of these girls are flakey to begin with but that should be a good judge.

Tom3108

04-14-06, 08:24

hi Lorenz
I hope you got tested and are fine!
I just had the same experience last week in Sosoua, Dom Rep.
Please let me know how this experience turned out for you. Alltough one can never know, it would help me to know you are ok. In my head at least...
Tom

Three I

04-15-06, 05:42

http://www.illuminati-news.com/aids-is-man-made.htm

to all,

during my talks in las vegas last weekend i revealed a few things about aids that i have been keeping close to my chest. i have already revealed that i saw that aids was man made to eliminate the undesirable elements of society while i was attached to naval security and intelligence. i stated this fact in my paper "the secret government." now for the rest of the story.

the first study was made in 1957 by scientists meeting in huntsville alabama. that study resulted in "alternative 3." another study was made by the club of rome in 1968 to determine the limits to growth. the result of the study was that civilization as we know it would collapse shortly after the year 2000 unless the population was seriously curtailed. several top secret recommendations were made to the ruling elite by dr. aurelio peccei of the club of rome. the chief recommendation was to develop a microbe which would attack the auto immune system and thus render the development of a vaccine impossible. the orders were given to develop the microbe and to also develop a cure and a prophylactic. the microbe would be used against the general population and would be introduced by vaccine administered by the world health organization. the prophylactic was to be used by the ruling elite. the cure will be administered to the survivors when they decide that enough people have died. it will be announced as newly developed. this plan was called global 2000. the cure and the prophylactic are suppressed. funding was obtained from the u.s. congress under h.b. 15090 where $10 million was given to the department of defense to produce "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired." "within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease causing organisms.

most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." the project was carried out at fort detrick maryland. since large populations were to be decimated the ruling elite decided to target the "undesirable elements of society" for extermination. specifically targeted were the black, hispanic, and homosexual populations. the name of the project that developed aids is mknaomi. the african continent was infected via smallpox vaccine in 1977. the u.s. population was infected in 1978 with the hepatitis b vaccine through the centers for disease control and the new york blood center. you now have the entire story. the order was given by the policy committee of the bilderberg group based in switzerland. other measures were also ordered. the one you will be able to check the easiest is the haig - kissinger depopulation policy which is administered by the state department.

when you put this information out do not edit it and please give me and this board full credit as the source of the information. please post the board phone number with this file. that is how i stay alive. this board is the citizens agency for joint intelligence, sysop - william cooper, (602) 567-6725

to aid you in your research of this crime the name of the report was "the limits to growth" a report for the club of rome's project on the predicament of mankind. in april 1968 the study began in the accademia dei lincei in rome italy. they met at the instigation of dr. aurelio peccei. the top secret recommendations of the results of the study were made by dr. aurelio peccei who pledged not to use the prophylactic and not to take the cure should the microbe be developed and should he contract the disease. dr. peccei was hailed as a great hero for deciding to take the same risk as the general population. the public results of the study were published in 1972. the mit project team that participated in the study are listed below:

dr. dennis l. meadows, director, united states

dr. alison a. anderson, united states (pollution)

dr. jay m. anderson, united states (pollution)

ilyas bayar, turkey (agriculture)

william w. behrens iii, united states (resources)

farhad hakimzadeh, iran (population)

dr. steffen harbordt, germany (socio-political trends)

judith a machen, united states (administration)

dr. donella h. meadows, united states (population)

peter milling, germany (capital)

nirmala s. murthy, india (population)

roger f. naill, united states (resources)

jorgen randers, norway (population)

stephen shantzis, united states (agriculture)

john a. seeger, united states (administration)

marilyn williams, united states (documentation)

dr. erich k. o. zahn, germany (agriculture)

when the study was completed in 1969 u.n. secretary general u thant made this statement:

"i do not wish to seem overdramatic, but i can only conclude from the information that is available to me as secretary-general, that the members of the united nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. if such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then i very much fear that the problems i have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control." u thant,1969

mknaomi was developed by the special operations division (sod) scientists at ft. detrick, maryland under the supervision of the cia and for the cia. a reference to the project mknaomi can be found in "the intelligence community" by fain et al, bowker, 1977.

i swear that all of the above information is true and correct to the best of my memory and knowledge. i give this information to the people of the world in hopes that someone will have the courage and resources to help me end this madness. the illuminati (the order) are in complete control of most of the world and they have declared war against the general populations of all nations. we must stop them at all costs. please help me for i cannot do it alone. please send this file without editing to everyone that you know and ask them to do the same. god bless you all.

william cooper

http://www.keelynet.com/interact/arc_1_99-4_99/00000071.htm

hi folks!

with regard to healing, in the last few years there have been claims
that a zinc tablet, placed in the mouth and allowed to dissolve would
produce an electrical flow from the mouth to the nose which will kill
'the' cold virus.

i have tested zinc tablets on myself when i have had a cold and found
that zinc tablets do indeed radically alleviate cold symptoms, including
watery eyes, draining sinus and sore throat. commercial versions of this
include coldeze.

the point here is that increasing the electrical conductivity between
tissues seems to have positive results.

michael slivinski recently posted this email to me which i am reposting
to the list as an item of interest with regard to increasing
intracellular electrical potentials for the purpose of healing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
tetrasil: cure for aids

author: eellinwood <eellinwood@aol.com>
date: 1998/01/07
forums: hiv.aidsweekly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
foundation for incurable diseases
28 overland avenue, cranston, ri 02910
(401) 942-8399 voice/fax -
please limit faxes to 2 pgs (no cover needed)
06 january 1998 release no.: 980106

for immediate release:

cure for aids at hand!

the foundation for incurable diseases is pleased to announce it
has come to an agreement with dr. marvin antelman of antelman
technologies, which will provide to those suffering from aids
a cure for little or no cost!

dr. antelman has developed tetrasil (r) (tetrasilver tetroxide)
which is a patented bioinorganic antipathogenic molecular crystal
device. tetrasil kills pathogens by electrocuting them!

dr. antelman, whose work throughout the years has varied from
innovative designs for nuclear submarine reactors and smart card
batteries, discovered that silver (ag) actually is formed by ag
and ag3, and it is this discovery that lead him to the development
of tetrasil. (tetrasil is not colloidal silver.) through the
construction of a molecular sized semiconductor, dr. antelman was
able to force natural silver (which is actually ag2) into its two
separate components of ag and ag3 and to keep them separate, thus
retaining the potential for an electron discharge. in layman's
terms, one section of the tetrasil machine contains an extra
electron charge that desparately wants to cross to the other side,
but cannot due to the manner in which the molecular machine is
constructed. the molecular machine is, thereby, polarized and
charged, and remains so until triggered. the tetrasil machine is
triggered when it comes into contact with a pathogen (thus the
reason for the name "anti-pathogenic molecular crystal device").
pathogens (bacteria and virii alike) are drawn to the device by
strong covalent forces, and when they come into contact with the
machine they are locked into place by these forces. the extra
electron charge is then free to make its way to the other side of
the tetrasil machine by traversing the cellular membrane of the
pathogen, which it immediately does. the 2 volt discharge
electrocutes the pathogen in the process. a chelation process is
triggered as a result and both the tetrasil machine and the dead
pathogen bound to it are removed by the liver. the liver is
stressed, but not damaged.

tetrasil is classed as an epa class iv substance - the safest
rating available, which means it is safe for human consumption.
epa class iv status is equivalent to fda stage one approval.

tetrasil has redefined the standards by which the govt. judges
efficacy against e-coli: nothing works faster and more effectively
than tetrasil.

in human clinical aids trials, a single iv injection of tetrasil
cured 8 of 10 terminal aids patients, who showed no sign of disease
one year after treatment. the two other patients succumbed due to
the damange already inflicted by the disease. it was too late for
them.

tetrasil will be distributed:

- as a cure for faids (feline aids - 30% of all cats suffer from
the disease) in the usa, for which fda approval is not needed.
- as spray disinfectants and wipes
- as treatment for drinking water and waste water (no poisonous
chlorine needed any longer)
- as disinfectant for cooling towers (no more legionaires disease)
- as a cure for human aids
- and many other uses

dr. antelman turned down millions of dollars from an nih associated
group that wanted all rights to tetrasil because he knew they would
make the treatment too costly or suppress it altogether.
(dr. antelman knows how the system works and is disgusted by it.)

tetrasil has the potential to cure practically all disease caused
by pathogens, from tb, to the common cold. dr. antelman, an
orthodox rabbi, is a righteous man, who seeks to help ease human
suffering, not profit from it. (rabbi marvin s. antelman is
a member of the supreme rabbinic court, aka 'the sanhedrin',
the oldest established court in the world.)

the foundation for incurable diseases needs public support to
bring this modern miracle to the people of the world.

the pharmaceutical industry is already rallying to stonewall
distribution of tetrasil, because it will replace all their
poisonous (and highly profitable) treatments for aids -- all of
which will kill a healthy person. help us fight the true killers
-- the pharmaceutical industry. more people die from treatment for
aids than from the disease itself. the time has come to cease this
nonsense.

no one need ever die of aids again.

for information, please write to the above address, or e-mail
eellinwood@aol.com
redheifer@juno.com

edwin ellinwood
fid public relations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
note:

as of 12/16/01, i recieved an email requesting the contact information
be removed from this discussion archive. although it isn't illegal
to use a public name, in the spirit of cooperation, i have removed it
as requested.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
# # #
-------------------------------------------------------------------
re: colloidal silver

author: eldon <eldon@ziplink.net>
date: 1997/02/17
forums: misc.health.alternative
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

there is at least one patent for silver that implies its tremendous
antibacterial effect:

united states patent 5,571,520 [also: us patent 5,676,977]

http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/patlist?icnt=us&patent_number=5676977&x=31&y=7

antelman nov. 5, 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------
molecular crystal redox device for pharmaceuticals
inventors: antelman; marvin s. (rehovot, il).
assignee: antelman technologies ltd. (providence, ri).
appl. no.: 286,007
filed: aug. 4, 1994
primary examiner: hulina; amy
attorney, agent or firm: salter & michaelson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
abstract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the employment of molecular crystals as bactericidal, viricidal and
algicidal devices, and specifically the molecular semiconductor
crystal tetrasilver tetroxide ag(4) o(4) which has two trivalent
and two monovalent silver atoms per molecule, and which through
this structural configuration generates electronic activity on a
molecular scale capable of killing algae and bacteria via the same
mechanism as macroscale electron generators.
===========================
hmmm - oxygen and silver...... can kill bacteria anerobic (pathogenic)

the fda wants to regulate it as a drug to keep me from turning blue
while i die from an antibiotic resistant infection.

how noble of them.

maybe someone can explain the trade off between, turning blue
(if it does happen with a pure colloidal solution) and dying from
an antibiotic resistant infection.

--- jerry wayne decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "from an art to a science" voice : (214) 324-8741 / fax : (214) 324-3501 keelynet - po box 870716 - mesquite - republic of texas - 75187

previous message: jerry w. decker: "re: gas from coal/aero club"
next message: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
next in thread: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: jay j. krull: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: jay j. krull: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: dusty rhodes: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: fred epps: "re: tetrasil as a cure

Rock Dog

04-15-06, 09:45

Three I,

I just read your post (although waded through it... is more like it).
That was some pretty good entertainment if I daresay. Your claims of Illuminati conspiracy to rule the world are, at best, farfetched. I doubt that anyone had the advanced level of genetic engineering necessary to do what you said they did back in 1968, never mind 1957. Oh wait, they did have it.... they just kept it a secret until later. :D

As for tetrasil, if it works as good as you say..... they'd be fighting each other to be the first to bring it to market. There's always some smaller pharma outfit who doesn't have any big selling drugs. Just like you say, they'd do anything to get in on the game and start making money. Therefore undermining any attempt at suppressing tetrasil as a treatment or cure.

As for limiting mankinds growth? Here's MY theory...... we will, in the next few decades, be entering a negative feedback stage with regards to human population. Climactic changes caused by human activity will begin to SERIOUSLY impact food production over widespread areas of the globe. Some areas may actually benefit, but the overall effect will be overwhelmingly negative. This will result in widespread famines and wars being fought over scarce resources. I propose that, at this stage,the human population will actually begin to decrease. This decrease in population will lead to a reduction in industrial activity causing a reduction in the factors that led to global warming in the first place.

Time frame for all of this? Another couple of decades should go by before it REALLY starts to kick in. I personally plan to have a room in my house stocked with several years worth of food, water and other supplies. That might sound wacko to some people...... but nowhere near as crazy as that AIDS conspiracy stuff that you were talking about.

Rock

Three I

04-15-06, 20:51

I use to be a liberal then, I became a conservative, now I am just an American.

I have read books past and resent about lies the American Government along with several European Governments have fed us and we need to wake up.

Who is telling us there is a food shortage?

The same group telling us that this is an oil stortage.

The same group that invaded Iraq.

The same group that sents out jobs to China and Mexico!

Now they would like to legalize 12 millions which is really 20 million illegals in my country.

Not to mentions GATT and NAFTA!

These groups are the same group that would like the world population under 2 billion people.

In my lifetime I have witnessed several diseases appear on the seen all of which are deadly:

HIV-AID
Ebola
Marburg
Bird Flu
Sars

All of these have came within my last 28 years on this planet.
Most were discovered in Africa or Asia.

I don't believe the standard media BS anymore I am not a Republican nor Democrat!

We are living in the last days of this Earth and we have to wake up!
I believe you have valid points and I can't type nearly as well as I would like, so please forgive me but please research yourself again.

P.S.

Jackson

I know this is not the forum for this topic but please allow further discussion of this topic if you will.

Three I

04-15-06, 21:00

Three I,

Time frame for all of this? Another couple of decades should go by before it REALLY starts to kick in. I personally plan to have a room in my house stocked with several years worth of food, water and other supplies. That might sound wacko to some people...... but nowhere near as crazy as that AIDS conspiracy stuff that you were talking about.

Rock

Dude that isn't wacko! I think you are using common sense!

All government hill thing from the people that serve them, that's right we serve them!

Why isn't the Rothchild Family listed as on the of world most wealthiest (bad spelling) family's. Lord Rothchild still lives in England. He still controls several banks.

Starchild2012

04-16-06, 16:01

http://www.cowurine.com/aids.html

this site claims that aids can be cured with drinking cows [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109)...and they have a ducumented research paper of sorts in their site.

well...in india we know cow is not just a cow it becomes a "holy cow" literally...worth a look for serious researchers out here...

Organicgrowth

05-13-06, 14:53

born loser 5

the site is interesting from a novelty point of view. from a serious science point of view it is ridiculous. there is no essential difference between cow [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109) and human [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109), indeed their own data supports this (on the second page) with the exception of swama kshar ~ whatever that is.

the idea that cow [CodeWord109] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109) has therapeutic benefits is very dubious. to lay claim to cow [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) having anti viral (anti-hiv) properties borders on the insane.

an un-powered “trial” of n= less than 100 tells us the degree of ridicule these [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) drinkers deserve.

this kind of thinking was left behind in the dark ages, and i pity the poor ignorant population actually believing that they are getting somewhere with the [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) drinking treatments because the cows are holy… very sad.

regards, havanaman

Clandestine782

05-13-06, 22:46

It's a little bit technical, but I thought it was interesting.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~eoster/aids.pdf

Rayman

06-30-06, 05:27

AfAsia

10-15-06, 20:25

mate,

thus, the golden rule applies, "take precautions", always. to think, this is just four guys they know of, could be loads of guys. it amazes me how careless europeans are, with regard their own safety.

without fail, protection needs to be adhered to. wherever!

amazing story. bitter lady.

speed13

Petemcc

10-16-06, 01:04

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1801584,00.html

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.All the recent reports are correct, and it has been known for a number of years that having another STI increases the chances of getting a dose of HIV. However, in that paper, the author fotgot to mention that it isn't only the 'open sores' STIs that cause a problem. Any STI- even the 'minor ones' like Chlamydia, will cause irritation in the lining of the urethra- this is where the virus gets in. Yeah, the sores can be an entry point, but that warm, moist, damaged tube is the go!
I'm not discounting anything that has been said- but just for the invincible men out there who think that not having sores gives them a better than fighting chance of not contracting HIV, bear in mind that if your urethra ( [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) tube) is infected or inflamed- even from too much sex with a clean girl, then the chances of infection are increased.

As has been said so many times, if you don't wear a condom, you are playing Russian roulette!

Npaul1

10-20-06, 01:34

Clandestine,

That report was useless. I have 2 college degrees and still cannot figure out what the fuck the guy was saying. He is the idiot, not you or I !

Petemcc

10-20-06, 12:43

Clandestine,

That report was useless. I have 2 college degrees and still cannot figure out what the fuck the guy was saying. He is the idiot, not you or I !Honestly Npalu, I am not being an areshole, but the paper did make sense and I understood it. I'm not saying that a lot of it wasn't bollocks, because it was, but through all the sociology crap it made sense. I admit that it coud have been a lot more concise. Bite your lip and read it again in a better frame of mind!

Pete

Kirsia123

11-17-06, 17:48

I have recently had some P4P experience, always using a condom. After having read some of the reports in this thread I am getting concerned. The condom has never broken and I have never let any of the girls do BBBJ. I normally try to finish with a COF/CIM.

I have taken preventive actions such as:

Not having BBBJ
No DFK
Making sure the condom isn't broken

Can I get HIVinfected by BBBJ?

What sympthonms do you normally get shortly after you're infected?

Kirsia

George90

11-23-06, 17:52

Can I get HIVinfected by BBBJ?

What sympthonms do you normally get shortly after you're infected?

Kirsia

I can't believe that someone is still so ignorant of HIV/AIDS after 25 years and LOADS of information on the net.

Just FYI, there are no, or only very mild, symptoms shortly after infection. Some people may get a mild cold or mild flu symptoms. That is precisly why AIDS is insidious. People don't know right away that they have been infected. They then spread it to many other sex partners.

For more info, do a Google or Yahoo search with HIV or AIDS symptoms, or HIV transmission as key words.

That Asshole

11-26-06, 06:32

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:

http://www.righto.com/theories/nohiv.html

http://www.righto.com/theories/lanka2

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.

Opebo

11-26-06, 15:30

Humble Turd, alas, this propaganda effects even those of us who are not taken in, in this way: it is very hard to find bareback sex in many places, because the girls are taught to be so insistent upon the sex-ruining condom. The real question is, how to pursuade them to have real sex?

Perhaps again we come back to your oft-elucidated point about solidarity - if all men insisted upon the Real Thing, I suppose they'd be driven by necessity to provide it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Streetlooker

11-27-06, 19:58

I do agree propaganda has a lot to do with the aids scare. What is real truth or not is very hard to figure out cause theres so much BS out there. IF you think about it Its really all about MONEY. CONDOM companys would lose BILLIONS of dollars if HIV/AIDS was to be cured or a vaccine was some how discovered. Could it be possable That 30 years ago comdom companys and drug companys got together to create a epidemic that would scare the shit out of the masses only to get everyone to Buy their product? Its in there best interest to keep the the possablity of catching HIV going in order to keep selling there condoms. Its in the drug companys interest to sell drugs to people that get sick. Us out here in the general public May never know what the real truth is regarding HIV.

BenDover57

11-28-06, 01:17

Well stated report. I hope it stimulates thought, rather than criticsm. I am also very reluctant to take a doctor's advise because of his (hers) protection of their livelyhood, and/or their vulernability to legal action (defensive medicine).

Petemcc

12-02-06, 23:58

Clandestine782

12-03-06, 02:08

So a large number of Africans, and an estimated 30% of Papua New Guinea people, and millions of others who are infected with HIV got it from the Easter Bunny? No queers, no IV users, hetrosexuals. There are some funny cunts here, honestly, somehow believeing that sex with a prostitute does not carry the risk of HIV. Mind you, smokers are the same, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and they can prove it!

HIV is a made up virus, AIDS is a made up disease. All those people who die are killed by condom manufacturers, drug manufacturers, or governments as a means of economic and social control. Fuck me, now it makes sense!
You need to go over your notes again. NOWHERE does it say that 30% of Papua New Guineans are infected. It says that there is a 30% rate of increase. Incidentally, this is the SAME rate of increase as is found in China. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/253161/116466679039.htm

There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.

George90

12-03-06, 18:24

There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.

Sexual transmission of HIV depends on your sex and the sex acts you usually engage in. Because semen contains more HIV "thingies" than do female secretions, and because we men inject our semen into women as part of the sex act, and because it our semen often STAYS INSIDE a woman after sex, it is far easier for a heterosexual woman to become infected with HIV than a heterosexual man.

Petemcc

12-04-06, 04:34

You need to go over your notes again. NOWHERE does it say that 30% of Papua New Guineans are infected. It says that there is a 30% rate of increase. Incidentally, this is the SAME rate of increase as is found in China. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/253161/116466679039.htm

There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.
Sorry mate, just quoting from an ABC ( Australian) television documentary I watched last week.
The point is, it's increasing through heterosexual sex.

Rubber Nursey

12-04-06, 05:44

The truth about AIDS is that it's only ONE of a myriad of infections that can be transmitted by unprotected sex (as well as unwanted pregnancy). Unlike most STIs it's incurable, which is why it frightens people so much and why Governments pour so much more money into it.

And yes, condom manufacturers have probably made a whole lot more money since the advent of HIV than they used to - but they were already trying hard to promote condom use before HIV. It's just that with the other STIs being so 'easily' treatable (with that new-fangled wonder drug, penicillin), nobody gave a damn about sexually transmitted infections until one came along that meant engaging in indiscriminate sex could now be punishable by death.

But when the AIDS advertising campaigns started and everyone became terrified of wetting their willy for fear of contracting this deadly disease, something else happened - the incidence of other infections started to decrease. Teen pregnancy numbers dropped. Syphilis was almost wiped out in many developed countries. Finally, people were looking at sex as something that could have serious consequences.

But sadly, when the initial HIV scaremongering settled down and people started looking into the facts, they soon discovered it really wasn't as easy to catch as they'd thought it was. And with AIDS no longer considered a personal threat by many individuals, condom use started to decrease and the other infections increased accordingly. Diseases that were almost non-existent a few years ago, like Syphilis, are now rampant again. Many of these 'easily treatable' infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics - how long do we have before 'harmless' infections, like the clap, become a life-long illness?

The ease of transmission (or, heaven forbid, the existence) of HIV/AIDS should not be the deciding factor in whether or not you use condoms.

...it is very hard to find bareback sex in many places, because the girls are taught to be so insistent upon the sex-ruining condom. The real question is, how to pursuade them to have real sex?

Perhaps again we come back to your oft-elucidated point about solidarity - if all men insisted upon the Real Thing, I suppose they'd be driven by necessity to provide it. I'm not holding my breath though.

You would never get ALL men to insist on unprotected sex, because MOST men have half a brain.
Commercial sex is not the 'Real Thing'. If you want the 'Real Thing', get a girlfriend.

Opebo

12-04-06, 18:09

The ease of transmission (or, heaven forbid, the existence) of HIV/AIDS should not be the deciding factor in whether or not you use condoms.

Correct - that factor should be: Does it feel good?

Commercial sex is not the 'Real Thing'. If you want the 'Real Thing', get a girlfriend.

No thanks! The sex is no different, just more expensive and less varied. It would be like giving someone half your salary to make you oatmeal thrice every day instead of eating out in a different restaurant at will. Which sounds better and makes more sense?

Clandestine782

12-04-06, 19:15

The Corn Hole

12-04-06, 21:53

"Sexual transmission of HIV depends on your sex and the sex acts you usually engage in. Because semen contains more HIV "thingies" than do female secretions, and because we men inject our semen into women as part of the sex act, and because it our semen often STAYS INSIDE a woman after sex, it is far easier for a heterosexual woman to become infected with HIV than a heterosexual man."

Yes, but in every case the odds of transmission are still much lower than what they are for either drug injection (near unity) or mother to baby (about 35%). Reference: Royce et al: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/15/1072

Yes, this is true. But to elaborate further on the above. A man's semen is alkaline with a higher PH level than a woman's vaginal fluids. The alkaline fluids are the fluids that carry HIV in large quantities. A woman's PH level in her vagina is below 5.0 neutral thus it is more acidic and doesn't carry the virus. But when the semen is unleashed inside her it raises the PH level inside the vagina and makes it more hospitable for the virus. The more semen the more chance the virus will survive and enter the bloodstream.

But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.

If you want further proof of this just look at the Porn star Darrin James who caught the virus in Rio. When he came back to the US he had sex with a multitude of women while his viral load was high and he only passed on the virus to three. Just so happens that all three he infected were anally creampied.

Opebo, good work in defining what "Real sex" is all about. :)

Rubber Nursey

12-05-06, 00:06

Correct - that factor should be: Does it feel good?
And the financially desperate, likely uneducated sex worker suffers with PID and the resultant infertility, or HPV and the resultant cervical cancer, or HIV and the resultant DEATH SENTENCE, or an unplanned pregnancy and the resultant abortion or extra mouth to feed (which, of course, increases her financial desperation and forces her to take more risks next time), all so you can 'feel good' for ten minutes. That is so incredibly selfish.

George90

12-05-06, 00:23

Yes, this is true. But to elaborate further on the above. A man's semen is alkaline with a higher PH level than a woman's vaginal fluids. The alkaline fluids are the fluids that carry HIV in large quantities. A woman's PH level in her vagina is below 5.0 neutral thus it is more acidic and doesn't carry the virus. But when the semen is unleashed inside her it raises the PH level inside the vagina and makes it more hospitable for the virus. The more semen the more chance the virus will survive and enter the bloodstream.

But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.

Neutral PH is 7.0, not 5.0. The acidity of a woman's vagina varies with her cycle, not with the man's semen. Around ovulation, she becomes more alkaline so that a man's sperm can survive longer and make it more likely she will conceive. Vaginas are ususally acidic because fewer viruses and bacteria can survive in acid compared to alkaline. This leads to far fewer vaginal infections, and why many douches are vinegar based.

George90

12-05-06, 00:29

But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.

This implies that, in those countries where HIV infection among women is very high, (Central African Republic, South Africa, Botswana, Thailand), anal sex is very commonly practiced.

Is that something you are willing to claim, Corn Hole?

I have been to Africa and did not find anal sex very common at all. My caveat is that Islam was pacticed by much, but not all, of the population where I was and Islam is VERY conservative.

Rubber Nursey

12-05-06, 03:05

The following statistics (American) are very interesting. Note that infection rates among injecting drug users are decreasing, transmission from mother to baby has dropped considerably and infection by heterosexual contact is RISING in both men and women. And I certainly couldn't find anything that suggests women are contracting it via anal sex rather than vaginal sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2003report/table3.htm

The Corn Hole

12-06-06, 00:54

Neutral PH is 7.0, not 5.0. The acidity of a woman's vagina varies with her cycle, not with the man's semen. Around ovulation, she becomes more alkaline so that a man's sperm can survive longer and make it more likely she will conceive. Vaginas are ususally acidic because fewer viruses and bacteria can survive in acid compared to alkaline. This leads to far fewer vaginal infections, and why many douches are vinegar based.

Certainly true. However, The acidity of a woman's vag does vary with a man's semen as well. The PH level in a vagina rises when it comes into contact with semen. The more semen the more alkaline it becomes and the longer viruses can survive and replicate.

When you say fewer viruses survive in an acid state I'm assuming you're including HIV as one of the viruses. I completely agree with that which is why it is commonly believed that HIV can harbour in the rectum easier than a vagina most of the time. Any blood present will cause the state to change dramatically from acid to alkaline. Assuming a woman's not menstrating there is no blood present. With anal sex the tissue is thinner and more prone to tearing. Blood is haven for the virus which means it will replicate faster. Even if semen is left in the vagina for an extended period of time the HIV virus would die off quicker because the PH would be lower because of the absence of blood.

The bottom line with all of this is anal sex is the sex act that carries the highest risk both for men and women.

That Asshole

12-17-06, 07:22

Dear Gentlemen,

What Do We Really Know?

Thanks for the reports by Mr Clandestine 782, Mr Rubber Nursey, Mr The Corn Hole plus others. I call you "Mr" because I believe you are all men. Therefore you think. Simple, isn't it?

You listen, you hear, you consider, evaluate and make decisions as a result of a careful process. You are primarily not hysterical, non-impulsive, not emotionally driven (fear is an emotion). You are a man. It is so good for you. Even though you are practically wiped away in a flood of propaganda, maybe down deep you still have your doubts about all that you hear and are "supposed to believe".

You are men. Not women and not homosexuals (men who imitate women).

Please consider the following:

When a man looks in a mirror what does he say? "-This is a damn mirror."

And when a woman looks in the mirror, what does she say? "-This is me!"

Do you get my point? We are men because we look deeper than the surface of things. We are not so easily wiped away in propaganda, we are not hysterical and we do not experience "fear" on such levels as a woman would (or a homo/female imitation).

I am so glad I can talk with you.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

May we go step by step from here on?

#1./ I really liked phrases in the reports, such as: "death sentence, aids sufferer, acidity of vagina,american statistics, infection rates, aids virus, real thing/girl friend vs. commercial sex, etc."

#2./ I would also start with a sentence quoted from one of our respected members:

"HIV is a made up virus, AIDS is a made up disease. All those people who die are killed by condom manufacturers, drug manufacturers, or governments as a means of economic and social control. Fuck me, now it makes sense!"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Let me say, this issue is not much to do with governments or condom manufacturers or drug companies, or the medical establishment, if you think about it.

Are we using phrases here that we fully understand? Really, what is: "government, drug companies, or virus, aids, disease, vagina's acidity, infection rates, commercial sex, etc.???

Many of these words can mean many things to each different one of us. Most of these we borrowed from short media reports and we just keep repeating them over and over again and again, maybe sounding knowledgeable before our friends but really these are meaningless words unless we know what they really mean and we agree on their meanings.

Actually, this is not the place to go into discussing what a "government" is or a "virus" or even "commercial sex".

That much may suffice that any government is just a collection of people who all try to make a living, so are drug companies (or any company or organisation such as hospital or even police force). Similarly, once we may have been shown some colored foto of some blob that they told us was called a "virus" or "infection". That's is all about as far as our knowledge goes.

(And which sex is "free or commercial" is a very grey area.)

The deeper we study either of these just the more confused we become. But really most often we do not study much of these but rather simply keep repeating the same meaningless words preferably in the company of our friends and this continuous repetition kind of comfortably fills out our time and life until we become old and die, without ever knowing anything but just repeating over and over again what we heard.

So, why do we keep repeating these same old words over and over again such at #1 above? They carry no meaning at all, they are just repetitions of things we do not understand.

Why???
----------------------------------------

I have to say, maybe we have been had deeper than these levels. I also have to say that we have been fooled into believing everything we hear and follow authority without questioning. This is where "disease, virus, aids, terror, and the like" originates.

Would you believe that you were sentenced to death the moment you were born? Would you believe that penicillin does not cure anything (or any std) but instead channels one form of dis-ease into another form of dis-ease. If the initial symptoms disappear it is accepted that they are cured but in fact they reappear in another form of dis-ease.

As a result, you die anyway,suffer more by the "new" disease maybe years later than if you let your original dis-ease take it's own course and either kill you on the spot or let you fully recover. After all you die anyway, no-one has ever lived for ever. Some live 80 years, others 20. That's fine.

And your suffering is just the same (call it "dis-ease").

You would believe all this, if you were bombarded with these messages day after day, every day of your life? Of course we would all believe it and we would testify for all it as being "true". It would be just as true as any other truth. Except nobody would buy even a secondhand rusty toyota from the profits, let alone a new lexus or a hummer.

-----------------------------------------

It is all just common sense. Common man-sense, so to speak.

Men are not easily manipulated by emotions (such as fear). That's why the women had to be given rights and power. Feminism had to be born and grow like cancer. This might well be where all the current histery of aids, tumors, terror, +++ originates.

When did you have a good, "meaningful" conversation with a woman? Probably that was when you were "infected" with aids and terror and who knows what else other kind of dis-ease.

-----------------------------------------

If you consider the following articles and think about them, you may even be constantly healed of any of your diseases (or the fear of them):

Guys, be a man and think!

------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.com/aprilhouse/SEX-PLOYTATION.html

SEXUAL POWER

The average woman is a spoiled child, a selfish and arrogant bundle of desires, raised to be a rapacious taker from men. By the age of 5 or 6 a little girl has learned to scramble up onto Daddy's lap and to manipulate him with flowing tears or a sly look or a downturned face. He responds by taking care of her every need. Daddy is only nobly trying to insulate his little girl from what he knows to be a hard world, but unfortunately he's green-lighting her future as an abuser of men.

She has already begun to grasp the raw power of her femininity-by acting "female" she can get anything she wants from a man.For some reason these tactics don't seem to work very well on Mommy, so she understands that her power draws its energy from the opposite gender. By the time her breasts begin to swell and her figure rounds into soft curves, she's discovered exactly how this power works. She is well aware of the effect she has on the boys around her, how much they seem to lust after her ripening body.

The more they want her, the more she realizes the value of her commodity. She exults in her new-found strength, sensing its awesome potential, and even chuckles haughtily to herself at the boys who ogle her when she wiggles by. She understands that she is in control-this is something she can use to her advantage. It is the birth of an attitude which will ruin normal relationships with men for the rest of her life.

Meanwhile, Mom and Church, witnessing the verge of her womanhood, begin to instruct her to withhold sex, sermonizing that her body is a "gift" which she must save to give to "someone special". But it's too late. She's already learned that it's not a gift, but stock in trade-boys are waiting in line to bring her presents and compete for her attention. She really doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, why they are so intent on "getting into her pants". She has already assimilated the knowledge that her body is a tool, to be used for gain, not pleasure. Her mother continually warns her that "nice girls don't", and the more she holds out, the bigger the pile of pres- ents grows.

She doesn't realize that "nice girls don't" is just a euphemism for dishonest prostitution; that as she flirts and sticks out her breasts and wears sexually provocative clothing she is exchanging the promise of sex for gifts (money). And Mom is frantic to make sure that she remains a "good girl" (dishonest
*****), so she teaches her that if a boy really likes you, he'll: take you out (spend money on you); date you exclusively (he's willing to let you train him, and he won't be wasting the resources he could be giving to you on other girls); and not demand sex in return (play the game by your rules, so that you can extort as much money as possible from him without obligation before surrendering your "gift", if you do at all).

Mom is teaching her that for women, love is power; for men, it is enslavement. The greater a man's sexual needs, the more obedient he will be forced to become. If she manages her "gift" astutely, the payoff will be a lifetime of ease without her ever having to lift a finger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.com/aprilhouse/TheFailureOfFeminism.html

Excerpts From Sex-Ploytation:

CHAPTER THREE
I Am Woman,
Hear Me *****
(The Failure of Feminism)

By the unscrupulous exploitation of the male sexual urge, women have controlled the world since recorded time: the history of the human race has been written in menstrual blood. By convincing men that they are weak and needy of protection, women ship men off to squander their lives on foreign battlefields while they stay safe from harm and luxuriate in the homes their partners have paid for.

By conditioning men to be dependent on a sexual reward, women manipulate them to endure soul-destroying toil to "bring home the bacon". Men are psychologically poisoned to feel guilty and sinful about their natural lust, and brainwashed to rejoice like heroes when they pay for their mates. Women
dominate the male gender. A man can spend years striving to build a lucrative career, but it takes a woman only half an hour to perfume herself and slink into a curve-hugging dress and she can gain access to all his earnings. Men spend long hours in universities to prepare themselves for success;

women spend the afternoon in the gym and at the make-up counter. All women-from the purring sex kitten to the most remorseless power *****-want to be taken care of by a man.

Women live in a fantasy world of magical thinking. "If it's meant to be, it's meant to be" is their pastel philosophy. This is the passive reality of a taker. As we have seen, women are *****s, albeit dishonest *****s, deliberately leeching off men and then denying their prostitution. It is in this climate of personal deception that the feminist movement has gained an uneasy momentum in the latter half of the twentieth century, masquerading as an ideology whose goal is to promote equality between the sexes. But this, as with all female affairs, is a lie.

Just as women are dishonest prostitutes, so they are equally dishonest feminists. Women may campaign for gender equity, but they don't want to
pay the price which such an equality demands. In fact, it doesn't even occur to them. They still cling to their age-old scam of being bought and pampered like courtesans, while at the same time clamoring for the very jobs which men need in order to be able to pay for their bodies. They want their cake and eat it, too. They want equal rights until the check comes.

Feminism is a failed social movement because at its root is not a genuine desire for social change, but an insatiable and grasping avarice. Its legacy is a generation of lonely women out of sync with their inborn natures. The honest, natural woman (if she ever existed in our unhealthy society) has become a casualty of the sexual revolution. Feminism is a philosophy eroded by greed and homogenized by self-deceit; a credo of glaring inconsistencies and wanton hypocrisy. Women want to eat their cake-and gluttonously at that-but they insist on someone else baking it for them and giving it to
them without charge.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also, might care to look at another one of Asshole's shitty reports, just to clear some more things.....maybe.
http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=534647&postcount=759

George90

12-17-06, 18:48

To That Asshole,

I am not going to agree or disagree with your statements. I just want to comment that, by your definition of how woman are and behave, there a LOTS of MEN in the US, who behave like women!

Sloth

12-17-06, 20:53

dr. kary mullis, biochemist, 1993 nobel prize for chemistry:
"if there is evidence that hiv causes aids, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. there is no such document." (sunday times (london) 28 nov. 1993)

dr. heinz ludwig sänger, emeritus professor of molecular biology and virology, max-planck-institutes for biochemy, münchen. robert koch award 1978:
"up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of hiv. not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (letter to süddeutsche zeitung 2000)

dr. serge lang, professor of mathematics, yale university:
"i do not regard the causal relationship between hiv and any disease as settled. i have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning hiv and aids have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of aids." (yale scientific, fall 1994)

dr. harry rubin, professor of molecular and cell biology, university of california at berkeley:
"it is not proven that aids is caused by hiv infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

dr. richard strohman, emeritus professor of cell biology at the university of california at berkeley:
"in the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. now there's none of that in standard hiv-aids program with all its billions of dollars." (penthouse april 1994)

dr. harvey bialy, molecular biologist, former editor of bio/technology and nature biotechnology:
"hiv is an ordinary retrovirus. there is nothing about this virus that is unique. everything that is discovered about hiv has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause aids. hiv only contains a very small piece of genetic information. there's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (spin june 1992)

dr. roger cunningham, immunologist, microbiologist and director of the centre for immunology at the state university of new york at buffalo:
"unfortunately, an aids 'establishment' seems to have formed that intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

dr. gordon stewart, emeritus professor of public health, university of glasgow:
"aids is a behavioural disease. it is multifactorial, brought on by several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs, pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections." (spin june 1992)

dr. alfred hässig, (1921-1999), former professor of immunology at the university of bern, and former director swiss red cross blood banks:
"the sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of aids should be abolished." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

dr. charles thomas, former professor of biochemistry, harvard and john hopkins universities:
"the hiv-causes-aids dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the western world." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

dr. joseph sonnabend, new york physician, founder of the american foundation for aids research (amfar):
"the marketing of hiv, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing aids without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (sunday times (london) 17 may 1992)

dr. andrew herxheimer, emeritus professor of pharmacology, uk cochrane centre, oxford:
"i think zidovudine [azt] was never really evaluated properly and that its efficacy has never been proved, but it's toxicity certainly is important. and i think it has killed a lot of people. especially at the high doses. i personally think it not worth using alone or in combination at all." (continuum oct. 2000)

dr. etienne de harven, emeritus professor of pathology, at the university of toronto:
"dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interests of several pharmaceutical companies, the aids establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven hiv/aids hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored." (reappraising aids nov./dec. 1998)

dr. bernard forscher, former editor of the u.s. proceeding of the national academy of sciences:
"the hiv hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by nutritional deficiencies]. it is a hoax that became a scam." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

just to be fair there are many scientists who believe there is enough evidence to link hiv to aids but that held opinion is far from unanimous in the scientific community.

Petemcc

01-01-07, 14:05

2006/2007. We know more now. Many of the sources quoted in the last post are shite and quoted by someone who obviously never studied biology. Look at the history of the HTLV viruses for example.
Any fuck head can find an expert to say that 2 + 3 isn't 4, but there are many more who can prove it is.
Tell you what mate, go to Africa and fuck a few girls who have HIV and see if you get it, or maybe a conspiracy theorist will inject you when you are asleep.
Please, get a life.

Buzz00

01-01-07, 14:31

Pete,

The guys here that come up with this shite have got rocks in their head, surely you realise this.

Obviously they are trying to fool themselves into a false sense of security or are plain living in a dream world.

Maybe someone can organise a trip for them to visit one the Thai hospices that
look after people about to die from AIDS.

Charles Dupont

01-03-07, 08:44

Yeah, Kary Mullis (nobel laureate), Serge Lange (Yale math prof), and Duesberg (NAS member) have rocks in their heads. If you go by the 'judge a theory by the accuracy of its predictions' credo the hiv/aids hypothesis is just crap. Pay attention, look at the predictions, read some studies. Funny how the epidemic has confined itself to impoverished Africans and fast-track gays but not spread to the general population as predicted - ummm, what could they possible have in common?

CKD

PS: Don't take this as advice for unprotected sex - aids isn't the only STD to be had.

BobMoon001

01-13-07, 18:50

Who ever argue that HIV does'nt cause AIDS should inject HIV virus into them selves to see if HIV can cause AIDS or not.

McJohn

01-13-07, 21:49

Sloth,

In case you haven't noticed, all your citations are quite old, most of them before 1995. Around 1995, highly active antiretroviral therapy was introduced which dramatically improved prognosis of HIV and AIDS patients. These new drugs all build on the HIV-AIDS theory you think the jury is still out for.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the weird ideas some people have about HIV/AIDS. My only problem is if they use it as an excuse for their barebacking.

HeadGames

01-24-07, 03:20

In case you haven't noticed, all your citations are quite old, most of them before 1995

There's a reason for that; by about 1990, as HIV/AIDS approached its 10th anniversary, the observed epidemiology made it apparent that there had to be something really wrong about the hypothesis presented as fact by the CDC, whereas no new information had been presented to support it in years. Lots of money had been spent, and continues to be spent, in a vain search for a vaccine to a virus which supposedly exists in such small quantities in the body it cannot be observed, but yet destroys the immune system (and that, under rather bizarre circumstances). So the period 1990 through 1995 (very roughly) was a rich period in which some people began researching and telling the other side of the story.

For a while Africa was kind of the savior to the HIV/AIDS establishment, because they could say that what they had predicted would occur here, but never did, is in fact occurring "over there". But the only thing going on in Africa is the same thing that's been going on for as long as anybody can remember, people dying of malaria, parasites from dirty water, malnutrition, etc. Is there something different biologically about Africans? All I've heard for years is that the difference is only skin color, and that is superficial. Strange the virus should behave so differently with them than it does with us.

Remember Kaposi's Sarcoma? It was practically the defining disease (of the almost 30 that CDC claims makes up AIDS) in the beginning. Whoops -- only people who abused nitrite inhalants got that one. Should have been a clue, but by the time cooler heads realized the signficance of this, the virus had been invented, and the money was flowing.

HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, and will continue to be for several more years, until finally it's apparent to even the dimmist that it's ridiculous. But even then, perhaps it will linger on, like farm subsidies.

The only people with rocks in their head are the people, on this forum and in so many others on the Internet, who don't know what they are talking about but are oh so quick to attack other posters because the information conflicts with what they have been told already, whether by their parents, the church, or their government. At one time people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Thank god someone had the balls to stand up and say it wasn't true.

Hk Dog

01-24-07, 05:06

Another person who thinks he has a Phd in virology by googling the internet.

Do you actually know anybody who has Aids?

My friends brother has it and he too googled the internet and came to the same conclusion as you. He decided to take himself off the cocktail of drugs since it wasn't a virus so the anti virals are no use.

Needless to say he almost died in a few months before people forced him to take the anti virals again and luckily he is still alive 10 yrs later.

If its not a virus then why do the anti viral's work , Mr Phd of Google University?

The Corn Hole

01-25-07, 02:42

I feel this threat of HIV/Aids (or whatever you want to call it) to the heterosexual population is and always was way overblown. We were all told throughout the 80's and 90's that this could become an epidemic. That you should always use a condom or you will die. I know alot of people who engage in risky sex practices and I'm sure many others here do also. I have a couple of friends who make me seem like a lightweight by comparison when it comes to extreme promiscuity. One is very indiscriminate about who he nails without a rubber. They get blood tested often and the results are always HIV-. I myself have gone bareback with a number of Pro's and nons. I get tested often as well and the results are the same. Everyone I've talked to in other countries who monger all say they are negative and know of nobody who is positive. I do not know of anybody who has this virus myself. I do not know of anybody who knows somebody who has it.

My question, does anybody know of a certified heterosexual male who is
HIV +?

Hk Dog

01-25-07, 03:12

I do know some Thai working girls (and these are higher end girls) who have HIV.

One was diagnosed after she gave birth and her kid died.

They must of gotten it from somebody and maybe even given it to some unlucky customer.

Billy Ibrox

01-25-07, 03:44

My question, does anybody know of a certified heterosexual male who is HIV +?The Corn Hole, That is a good question.

Yes, I know several guys who have/had AIDS (RIP). All of them claim they got it from smack but one of them, an under sized runt, did do time in the States and I would not be surprised if some big Black dudes did a number on him. No telling now as he is dead. Even though he made no secret of his HIV status, loads of ladies wanted him to fuck them, as we was charismatic and a character. I don't think he used condoms.

Lots of Africans and Indians have it and they most of them must be straight.

I am checking out the Pattaya thread and Evil Penivel says lots of Eden customers like to be dildo fucked, gayboys coming out of the closet no doubt. There must also be a lot of overlap with Boyztown, lots of AC/DCs in other words. I would also imagine there is a lot of denial. Most guys going to Thailand probably tell their friends they are going golfing. Few would say they are going to be butt fucked in Boyztown.

With both the smack and bnutt fuck brigade, hepatitis C is also very common so you can never be too careful.

A lot comes down to following the money trail. Providers want you to keep fucking regardless. The Aids industry want you to keep them in jobs. I imagine plenty of Thai hookers have Aids but they can't tell as they need to fuck on.

Some guys will tell you not to worry. But if you get Aids, they won't pay your bills.

If you are fucking around, you have to be lucky every time. The HIV virus only has to be lucky once.

That Asshole

01-30-07, 10:39

Dear Gentlemen,

It is safe to say that most of us on this board are no doctors, politicians, researchers, missionaries or other dirt that draw their income from induced mass-public hype and live comfortably on the proceedings, breeding and feeding families while also reaping great public respect from misleading them (or just being plain stupid?).

Many have already realized their mistakes, however once in it, getting out of the rat-race is nearly impossible

*********************
Our little voices
*********************
We reap no greater benefits than some company, conversation and maybe sharing a piece of our opinion with others like us. Our voice is little and dwarfed by public propaganda to the contrary.

Our opinions bring no profits to us, unlike some opinions that are "main stream".(Also note, thankfully there are not many women on this board, so we can be rather frank.)

****************
Is it Important?
****************
While we discuss here issues regarding "bacterias, HIV virus and the like", shouldn't we also ask: Do these have the importance that they are supposed to have?

As stated in a previous article, the writer seriously doubts the mainstream "authorities" about these as well as about other related current issues.

A report has been posted in the "opinions" section. It would be too long to reproduce here, so below is a link. I think it explains everything there is to know about "aids" .

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108

******************
Lower Case
******************
(Let's write it all lower case because that's what it deserves. And so for "hiv". All HIGHER CASE is just part of the propaganda. It looks more scary that way, so pays better. Why is STOMACH CANCER always spelled low case? It is also supposed to be a nasty one. Allright, I know it is abbreviation, but still it has a point.)

Starchild2012

01-30-07, 21:50

Dude..You rock..You hit the nail in the head nay A8ss..

These disease thing is a big fraud..there is some truth in it..but they high jack and portray as the biggest sickness on human kind.

More people even today die from Maleria than aids..guess what malerial tabs..cost pennies and they ain;t highlighted..hiv tabs cost in dollars and they just need more hype to pump out more money.

Dear Gentlemen,

It is safe to say that most of us on this board are no doctors, politicians, researchers, missionaries or other dirt that draw their income from induced mass-public hype and live comfortably on the proceedings, breeding and feeding families while also reaping great public respect from misleading them (or just being plain stupid?).

Many have already realized their mistakes, however once in it, getting out of the rat-race is nearly impossible

*********************
Our little voices
*********************
We reap no greater benefits than some company, conversation and maybe sharing a piece of our opinion with others like us. Our voice is little and dwarfed by public propaganda to the contrary.

Our opinions bring no profits to us, unlike some opinions that are "main stream".(Also note, thankfully there are not many women on this board, so we can be rather frank.)

****************
Is it Important?
****************
While we discuss here issues regarding "bacterias, HIV virus and the like", shouldn't we also ask: Do these have the importance that they are supposed to have?

As stated in a previous article, the writer seriously doubts the mainstream "authorities" about these as well as about other related current issues.

A report has been posted in the "opinions" section. It would be too long to reproduce here, so below is a link. I think it explains everything there is to know about "aids" .

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108

******************
Lower Case
******************
(Let's write it all lower case because that's what it deserves. And so for "hiv". All HIGHER CASE is just part of the propaganda. It looks more scary that way, so pays better. Why is STOMACH CANCER always spelled low case? It is also supposed to be a nasty one. Allright, I know it is abbreviation, but still it has a point.)

The Corn Hole

01-31-07, 21:33

I'm being directed down the same road as you guys on this subject. I'm not even going to dwell on Africa because I think that is a completely different situation compared to the lifestyles of all of us. I think it's interesting how the sections in Africa that have been hit hardest by HIV epidemic are all coincidently impoverished.

The turning point for me was the recent news of former pro boxer Tommy Morrison who tested HIV + a decade ago now all of a sudden is HIV -. I have heard these stories many times over. Hundreds of cases in Africa where someone who was unhealthy tested positive and later tested negative when their health underwent a significant improvement. Think it shakes the whole foundation of the HIV/Aids theory to put it bluntly. I'm not even sure this test means all that much anymore.

Clandestine782

02-05-07, 04:35

http://www.thailandguru.com/health-hiv.html

Rubber Nursey

02-12-07, 01:17

Guys, this is crazy talk. Let's just, for one second, say that you are right and that HIV does not cause AIDS. There is still SOMETHING out there causing people around the world to DROP DEAD BY THE MILLIONS!! Does it really matter if the boffins got it wrong and HIV is not responsible? Something is!

You guys, as - and I am making a sweeping generalisation here - educated, healthy, wealthy (by world standards), predominantly heterosexual MEN, belong to the group least likely to contract the virus. It's understandable that many of you do not personally know people with AIDS (or at least you don't THINK you do - many good friends of mine would say they've never met a hooker, either ;) ). Most people in developed countries have ready access to good quality condoms, needle and syringe exchanges and, most importantly, they are educated and empowered to make decisions to ensure their personal safety. It's no surprise that in the countries where AIDS has flourished, many of the population live in abject poverty, with limited (if any) access to medicine, education and safe sex/IDU supplies. Women are also at particular risk in these countries, where sexual violence is commonplace - most stats seem to suggest a direct relationship between the social status of women in a particular country and the incidence of HIV transmission to women via heterosexual sex.

Actually, in the American stats I posted here a couple of months back, there was also an obvious increase in HIV transmission to heterosexual women, which begs the question.....who are these women catching it FROM, if it's not heterosexual men??

But I, for one, couldn't care less whether the 'HIV theory' is proven or not. In 'at risk' communities (gay men, IV drug users and sex workers) sexual health education and ready access to safe sex/IDU supplies have led to a marked decrease in new AIDS cases. WHATEVER it is that causes AIDS, it's obviously less likely to be transmitted if you take those precautions. And (as I always feel compelled to add, because I think it's much more important), there is NO doubt that those same precautions stop the transmission of a multitude of other sexually transmitted infections, which themselves can cause illness, infertility, PID, cancer or even death. Debate the existence of HIV all you like, but please don't put sex workers, other mongers and your own wives and girlfriends at risk of all those other STIs, just because you feel you have bugger all risk of getting AIDS.

George90

02-12-07, 05:14

Actually, in the American stats I posted here a couple of months back, there was also an obvious increase in HIV transmission to heterosexual women, which begs the question.....who are these women catching it FROM, if it's not heterosexual men??

RN,

That was a very good post. What I have learned about HIV/AIDS conflicts with what the media report. Though I agree that there are other STDs for us to worry about, and I do.

In the US, women are NOT contracting HIV from heterosexual men. In the Black American community among poor Black women, they are catching HIV from men who have been to prison and engaged in male-to-male sex while in prison. After they get out, they have sex with women and pass on any diseases they caught in prison. Because prisoners are not supposed to be having sex, they don't give out condoms or the like, so STDs are rampant among those prisoners who are sexually active.

I don't want to minimize the risk of HIV infection, but the risk of infection is behavioral. If a person is not engaging in those behaviors which are highly correlated with HIV transmission, then that person is pretty safe. Last time I checked the top HIV transmission methods were intravenous drug use and sex with men.

Rubber Nursey

02-12-07, 06:04

I don't want to minimize the risk of HIV infection, but the risk of infection is behavioral. If a person is not engaging in those behaviors which are highly correlated with HIV transmission, then that person is pretty safe. Last time I checked the top HIV transmission methods were intravenous drug use and sex with men.

I agree - but when we're talking about risk assessment, the only behaviours we can be absolutely sure about, are our own. YOU may not have homosexual sex or use IV drugs, but that means nothing if the woman you're having sex with makes a habit of engaging in risky behaviour. Or her partner before you did. Or his partner before that...

(The existence of HIV debate aside) I know non-drug using, heterosexual men realistically have VERY minimal chance of infection and I'm certainly not trying to say that it's easy for you guys to catch - just that it's not impossible. Using your example below, let's say the next sex worker you book was infected by her HIV+ ex-prisoner boyfriend. She's been onshift all day and has had fast and furious sex with five or six guys, leaving her insides red raw. You are OS for a poon-fest with your mates, frantically shagging at least 3 girls a day for 7 days, which has likely left your own meat pretty well tenderised as well. Even as a non-drug using heterosexual man, aren't your risks greatly increased if you have sex with this woman without a condom (or if it breaks)? Even greater if anal sex is on the menu.

Again, I'm not buying into the hysteria. I know HIV is pretty darn hard to catch and, as you said, people who don't indulge in certain behaviours probably have less risk of being exposed to the virus. But every time you have sex with someone, you are effectively having sex with their previous partners and their previous partners and so on...the numbers of 'behaviours' you are exposing yourself to, grows exponentially. And some of you guys DO engage in risky behaviour, by having unprotected sex with women who have had unprotected sex with hundreds of other men before you - particularly when you're doing it in countries where HIV is rampant.

Robbaf

03-03-07, 23:47

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese province has taken the unusual step of fining hotels and bars more than $600 if they do not provide condoms, part of efforts to fight the spread of AIDS, a newspaper said on Friday.

The booming eastern province of Zhejiang, with 1,859 recorded infections by the end of last year, started enforcing the rules on Thursday, the Beijing News said.

"Condoms or condom-vending machines must be placed in hotels, bars and designated public places, or the managers will be fined 5,000 yuan ($650)," the report said.

The Chinese government originally stigmatized AIDS as a disease of the decadent, capitalist West -- a problem of gays, sex workers and drug users. Traditionally, none of these officially existed in communist China.

It has belatedly woken up to the problem, and health experts have warned the virus is now moving into the general population.

But a lack of sex education and unwillingness to talk about sex still hampers the fight, health

Crazy Jim Wood

03-03-07, 23:55

They have been around for years.

They are packed together with tampons, disposable underwear, etc, in some silly box with an innocuous name that is placed on the minibar. The price tag will be 100, 150 rmb with a warning tht if the seal is broken you are responsible. The girl (especially hotel massage girl) will open it to take the condom, without telling you, and you won't know until they charge you for it at checkout. Then, when you go to dispute the charge at the front desk, with several other customers lined up dick-to-ass behind you, the hotel staff will explain to you what it is.

This is just another minibar rip off by hotels.
CJW

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese province has taken the unusual step of fining hotels and bars more than $600 if they do not provide condoms, part of efforts to fight the spread of AIDS, a newspaper said on Friday.

The booming eastern province of Zhejiang, with 1,859 recorded infections by the end of last year, started enforcing the rules on Thursday, the Beijing News said.

"Condoms or condom-vending machines must be placed in hotels, bars and designated public places, or the managers will be fined 5,000 yuan ($650)," the report said.

The Chinese government originally stigmatized AIDS as a disease of the decadent, capitalist West -- a problem of gays, sex workers and drug users. Traditionally, none of these officially existed in communist China.

It has belatedly woken up to the problem, and health experts have warned the virus is now moving into the general population.

But a lack of sex education and unwillingness to talk about sex still hampers the fight, health

Petemcc

03-06-07, 04:18

BaitAndSwitch

05-09-07, 05:59

HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, and will continue to be for several more years, until finally it's apparent to even the dimmist that it's ridiculous. But even then, perhaps it will linger on, like farm subsidies..This is the crux of the problem. There is too much money to be made in HIV/AIDS. The scientific evidence leaves plenty of room for doubt.

Opebo

05-09-07, 10:04

Newsflash: Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now a lot of people really believe that.

I don't, and I don't smoke, but I certainly wouldn't agree that smoking is unreasonable. Remember Pete, you're going to die very soon anyway.

That Asshole

06-16-07, 12:36

People live from money. Without it they become very slim, emaciated, cold and without friends.

This is about "cancer". But what is the difference? It's just money and more money for the clever.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/cancer091505.cfm

But it's your choice to believe....

That Asshole

06-28-07, 07:59

aids, my ass.......give me the cancer shit.....or the terrorist crap?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few quotations from the report. The link to the full text is below.
There is nothing surprising here though. Did you ever-ever expect any human being to "help" you without getting something out of it for themselves? The issue of whether it is CANCER or aids is irrelevant. One horse is like the other.

You ride it well, you get somewhere. You eat well and get laid well. Did Caesar said: "Money has no smell.." when he decided to tax the public conveniences? Even though a few hundred years passed since, have we changed much? Why do you trust anyone who comes to you smiling "I will help you..."? Don't all the "helpers" have stomachs that needs filling, cocks that wants to be buried and bare asses that needs cover?

My friend, much the world lives well from repeating phrases that they heard somewhere and yet know nothing about. And they loathe to learn more about it, in case it turns out to be false and then the sure bread disappears from the table.

Give me a salary of 100 grand a year for rehearsing incessantly that "cancer kills, aids kills or terrorists are evil" and I will do it for you non-stop, no questions asked. Unfortunately nobody has offered it to me yet. But many others did a lot better and sure as hell they will find evil on every corner, as long as evil pays. Fuck it does. Ever saw a doctor begging on the street corner or a nurse or a cop or a pharmacist?

Well brothers, what is "truth"? Shit, who has time to think about that. Let's have a root instead. See what I mean?

Quotations from the full article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a debate this year, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society did not deny the agency's connection to corporate interests. “The American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a source of revenue for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Thun. “That can be construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control.”

So it is in fact true that the ACS' 22-member board was created in 1990 to solicit corporate contributions. It's also true that board members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. In fact, many board members seemingly stand to make more money by treating cancer than preventing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past few years the ACS has taken corporate "sponsorship" money. Here's how it works: Sponsors pay the ACS to have the society's logo donned on certain products. SmithKline Beecham, producer of NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids, paid the ACS $1 million for the right to use the American Cancer Society name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main target of criticism: The ACS' controversial "Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management." This Committee reviews unorthodox or alternative therapies, putting many of these treatments on the "Unproven Methods" list. Appearing on this list can mean literal ruin to any health practitioner. Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., felt the full weight of just such an appearance. He was refused research money and raided by the FDA, which seized 200,000 documents from his clinic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The experts speak on The American Cancer Society The American Medical Association (AMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and American Cancer Society (ACS), as well as certain large corporations profit from the cancer industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to research or administer them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate sponsors have formed "partnerships" with a number of leading nonprofit organizations in which they pay for the right to use the organizations' names and logos in advertisements. Bristol-Myers Squibb, for example, paid $600,000 to the American Heart Association for the right to display the AHA's name and logo in ads for its cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. The American Cancer Society reeled in $ 1 million from SmithKline Beecham for the right to use its logo in ads for Beecham's NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 435 Another propaganda film with a similar approach was produced by the American Cancer Society and is called Journey Into Darkness. Featuring guest star Robert Ryan as the host, the film is a masterpiece of scripting and acting.

Weaving several stories into one, it portrays the mental torture experienced by several cancer victims as they grapple with having to decide whether they should take the advice of their wise and kindly doctor and pursue proven orthodox treatments, or allow their fears and doubts to overcome their judgment and seek the unproven treatments of a medically untrained quack who promises miracle cures but whose only real interest is in how much money the patient can afford to pay.

In the end, some make the "right" choice and resolve to follow the guidance of their doctor. Others make the "wrong" choice and begin their long and tragic journey into darkness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of quotations

****************************************

Nice lovely "public benefactors". Work for "free". And they obviously get laid for "free" too. Only we fuck-tourists pay for fuck and work for money. So, my friend, what do you "know" apart from what you have heard and "believe"?

aids killllsss......cancer killlssss......terrorisssssts killl......killllll......evillllll......I willllll save yyyouuuuu.......savvvvveee yooooouuu.......evvviilll aidddssss killllssss......cannnnnceerr....kiiillsss....tterrroorisssstt.....killlllllll......killlllll....killlll

Flamepvt

07-30-07, 14:19

ManonsanBoy

07-31-07, 01:24

How times have changed. Not so long ago, a woman in the streets arrested with a condom, was consudered to be ipso facto, a prostitute. Similarly, finding a condom is a room raid was considered evidence of prostitution.

China wakes.

ManonsanBoy

07-31-07, 01:27

Hi,

I read a similar incident reported by Lorenz on this site, and a reply from "Chocha Monger" stating "therapy with antiretroviral drugs". Will it help me or not, or do I have to wait for 3 months to know the status of HIV infection. I am scared to death. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Please ease my pain.

Relax. The chance of you getting HIV like this is less than 1 in 1000. Remember, she has to be infected before you are infected. To put it into perspective, if you are 40, your average chance of dying from all causes is around 1 in 500.

Chocha Monger

07-31-07, 08:47

Hi,

I was having sex with a pros. And the condom broke while I was having sex with her. I am very scared. I told the pros, but she seemed not to take it seriously as if it happened to her often (broken condom). That made me more scared. It has been about 14 hrs now and I am not able sleep or eat. I was new to mongering, but always used to practice safe sex, but now this incident has made me think twice.

I read a similar incident reported by Lorenz on this site, and a reply from "Chocha Monger" stating "therapy with antiretroviral drugs". Will it help me or not, or do I have to wait for 3 months to know the status of HIV infection. I am scared to death. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Please ease my pain.
You should see your doctor and try to get on antiretrovirals immediately if possible. This is standard procedure for health professionals who get needle sticks when attending to high risk patients. However, your risk should be low if you withdrew immediately when the condom broke and washed off all bodily fluids with soap and water. Hopefully, you did not keep pounding away until you blew a load in her pussy after the condom broke.

Flamepvt

08-02-07, 02:24

You should see your doctor and try to get on antiretrovirals immediately if possible. This is standard procedure for health professionals who get needle sticks when attending to high risk patients. However, your risk should be low if you withdrew immediately when the condom broke and washed off all bodily fluids with soap and water. Hopefully, you did not keep pounding away until you blew a load in her pussy after the condom broke.On your advise and after consulting a AIDS counseller, I have started the antiretrovirals from today at about 66 hrs from the incidence. I have started Duovir (combivir) twice daily for 28 days. I am now hoping for the best. I am very scared and very frighten as to what my family and relatives will think of me. But I have faith in god and am keeping my finger crossed.

Brad Dupree

08-05-07, 12:37

On your advise and after consulting a AIDS counseller, I have started the antiretrovirals from today at about 66 hrs from the incidence. I have started Duovir (combivir) twice daily for 28 days. I am now hoping for the best. I am very scared and very frighten as to what my family and relatives will think of me. But I have faith in god and am keeping my finger crossed.Ridiculous guy. You are describing an extremely low risk exposure. Chill out dude.

Flamepvt

08-06-07, 19:12

Ridiculous guy. You are describing an extremely low risk exposure. Chill out dude.What is ridiculous about it. All of you say its like some 1 in 1000 odds or something to get HIV, but what if you are that one person in that 1000? What will you do? I once had lost my complete life in front of me. My name, my job, my friends, everybody hated me for a small mistake of mine, so had to move to another place to start over again, and I know how it feels like, when the society rejects you and you loose everything just in a flash. Which you hace accured over the year. So its better to be safe than sorry. I don't want a chance even though if its less.

P.S. : The medicines have now started to show side effects and very strong one. I am nostaligic all the time and keep on vomitting. I cosulted the doctors and they say. Now its my call wheather to stop them or not. And I am feeling like shit. PEP is not easy. I am getting weak too.

Sloth

08-11-07, 20:40

HIV Does Not Cause AIDS says Doctors' Group
Report By Becky Blanton
HIV does not cause AIDS. That was one of the most startling pieces of information to come out of the 21st Annual Meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP), held recently in Phoenix, Arizona July 19.
Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr. an attendee at the meeting, said “It’s a shocking statement but it will very likely prove to be true,” Miller said of the claim.

“Once people realize this is true, it will turn the way things are done on its head.”

Those who contract AIDS, not those who contract HIV, are the patients who die. The conventional wisdom about HIV is that once a person has HIV they will automatically and eventually get AIDS. That, Miller says, is simply not true.

The meeting, entitled, "21st Century Threats and Conflicts," was organized by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – considered, Miller noted, the “pro-market, libertarian alternative to the American Medical Association.”

“It’s a small organization,” Miller said, “But there are some very notable members.”

Miller himself is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.

Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, another attendee, was the man who isolated the first cancer gene in his work with retroviruses. The AIDS virus is also retrovirus.

Dr. David Rasnick, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at UCB, presented the evidence on his AIDS research, Miller said.

The evidence isn’t totally new, Miller said. But it is hotly contested, “If you can find someone willing to debate facts, you're lucky. Most won't. They can't."

Rasnick and Duesberg, have written a book entitled: "The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus" (1998).

The men have co-authored another book entitled: "The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition" (2003), with Claus Koehnlein. “You don’t hear a lot about it (this evidence),” Miller said. “What you do hear is Rasnick is a kook or Duesbuerg is way out. They attack the messenger and discard the message.”

Not everyone is so reluctant to listen.

According to Miller, the premier of South Africa was very interested in the message. “He (the premier) was somewhat annoyed that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wouldn’t debate this,” Miller said. “He wanted to know what to do about this problem. Well, the people in South Africa don’t have sex anymore than anyone else, probably less than most. They certainly can’t afford the AIDS test. So, how do they know what the percentage really is? If someone loses weight or get pneumonia they say they have AIDS,” he said.

“Based on a ruling by the World Health Organization, people in Africa can be diagnosed as having AIDS without having to have an HIV test. According to Miller, twenty-three years ago the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that a growing number of male homosexuals and intravenous (IV) drug users were experiencing a mysterious epidemic of diseases, which included several odd types of pneumonia, a rare malignant tumor called Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, dementia, tuberculosis, weight loss (anorexia), fever, diarrhea, etc. The CDC defines the epidemic "AIDS" (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), as comprising 26 different diseases.

From 1981–2001 AIDS has afflicted 800,000 people in the US, 250,000 in Europe, and 1,000,000 in Africa. In the United States, AIDS strikes young male homosexuals (66 percent of all AIDS cases), male and female IV drug users (32 percent of all AIDS cases, 75 percent of them male), hemophiliacs and other transfusion recipients (1 percent), and children borne to drug-addicted mothers (1 percent).

Miller said the research points not to sexual transmission, but more to long-term drug use. “Well, now we’ve seen that homosexual males use recreational drugs in greater amounts and duration than straight males,” Miller said. The recreational drugs in question are cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants and amphetamines.

If HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then what is? Miller said Rasnick presented strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by three things, singly or in combination:

1) long-term recreational drug use (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines); 2) the anti-viral drugs (DNA chain terminators, like AZT, and protease inhibitors) that doctors prescribe to people who are HIV positive; and 3) especially in Africa, malnutrition (and lack of drinkable water). The noninfectious chemical bases for AIDS is supported by a lot of important data, facts like this one: HIV-positive people treated with anti-viral drugs have an annual mortality rate of 6.6–8.7 percent, compared with an annual mortality of 1.4 percent in HIV-positive people who refuse treatment with anti-viral drugs.

Over the last 20 years the US government has carried out a program to eradicate the HIV virus. They’ve used 100,000 government-funded doctors and scientists and have cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. “There’s growing evidence,” Miller said, “that the premise upon which this eradication program is founded is wrong.”

The good news the evidence shows that those who do have HIV can lead long, healthy lives. "It's like having herpes," he noted. "It's not the best thing, but it's not the end of the world."

“Those with HIV need to stop the drug use, eat healthy and live healthy lives,” Miller said. “Having HIV is not a death sentence,” he said. It’s not a message the mainstream media is likely to pick up on however.

“The media, if you read the articles out there, always links HIV with AIDS,” Miller said. “You don’t read HIV or AIDS by itself. It’s always HIV/AIDS, and that’s just not accurate,” he said.

Re-education is only part of the problem. Getting the drug companies to let go of the $1,000 a month per person, or $12,000 per person per year money they’re making on each person prescribed the AZT cocktail will be hard.

Getting hospitals and other medical facilities to change their protocols will also prove difficult. Miller, who is a surgeon, has seen the problem first hand.

“In surgery I’ve seen nurses get stuck or cut with something sharp,” he said. “When we’re working on a patient with HIV, the protocol is that they immediately start the AZT drugs. They do and they feel awful. I told them, don’t take them.”

It’s radical , but Miller believes the statistics back him up. “The mortality rate has proven to be so much higher for those taking the drugs than not,” he said.

For more information and professional papers on HIV and AIDS visit Dr. Millers website: www.donaldmiller.com.

Blue Student

08-17-07, 06:39

Ok that is not true. HIV does cause AIDS. These people are a fringe group of scientists. Take a look at South Africa where people believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS. These lies are killing people.

That Asshole

08-21-07, 11:40

"It is good fortune for the governments that the masses don't think. Otherwise, human society as we know it might not exist..." (Adolf H.)

"To rule, give the people bread and circus..." (J.Caesar)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Get Rich Quick - and stay honest!

*** Get Slim Fast - No Effort Needed!

*** Become Healthy Fast - just take one pill three times a day and wear a condom - no other effort ever! It will make you healthy!

Do you believe these? We all ridicule the people who fall for the "get rich quick" schemes. Why then do we accept the doctors' claim that we can stay healthy without effort, just by popping a pill or wearing a condom? Is "health" so simple?

Please pride yourself for being a "man" and not falling for "effortless weightloss" promises like women like to do. We are men. We do not believe that anyone can get rich quick, without effort -while staying honest. We also do not believe that anyone can be healthy without effort, just by taking pills, or wearing condoms. We also do not believe that anyone can be safe from violence unless he resolves to be non-violent himself.

Sorry, you have been fooled. Some people want to make money from you and you fell for it.

******
Engrave this in your mind: There is no AIDS or "Bird-Flu" beyond profits just as there is no "Terrorism" unless someone makes money from it.
******

And the profiteeers are not little microscopic guys and do not wear big black beards and neither do they wave guns madly. They simply sit in airconditioned offices, slurp coffeee at leasure or rest behind a doctors desk or in the comfortable research laboratory. Often they also like write articles in newspapers detailing the dangers of this or that micro or macro organism or organisation. Then they put it in print and watch the result. The cash rolls in without end.

-------------------

About doctors:
Some doctors (at the top) might be intelligent. However most (at least 80%) are robots. Able only to recite passages of text and pass university exams.

From the top they are told to sell you "diseases, medicines and treatments". So they (the plain robotic commoner guys) can stay in the club. They do so without thinking about it. I repeat: There is no AIDS, only business. Big, big business.

Believe me. My pay is exactly the same whether you are sick or healthy. Many others cannot honestly say that much.

McJohn

08-29-07, 22:50

@Sloth

This AIDS myth theory is ages old and despite the fact that they seem to have had a recent conference all their arguments are outdated and have been refuted 1000's of times in the scientific literature and on the net (just take a look at wikipedia "AIDS reappraisal" and the links there). I also wonder why a cardiac surgeon should be an authority on HIV??

For some odd reason these AIDS reappraisal stuff resurfaces regularly on sex boards. Seems some people just accept any kind of excuse for barebacking...

@Asshole

Not sure what you are trying to say. Of course many people want to make money on all kinds of things. But your argument that HIV is just a money-making invention is way off mark. What do you suggest all the people which have AIDS are dying from if it's not the virus? - Honestly, I don't even want to hear your opinion on this. It's a waste of time to debate.

Monger#77

09-04-07, 21:41

Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article
Advocate, The, Feb 4, 2003

Paramount's Star Trek franchise is going boldly into the AIDS pandemic, as first officer T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) faces an incurable Vulcan disease on the February 5 episode of the UPN series Enterprise.

Called Pa'nar Syndrome, the illness is transmitted through intimate telepathic connections, a taboo practice deemed "unnatural" by the conservative majority. The parallels drawn between the ailing Vulcan mind-melders and gay men in the early days of AIDS are distressingly accurate, down to Pa'nar sufferers being called an "undesirable subculture" who deserve their fate.

"We're hoping to raise people's awareness that our culture still stigmatizes people with HIV and AIDS," says series co-executive producer Rick Berman, who also cowrote the "Stigma" episode.

Not that the Star Trek franchise itself couldn't use a lesson in inclusion. "I think it's commendable that they're doing an episode to promote AIDS and HIV awareness," says a former Trek producer. "But it's sad and ironic that Star Trek remains terrified of acknowledging the existence of gay people. I guess it's OK for Enterprise to tell gay story lines as long as we don't see any gay people in them."

Bibliography for "Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article"
"Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article". Advocate, The. Feb 4, 2003. FindArticles.com. 04 Sep. 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_Feb_4/ai_97175007

That Asshole

10-07-07, 04:06

I have to voice my opinion that the "social evils" of "aids", etc.

. Are purposefully exagerated for resons of political and financial gain. The reason might be complicated but makes one think that it targets certain social/economic sectors of our society.

------------------

We easily picture "bread, milk, beef" and even "beer" as food for humans but it takes more imagination to think of "aids" as food. Yet indirectly it is in fact, and undeniably feeding an ever growing number of people around the globe. Starting on the bottom rug of the foodchain it feeds the ordinary African tribesman who if coming down with "diarrhoea" or similar malady can easily obtain free food, clothing and attentive care if he applies for or accepts "aids treatment" instead of treatment for diarrhoea.

Ignorant as he is, he knows nothing about the facts of either. He only sees the immediate benefits of "aids". It becomes his food. Even to death. After succumbing to the medical poisons, he dies but gets fed like a king for the rest of his life. Only someone constantly starving can appreciate the lure of a good feed.

Then indirectly it feeds the nurses taking care of him. Their families such as children, friends, relatives will be fed as well. Then there are the doctors supervising the nurses and the distribution of the "medical poisons". They also get fed. Then the transport company distributing the substance and carrying it in special vehicles from the factories. Then of course the employees of laboratories get fed. This includes the chemical engineers, researchers but also the common employees such as the factory workers, even the guard and the cleaner.

Then of course the lawyers who fight back the multitude of attacks from disillusioned "ex-patients" and other enemies of the establishment. Then the media also gets fed who carry their advertising. The journalist, the editor, even the typesetter and the graphic designer of colorful brochures. Plus the cleaner and the driver for the company.

And the countless of "activists" who are hired to raise awareness of this great social evil: "aids". And their families, kids, dogs, cats. This goes on and on and on. You cannot tear down a tower this high. "Aids" will be growing as long as it can feed this large number of humans. And presently few "industries" are as successful and employ as many as the "aids industry. " When you look at the validity of their claims then consider all the above.

Then imagine what the world would be like without "aids". Put it quite simply, it would be a painfully "hungry" world for many.

The other social evils are:

1. Prostitution

2. Cancer

3. [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908)

4. Child-abuse

5. Drugs

All of them are successful industries in feeding millions worldwide. Imagine the world without "drugs" or "cancer", for example. Yuck, it would be a terrible "hungry world" for millions more.

AColonizer

10-22-07, 16:37

It Travel

10-22-07, 18:18

That Asshole

11-06-07, 07:55

the ultimate anti-aids vaccine:

***does "aids" exist at all? ***

does anyone suggest that "humanity" at large has made any advances in the level of general population intelligence since the middle ages of the 16-17th century? during these mere 400 years have we become more "intelligent" people in general? or simply we have become "educated" and "programmed" in a different way than those "barbarians" of 400 years ago?

does the common farmer, craftsman, labourer or even company director. of today or long ago- have the time to actually "think" about the meaning things? rather than simply learning and repeating some information or data that has been presented to him by others. does the inevitable necessity of making a living. or just to get by- afford him the luxury of sufficient free time for reflection, evaluation and consideration?

*** the ancient savages ***

the "savages" of long ago used to firmly believe in "ghosts, saints, fairies and werewolves". all of which most of them never actually seen with their own eyes, never touched with their hands. but were described to them by others who had claimed to have seen them, observe them, communicate with them. whether truthfully or otherwise. either really believing or not themselves, most were forced to agree by social pressure, economical need or just for the simple desire to be accepted by their fellows. and for these same reasons they never hesitated to demonstrate their belief in front of the public. by acts of faith. which ultimately always culminated in physical violence and even wars against those who did not share such beliefs. or at least did not pretend to share them. (among others: galileo galilei and his stupid ideas of the earth being round, etc.)

*** the modern savages ***

the great question is: are we the "people of today" actually more intelligent than our middle-ages ancestors of 400 years ago? or have we simply discarded those "beliefs" in ghosts and fairies and zombies in exchange for simply "another set" of beliefs in "bacterias, viruses, cancers and terrorists"? again in things which we do not understand ourselves but are too keen to repeat until even death. even though we might be wrong. but at least get accepted and accompanied. even to death. all it takes is just belief. or if you don't have any then try to pretend that you do. show your faith by ready to be violent against "non-believers" and you fare even better. this is life. changed nothing in 400 years, and will not change in even a thousand more.

*** hit the bastards ***

yes, right now! such "non-believers" are subjected even to physical violence every day. today too! for not believing what they should "officially" believe in. such as "aids kills! " "tobacco smoking harms humans! " "drugs destroy society! " "chidren are being abused! " "lenin is our light, stalin is our hero! " "we are being attacked by terrorists! " "women are equal with men! " "disease is caused by bacteria and viruses"

-----------------------------------

this is certainly not about anyone being stupid here. but rather about many of us not having the time to even think. we have no time to think! as an easiest alternative solution we replace evaluation, reflection and consideration with endless repetition of things we hear. repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition..----

*** at least we have company ***

and since we really know nothing, we must demonstrate our faith in some visible way. that is: by hitting all those who disagree. even hitting them until they are quite cold and dead. this wins us social approval. and it seems to work. we are accepted by all others who know nothing. just like ourselves. yet we feel so miserable every day. just like others. because we still know nothing. and we fear all the unknown things. which are numerous. because we refuse to think. so we just repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and------at least we seem to be accepted. accepted into the club of misery, that is.

*** what is aids? ***

so, what does really cause aids? i cannot tell you in a few brief words. it is a very long process until you understand. words are limited in meaning and expression. instead of asking me and others about what causes aids, i rather urge you to find a time and sit down every day to think about it. then after a long time you will "know". yet you cannot tell others because you will look stupid. not because you are stupid but because they are dark. yet if they took the trouble and started thinking too, they would know too. you will stop "believing" and you will start "knowing". i would say.

"knowing" that. aids does not kill, lenin is not light of the world, disease is not caused by bacteria and neither by virus, women are not equal with men and there is no terrorism.

*** the vaccine. ***

so, the ultimate "anti-aids vaccine" is within you. and so is the "anti-terrorism" vaccine. and "anti-crime". please sit down every day a few hours for twenty years or so. and think about it all. it takes a long time? better start today. and stop fighting! against those who don't believe what you "believe". you only believe. it's only a belief. not worth fighting for it.

the following text extracts are not your answer to cancer and aids. rather simply a pointer to those who think a bit differently. it is not the solution. but you can start by thinking about it. especially when you see those gruesome pictures on tobacco packaging. which is the killer? the tobacco or the suggestion? the aids or the treatment? the terrorist or the police department? the bacteria or the antibiotics?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. / power of suggestion

ethnologists and doctors studying tribal communities put down similar accounts. for example, american doctor garry wright relays the following case in his book eyewitness of sorcery.

lusung, a sorcerer in one of south african tribes, told a man who had committed a crime: "you will die in three days! " then she sprinkled water and sprayed some red powder around the hut of the condemned man. the sorcerer repeated her incantation for the benefit of the villagers. "her words were a death verdict, " says wright in his book. "none of the villagers laid hands on the criminal yet he was found dead three days later, " adds he.

source: http: //wintersteel. homestead.com/power_of_suggestion.html

-----------------------------------------------

2. / galileo galilei 15 february 1564 – 8 january 1642

galileo's championing of copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. the geocentric view had been dominant since the time of aristotle, and the controversy engendered by galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the catholic church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of scripture. [6] galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the inquisition.

source: http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/galileo_galilei

------------------------------------------

3. / diagnosis (a "sick" individual)

in medicine, diagnosis or diagnostics is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs, symptoms, and from the results of various diagnostic procedures. the conclusion reached through this process is called a diagnosis. the term "diagnostic criteria" designates the combination of symptoms which allows the doctor to ascertain the diagnosis of the respective disease.

source: http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/diagnosis

-----------------------------------

4. / defining "crime" (a "sick" society)

a normative definition views crime as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave.

source: http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/criminal_offence

---------------------------------------------------------

example: definition of one offense "public masturbation" http://www.legis. state. ga. us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hb1187. htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. / *** germ theory ***

the germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. although highly controversial when first proposed, it is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. [1]

source: http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/germ_theory

the germ theory of disease is the single most important contribution by the science of microbiology to the general welfare of the world's people, perhaps the single most important contribution of any modern scientific discipline. it also is the single most important contribution to the practice of modern medicine, essentially defining the term with the invention of antimicrobial chemotherapeutics.

source: http://www.mansfield. ohio-state. edu/ sabedon/biol2007. htm

------------------------------------------

6. / *** anti germ-theory ***

we do not catch diseases. we build them. we have to eat, drink, think, and feel them into existence. we work hard at developing our diseases. we must work just as hard at restoring health. the presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. bacteria are scavengers of nature. they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. germs or microbes flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. they are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. they are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. mosquitoes do not cause a pond to become stagnant! you always see firemen at burning buildings, but that doesn't mean they caused the fire. source: http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html

what most people call a "disease" is really a symptom or a collection of symptoms. for example, cancer tumors are symptoms, which is why trying to fight them has resulted in the epidemic we have today. what people commonly think of as causes of disease, are symptoms.

source: http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html

the germ theory, virus theory, genetic theory and autoimmune theory--contemporary disease causation theories--are all based upon and rely upon immunology. immunology is based upon and must be supported by darwinian concepts of evolution. pull out the evolutionary foundation and all the prevailing theories collapse; the highly publicized, but nonexistent, advances of modern medicine are exposed as rep001ologists! nonetheless, the germ theory is still believed to be the central cause of disease, because around it exists a global supportive infrastructure of commercial interests that built multi-billion-dollar industries based upon this theory.

source: http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html

---------------------------------------------------------

i hope you will draw the parallel in the definition of "crime" and the definition of "disease". all seek the wrong in some other outside factor and none in themselves. this way reach no useful solution at all. sorry man but if "you" are sick, why blame the bacteria and the aids virus? similarly, blaming someone for "publicly mastubating" does no favor to society in general. there was a (long, long, long) way that led him there. if he is sick, so are all others. the next one is just waiting to come. and so is the next pestilence as long as the "virus and bacteria" are chased. but it's a stupid, stupid world. never mind. keep fighting. it's all good. keeps the bacterias occupied. as well as the doctors and the cops paid.

end of post aids

Amorous Jay

11-08-07, 10:06

Asshole, Sloth,

Pretty good and compelling arguments.

There is a hell a lot of ambiguity surrounding hiv and aids (small caps) and as is the case in these situations; there are a lot of people making money out of the haze and ignorance.

History has a lot of such examples of people/companies making money in times of war, strife, dictatorship.

The whole thing about hiv/aids have made the simple pleasurable act of having sex a worrisome affair.

But then I guess it is better to be safe till we have evidence to prove otherwise.

A. Jay

Sloth

11-11-07, 01:57

McJohn

11-17-07, 10:15

I want to understand:

A lot of prostitutes around the world drink sperm and fuck pussy and ass without condom by 5/10/20 customers per night. I never heard prostitutes have HIV because they had sexual performances but only because of infected syringes. Instead I see a lot of prostitutes have a normal family and life after they finished prostitution.

So my question is: why haven't prostitutes got HIV if HIV is sexual widespreading?A substantial number of those prostitutes actually got HIV.
Note that in Europe, roughly 40-50% of the new HIV infections are through heterosexual contact and another 30-40% through homosexual contact. Only few infections through syringes anymore as drug users at least in Switzerland get clean syringes for free. So there is substantial sexual transmission going on.

On the other hand, transmission probabilities per sexual contact are very variable but mostly low (except in special circumstances), especially if the HIV+ partner is on well-working antiretroviral therapy. It will also depend on the prostitutes immune system whether she get's infected at all and how quickly. So, some will get infected very early on while others will remain HIV-free despite extreme high-risk behavious. Biology is a complicated thing and there's always a lot of variability.

CBGBConnisur

11-19-07, 20:51

It depends upon the person that you get to have sex with, if she is stunning, you would not think twice about it. AIDS would be the last thing on your mind, it is a risk but someone given the opportunity to have sex with a beautiful woman is not going to think much about the hazards. That being said AIDS is definitely lethal and should be taken seriously but people are still fucking anyway.

It Travel

11-19-07, 20:59

A substantial number of those prostitutes actually got HIV.
Note that in Europe, roughly 40-50% of the new HIV infections are through heterosexual contact and another 30-40% through homosexual contact. Only few infections through syringes anymore as drug users at least in Switzerland get clean syringes for free. So there is substantial sexual transmission going on.

On the other hand, transmission probabilities per sexual contact are very variable but mostly low (except in special circumstances), especially if the HIV+ partner is on well-working antiretroviral therapy. It will also depend on the prostitutes immune system whether she get's infected at all and how quickly. So, some will get infected very early on while others will remain HIV-free despite extreme high-risk behavious. Biology is a complicated thing and there's always a lot of variability.

Sorry for him, I mean our Alcool friend of course, not you, I think he has to read a biology or a microbiology manual (as I did a lot of years ago)... and simply understand what a retrovirus is. It's not so complicated. You can live with him 20 years or 6 months... theraphy make a lot of difference! Mind that antiviral are NOT antibiotics....

IT

That Asshole

12-16-07, 03:58

Starchild2012

12-19-07, 22:50

# The magic cars # Let's suppose you had a car. You drive it hard every day. Only fill the tank with gas but do no maintenance whatsoever. Don't pump the tires, don't top the oil. Don't tighten the bolts. Don't fill the radiator. Let the scratches rot and become rust. Now, when the rain comes you cover your wrecked car with a plastic tarp. Will you save it from falling apart?

Now, someone more brighter also owns a car. He runs it just as hard. But does all the maintenance. Fills the radiator, tops the oil. Tightens the nuts every so often. Polishes out all the scratches and repaints them as soon as they happen. He is a sensible guy by all means he takes pride in his car. Now when the rain comes he does not bother to put the tarp on. He reckons, the paint is strong enough. Will his car fall apart as a result? According to you it will. Hmmm, makes sense.

# Painted "health" #

Someone has to be a fucking genious to say that a plastic tarp is all the maintenance a machine needs to stay healthy. Now you say you are no machine? Are you also saying that you need no maintenance other than a raincoat?

It is indeed criminal to lead people into believing that wearing a raincoat will keep them healthy. Yet this is what you are told every day by news, radio, television. The only way it is possible if the world is being run by "criminals". Who actually make the law and enforce the law.

This is the feminist thinking of a senseless female who keeps painting her face (while rotting inside) and hopes to stay young by it. This is the propaganda of the feminist regime that controls all the media. In fact, in the author's opinion, feminism and female thinking (un-thinking) is the greatest evil the world ever has seen. All evident from the current madness of aids-scare, cancer scare, drug scare, terrorist-scare, chicken-flu scare and the rest. Hopefully, if you are a man of any sense, you will not take part in it.

# Joke of the century, hahaha #

Let the women believe in "maintenance-free" cars and "painted-health and well-being". Guys, sure you will not advocate this senseless craziness and believe fabricated statistics. So funny. Please try running your car without oil for a year. But put on the tarp every day. See what happens. And make sure you wear the mask against chicken flu too! So funny, hahaha. Hehehe. Gonna fall off the chair laughing.

So, keep giving each other good advice: "Cover up. Stay safe! " Hehehe. Fuck, my belly hurts now. Stop ticleing me. Hahaha.

It is all the work of medical community..the way they are projected, just scares people.

Looking at the history...One could see a pattern in over hying things......medical community over hypes them and destorys normal life.

It all started way back from maleria, TB, cancer, plague..every decade there is a DOMINANT disease..unfortunately, this time it is associated with sex and got the extra hype from the press..

Though ebola or some african disease could be more dangerous..it won't take the top spot for now untill the medical community establises a cure or semi-cure for HIV and then they would go out and seek some thing else..its kinda their job to find a domniant disease that scares people.

We could almost guarentee that....Even if some scientist comes up with a cure for hiv..they won't allow us to live in peace..they would come up with some other disease and make the life of people more miserable by just thinking over it half of the time.

Every man has its own karma to go with.. ...its 1 million times better to live a life of spitituality, have sex and enjoy life and Accept Death AS IT IS, than ponder over pages over pages of wikkipedia to figure out things..

Over my experience, i have found spiritual life to be much much better than medical existance of someone else facts and experience.

90% Of US, DO NOT Have A NORMAL LIFE...We JUST DIE THINKING OVER Miseries Created by none else than us

Too Jaded

01-03-08, 10:40

Here in the USA one of our national television networks (CBS) is noted for its PSAs (public service announcement) titled "CBS Cares". They typically involve some type of emo bullshit or after-school special type of theme. But there is a new one that has actor Hector Elizondo telling us about the lurking peril of HIV in the retirement home and increasing infection amongst the elderly, and he underscores his point with this cheerful denouement:

"You didn't think you needed to talk to your parents or grandparents about safe sex now, did you?
.... CBS Cares!"

This commercial gave me a major douche chill. It is funny and creepy all at once.

The video:

http://www.cbs.com/innertube/player.php?cat=&vid=165784&format=wmv|flv&auto=0&source=0

I mean, your old and going to die anyway, so why not just say "fuck all" and hump like old jack-rabbits? You think these geezers have the dexterity to manage putting on a condom? Is old Grandpa Jack spending all his retirement money on crack *****s?

Here is some bloggers funny take on the whole 'epidemic'.

http://mockazine.typepad.com/mockazine/2007/11/old-aids.html

Can you just imagine grandpa standing there all turgid trying to put on his Trojan Ribbed with his freakish drooping balls all getting in the way?

2J

Rubber Nursey

01-04-08, 08:08

Is old Grandpa Jack spending all his retirement money on crack *****s?...Can you just imagine grandpa standing there all turgid trying to put on his Trojan Ribbed with his freakish drooping balls all getting in the way?

Errr...yes, and yes. There's plenty of old boys still getting their groove on with hookers. I've certainly had my fair share of elderly clients.

Don't be so ageist! :)

Too Jaded

01-05-08, 00:27

Errr...yes, and yes. There's plenty of old boys still getting their groove on with hookers. I've certainly had my fair share of elderly clients.

Don't be so ageist! :)

You do realize that:

a) there are 40 million seniors in the US. Are the all cruising the curb, or calling 1-800-DIAL-A-HO?

b) we are talking about people in retirement homes, most likely assisted living. I think the implication is that they're fucking each other.

And I hate political correctness. Just for using the word 'ageist' in your reply I say go screw.

Rubber Nursey

01-05-08, 02:18

Bango Cheito

01-07-08, 07:08

Yeah why would this not be true? They fuck each other ALL the time in old folks homes dude! I'm surprised anybody would be ignorant enough to assume otherwise.

Too Jaded

01-13-08, 04:55

Of course the oldies are fucking each other. Your libido doesn't suddenly switch off when you hit a certain age.

Good Lord...I added a smiley so you'd know it was meant as a light-hearted post, but considering the tone of your response, I'll say what I wanted to say in the first place - grow the hell up. Only teenagers chuckle about the idea of older people having sex.

First off, it was a joke post, because who wants to have the safe sex conversation with mom or dad, let alone grandma.

God bless them for staying active. But I neither want to see it or talk to them about it. At their age they should know all they need to know.

There is a reason there is not a market for geriatric porn. Old people screwing is not sexy.

Midget sex? Check.
Foot fetish? Check.
German Hermaphodites? I am sure you can find it.

...Bingo Hall Hookups? Not gonna find it. No one wants to see it.

But if you feel good about yourself arguing otherwise, go ahead and talk until your blue and the face. Don't stroke out though.

2J

Romano V

02-11-08, 18:05

More than 1 percent of the unhabitants in Ukraine have aids it's an hight level. 3 cities have the record f the country, it's Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk. For exemple in Donetsk 1 prostitute on 4 has aids. The sex workers work all with a condom.

Orange Sunshine

02-23-08, 19:41

The movement of dissidents is growing steadfastly every year and the list of scientists who question the orthodox views on HIV is growing rapidly.It's encouraging to have greater opposition expressed by physicians and researchers because, let's face it, most people are simply too lazy to think on their own and therefore rely on the consensus views held by a majority in the medical field. That said, to truly destroy the house of cards that is AIDS, lay people will need to bring themselves to a state of awareness that the basis of health science encompasses sound lifestyle practices, not piecemeal, allopathic treatment of disease symptoms.

CBGBConnisur

02-26-08, 16:58

I was surprised at how ignorant some people are about AIDS. I actually met a doctor from Europe, a female, who thinks only homosexuals and drug addicts get AIDS. Tell that to all the porno actors and actresses who get infected all the time.

Lifter74

03-08-08, 05:18

What I don't get, are all of these people promoting "natural" cures for AIDS. I'd like to see if any of them have the balls to intentionally get infected with HIV and then try these so-called "cures" on themselves' and see just how good they really work. I don't see that happening.

McJohn

03-08-08, 12:53

Somebody metioned below that the HIV denialists have been refuted 1000s of times. Bald faced lie. They have been rebutted 1000s of times over but never have their arguments been refuted, and they're hardly outdated. There is an overwhelming amount of current data that supports them. The movement of dissidents is growing steadfastly every year and the list of scientists who question the orthodox views on HIV is growing rapidly.Anything to support your claim about a growing number of denialists? Somehow I can only see the same old faces and nobody new of any scientific repute joining the dissident movement (if you even want to call it a movement, it's more or less dead as far as I can tell...).

Everybody working in science is aware that no theory is perfect but I for one find the standard HIV/AIDS theory pretty convincing. One of the main arguments of the dissidents is the ineffectivity of Zidovudine monotherapy. Unfortunately, while Zidovudine has some efficacy, this statement is almost true. It's just that in the last decade at least, patients don't get Zidovudine monotherapy anymore and there's a tremendous amount of literature supporting the efficacy of combination antiretroviral therapy.

Have a look at Wikipedia or 100s of other sources in the net which critically discuss every single one of the dissidents claims. I find the critiques much more convincing than the dissident's claims.

A standard response to denialists from the perpetuators of medical orthodoxy is "if you believe HIV is harmless inject yourself with it." For them I say that is only plausible if they are required to take anti-retroviral drugs every day for the rest of their lives. Then we'll see who expires first.
Nobody claims antiretrovirals don't have side effects. They are no free lunch but they just happen to prolong live of HIV infected people tremendously.

Orange Sunshine

03-08-08, 18:11

There are basically two "natural" camps.

The first subscribes to the concept of infection and therefore its approach is curative, that is, the application of modalities to combat an invading pathogen (HIV). They substitute prescription drugs with "natural" herbal concoctions.

The second group views AIDS as a collection of body-initiated symptoms, chronic in nature, that has their antecedent causes and therefore aims for the removal of these causes. To them, there's no such thing as infection.

The medical industry in most countries will never allow the first camp to flourish. Too much money involved.

The second camp will never grow beyond a fringe minority until governments allow people to choose an approach to health care they believe is best.

I suspect that's why even anecdotal examples of AIDS being "cured" by natural approaches are seldom publicized.

Syphon

03-25-08, 03:59

Well. If there's still some educated people think that AIDS is only for homosexuals and those drugs addict people, what about people in developing countries then. There are not enough education for them, they don't even now what STD is and for some countries named themselves as Moslem countries, sex education is banned for the sake of religious reason.

That Asshole

03-28-08, 02:00

aids? the world has logic:

1./ *** the "aids" press ***

i went to our local library. now they have a whole "section" labeled hiv. it must be quite a popular subject nowadays. what i noticed was: the number of new titles about this sorry subject is massive. all are the "mainstream" type. lots of crying, screaming evil, riding the emotions about innocent victims, african dead-villages, legions of orphaned children,general hopelessness and terror.

------------------------------

2./ *** look who's talking ***

also noticed, nearly all the "aids" authors have female sounding names. i peeped into a few, but have a principle of not reading any book by a female author. obviously, because -"s'truth, s'truth! i saw it on tv!" -is what women all can say.

we sex-tourists rather save the braindamage and not listen to them. recommend the same to any man. you can go to cambodia, thailand, indo, china, s.america. root yourself silly and never have to talk with a woman. in effect you stay sane and sensible. don't need to prostitute your soul and sell yourself for "fuck". you can root "cheaper than free".

---------------------------

3./ *** no competition ***

i also noticed that the only one alternative title: duesberg's "inventing the aids virus" was gone. it might be out on loan. or it might have been removed for good. it is a pretty clever book. makes you think twice. too dangerous for the "aids business".

from the books on the shelves it was clear, most everyone who writes is a "full time paid activist". that is: they live from it. they built their houses from "aids". they bought their cars. in fact they still owe on the mortgage so the show must keep going. the business is good.

----------------------

4./ *** lion must eat ***

life is just. the lion must eat. no lion is evil. neither are doctors and "aids activists". leo does not attack the strong. but always the weakest zebra in the flock. similarly the poorest and stupidest humans fall prey to doctors and "activists". like the "poofters". they are pretty wasted lot anyway, it's quite obvious. so doctors eat them. cancer patients are full of personal problems, strife, confusion. so doctors eat them. men who "communicate" too much with women are pretty polluted too. down they go.

the world is very logical and very well made. even if i could save the "wasted humanity" from the doctors and activists, i wouldn't bother. they must go down. hyenas, vultures, doctors, cops and maggots do an important job. cleaning away the wasted.

-----------------------------

5./ *** cobra's eyes, doctors fangs ***

the snake looks the bird in the eyes. she is hypnotised. she believes and cannot escape. food for the predator. then the cobra strikes. feeds and shares food with his family. all is well. it was a sick, weak bird anyway. it is all justice. long live doctors, cops, maggots, the law and the "aids" and cancer business. bird flu too.

Orange Sunshine

03-28-08, 13:58

I also noticed that the only one alternative title: Duesberg's "Inventing the aids virus" was gone. It might be out on loan. Or it might have been removed for good. It is a pretty clever book. Makes you think twice. Too dangerous for the "aids business".Back in the 90's I had a hardcover edition of Roger's Recovery From AIDS: How One Man Defeated the Dreaded Disease" and gave it to a health student a few years ago. But a softcover edition is still available at amazon.com. Unlike Dr. Duesberg's treatise which probably focuses on refuting the current theory on HIV, this one outlines the principles of natural hygiene through self-discovery as recorded by a practicing physician tending to an AIDS patient. It's a quick read and potentially illuminating for those who still drink the allopathic Kool-Aid.

Crypton

03-28-08, 14:51

There are still people who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus???????

Orange Sunshine

03-29-08, 00:26

There are still people who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus???????For sure. Me for one. And probably others who don't subscribe to the germ theory of disease.

Xion149

03-30-08, 15:37

GoGo Internet Doctor!
This shit is about as laughable as when people try to play Internet Lawyer or Internet Tough Guy.
AIDS *not* a virus? Come the fuck on now.
Whether its a virus, a government/medical industry conspiracy, if there is a cure, and no matter who stands to gain/lose from it;
What ISN'T at question is that it DOES exist, HOW you get it, and that it CAN kill you.

For the dissenters- instead of spreading a bunch of BS misinformation about lions and cobras (wtf?) why not just own up to the reality?
That being, some people are willing to risk their lives for sex, and some people are not.

I would agree that there is a certain amount of anit-HIV hysteria in the US. Do you know why that is? Because idiots on the other side of the argument say retarded shit like "Does Aids exist at all?" and "the ultimate anti-aids vaccine is within you" when clearly its killing motherfuckers left and right. Its a battle for public opinion- and I for one, am glad of the hysteria that causes most of the US to lean towards condom use. Without that kind of hysteria, know what happens? Its called Zimbabwe.

So unless you ARE an infectious disease specialist (and I don't mean, if you know one, are married to one, have read a book by one, or seen one on TV) trying to paint the disease as something its not its just so much BS propaganda.

Some of you seem to have researched this for hours, days, months, years- so much so that you consider yourselves experts. Instead of spending that time reading books by kooks and fake doctors, take 30 minutes and drag your favorita to the local AIDS clinic and get both of you tested. Then you can bareback to your dirty little heart's content, WITHOUT spreading potentially dangerous misinformation that could get some OTHER poor idiot killed.

Testing is widely available EVERYWHERE, even in the developing world. There is now even an fairly accurate, hand-held tester that works from oral swabs (OraQuick or something like that). IMHO, anyone that is too lazy to test, and yet feels the need to proselytize to others for hours on end about the "AIDS conspiracy"- deserves to be removed from the gene pool, along with any stupid enough to swallow their tripe.

Laziness and ignorance go hand in hand. In summary:

If you want to bareback, but your fucking lazy, then TAKE THE RISK.
If you want to bareback carefree and not die, TAKE 30 minutes and GET THAT ***** TESTED, then get your party on.
But whatever you do, don't pretend, and certainly don't tell others that there IS NO RISK.

Seriously. I'll take the opinion of someone who spent 8 years getting a medical degree, over some random asshole who can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to protect HIMSELF, anyday. I'd avise those actually buying into this crap to consider the same.

Tiger 888

03-30-08, 17:33

George90

03-30-08, 22:48

I would agree that there is a certain amount of anit-HIV hysteria in the US. Do you know why that is? Because idiots on the other side of the argument say retarded shit like "Does Aids exist at all?" and "the ultimate anti-aids vaccine is within you" when clearly its killing motherfuckers left and right. Its a battle for public opinion- and I for one, am glad of the hysteria that causes most of the US to lean towards condom use. Without that kind of hysteria, know what happens? Its called Zimbabwe.

Part of the reason why there is that "other side of the argument" is because there is merit to it. The problem is that we have not yet been able to quantify, measure, and replicate that merit in double blind tests.

It has long been known that many individuals infected with the virus that leads to AIDS do not develop the AIDS disease very quickly, if at all. Some have lived with the virus without symptoms, and therefore without treatment, for 20 years. Others die of AIDS within 2 years of getting infected. Why the variablity? Because there is something "within us" that fights the virus. The issue is how well that something performs in a particular individual.

In January I read that some researchers found genetic differences between long-term survivors of HIV and those who died quickly. They hypothsized that long-term survivors had genes that produced proteins that made it difficult for HIV to replicate itself. Hence HIV never increased enough to make that individual ill, get AIDS. In essence, these individuals naturally produced the equivalent of the medicine that is given to those to treat HIV/AIDS.

Since we (mankind) doesn't yet know what those specific genes are or they proteins they produce, we need to do the next best thing; rely on commercially produced treatments when a person is HIV+ and on condoms to prevent HIV transmission.

George90

03-30-08, 23:24

I want to make we are all on the same page regarding viruses versus bacteria. I am not a doctor, but I did take biology in college as a compulsory science course and I had a good professor. Any comments that correct or enhance are invited and appreciated.

Bacteria are live animals. My professor claimed (30 years ago) that the jury was still out on viruses. The issue was in how viruses reproduce. Bacteria reproduce by splitting one cell into two cells. I forget the technical name of the process (mitosis?). However, viruses do not have cells, they cannot split into two. They reproduce by invading the cells of a host and using the DNA of the cell to make more viral DNA, and other cells structures to make a protein coat around the viral DNA.

Bacteria can be killed like any other animals; starve them, suffocate them (some bacteria are anerobic but die when exposed to oxygen), burn them, etc. Viruses don't eat, don't breathe, can go dormant for millions of years inside their protein shell. Only heat can "kill" a virus, which is why we get fevers. Our body raises its temperature to kill viruses.

Our bodies also use proteins to "neutralize" viruses. These proteins, called anti-bodies, attach themselves to viruses in a manner that prevents the virus from attacking the body's cells. The virus then cannot invade host cells and reproduce itself. The body them eliminates the neutralized viruses by sneezing, coughing up phlegm, diahrea, etc.

My point is that there are NO "medicines" that can kill viruses. Only our bodies can heal themselves from viral infections. We take mdecines to protect ourselves form the bodies defenses should they go into over drive. We can be damaged (hearing loss, etc) or die (kidney failure, etc.) from too high fevers. We will dehydrate from too long diahrea.

The only way we, as individuals and as a species, are "cured" of a viral disease is for a genetic change to occur which prevents viruses from attacking and entering our cells. This always occurs, according to my former professor when the cell membranes change so the virus has nothing to attach to. The protein coat of a virus is like a key and our cell membranes like locks. When viral protein coat matches the cell membrane it can unlock our cells and invade them. Animals and viruses have been in an evolutionary war since life began in which we animals have been trying to stay a step ahead of the viruses by changing the locks on our cells and the viruses have been developing new keys with which to pick our locks.

The "cure" for HIV/AIDS lies in our genes. As it did for other species infected with viruses similar to HIV, such as SIM (simian for monkey) and FIV (feline for lions).

Orange Sunshine

03-31-08, 00:08

Xion149,

We have vastly divergent viewpoints on the nature of the disease process. That's fine. It happens. ;)

Every individual will weigh risks and make choices based on the science he accepts as truth. It'd be a waste of time for me to tell certain people not to bother with condoms because they're absolutely sure that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact. Conversely, there are others who would simply scoff at vaccinations based on their accepted truths. All told, I'm not remotely interested in converting others to my line of thinking. But I do want to remain open and avoid the laziness and ignorance you described. And so what I've found helpful is to constantly remind myself that propaganda doesn't always stem from those who hold views contrary to my own. Cheers.

Xion149

03-31-08, 00:11

...

Everything you said below is essentially correct. I was not arguing against the fact that:

1. The disease itself, as well as its effect, are highly variable on a person to person basis. This could be for any number of reasons (genetic disposition, strength of the individual's immune system, etc)

2. You can have HIV and not get AIDS. A good example is Magic Johnson, who next year will celebrate his 18th year since diagnosis. My personal guess is, his being at the peak of human physical condition had alot to do with that. I mention him specifically, because his case directly refutes the following:

The second group views AIDS as a collection of body-initiated symptoms, chronic in nature, that has their antecedent causes and therefore aims for the removal of these causes. To them, there's no such thing as infection.

The medical industry in most countries will never allow the first camp to flourish. Too much money involved.

The second camp will never grow beyond a fringe minority until governments allow people to choose an approach to health care they believe is best.

This viewpoint seems to suggest that AIDS can spontaneously appear in the body due to some unspecified "antecedent causes" - ostensibly as a result of poor natural hygiene, bad eating habits and drug use, or an already weak immune system. The Roger Cochran story is cited, yet what Orange Sunshine so conveniently omits is that Roger was an IV DRUG ABUSER during the Vietnam War. So I ask, which scenario is more likely:

1. Roger took too many drugs, weakened his immune systems, and AIDS magically appeared.

2. Roger, being in Vietnam at the time, in less than sterile conditions with limited supplies and against the backdrop of a hellishly brutal war- may have used a dirty needle or five.

The second part of the argument is that AIDS can be treated naturally (note, I said TREAT, not cure). I will let this slide, because there is an obvious correllation between doing things that ENHANCE your immune system (eating right, exercise) and slowing down the virus. Does it help, yes. Better than the drugs cocktails? I wouldn't wager MY life on it! To even put forth this theory based on one book about one guy, is frankly very silly. I can easily show you thousands of people that are doing BETTER because of the drug regimens. You'd be hard pressed to find five hundred, hell, even fifty people who have claimed to cure the thing naturally. As everyone seems to agree the effects of the disease are widely variable, how do we know Roger wasn't just another Magic Johnson?

And I'm with you on the gene therapy thing, I think that's the next step after the recent vaccine trials failed. Stems cells may offer a new avenue as well.

Orange Sunshine

03-31-08, 03:37

This viewpoint seems to suggest that AIDS can spontaneously appear in the body due to some unspecified "antecedent causes" - ostensibly as a result of poor natural hygiene, bad eating habits and drug use, or an already weak immune system. The Roger Cochran story is cited, yet what Orange Sunshine so conveniently omits is that Roger was an IV DRUG ABUSER during the Vietnam War. So I ask, which scenario is more likely:

1. Roger took too many drugs, weakened his immune systems, and AIDS magically appeared.

2. Roger, being in Vietnam at the time, in less than sterile conditions with limited supplies and against the backdrop of a hellishly brutal war- may have used a dirty needle or five.Not sure that's relevant here. The premise of the book isn't whether Roger developed AIDS through dirty needles or sexual contact but that his recovery was based on protocols that do not subscribe to HIV as cause. This then indicates that something else had caused his symptoms.
The second part of the argument is that AIDS can be treated naturally (note, I said TREAT, not cure). I will let this slide, because there is an obvious correllation between doing things that ENHANCE your immune system (eating right, exercise) and slowing down the virus. Does it help, yes. Better than the drugs cocktails? I wouldn't wager MY life on it!I would, any day of the week.
To even put forth this theory based on one book about one guy, is frankly very silly. I can easily show you thousands of people that are doing BETTER because of the drug regimens. You'd be hard pressed to find five hundred, hell, even fifty people who have claimed to cure the thing naturally. As everyone seems to agree the effects of the disease are widely variable, how do we know Roger wasn't just another Magic Johnson?I look at it another way. If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent? A cause is a cause only if the effect ensues in all cases. Countering that, if we then use latency to explain away Magic Johnson, then potentially the next virus of the decade could be neatly claimed to be the cause of any other disease. Now that's being too lazy IMO.

So maybe Roger IS another Magic Johnson insofar as the nature of the disease is concerned: in the former case, recovery was secured without drugs or treatments to combat HIV; and in the other, the presence of HIV has failed to produce typical symptoms.

Crypton

04-01-08, 01:09

For sure. Me for one. And probably others who don't subscribe to the germ theory of disease.

LOL.. What century are you living in? If you don't believe in germ theory, will you drink unsterilized water in, let's say, India? Why not? There are no fucking germs in there.. and even if they are.. they don't cause disease. What else do you not subscribe to? Round Earth? Evolution? That people landed on the moon?

Orange Sunshine

04-01-08, 02:13

LOL.. What century are you living in? If you don't believe in germ theory, will you drink unsterilized water in, let's say, India? Why not? There are no fucking germs in there.. and even if they are.. they don't cause disease. What else do you not subscribe to? Round Earth? Evolution? That people landed on the moon?Let's fire up google.com and find out when Pasteur's germ theory was first proposed. Knowing that, what kind of medical science did we have before germs became the bad guys? Let me give you an example: shutting window shutters at night to prevent malevolent spirits from attacking the body. If you think that's archaic (and there are more like that I'm sure), then you know what I think of the germ theory.

While we're at it, please look up Koch's Postulates and then let us know if it bears any weight on this discussion.

To answer your question, of course you always want the cleanest source of food and water.

Now let me ask: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?

Orange Sunshine

04-01-08, 14:08

if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?Crpyton, sorry, the question is too vague. Let me clarify: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would you worry about developing diabetes because of your belief in the germ theory?

Crypton

04-02-08, 01:40

Let's fire up google.com and find out when Pasteur's germ theory was first proposed. Knowing that, what kind of medical science did we have before germs became the bad guys? Let me give you an example: shutting window shutters at night to prevent malevolent spirits from attacking the body. If you think that's archaic (and there are more like that I'm sure), then you know what I think of the germ theory.

While we're at it, please look up Koch's Postulates and then let us know if it bears any weight on this discussion.

To answer your question, of course you always want the cleanest source of food and water.

Now let me ask: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?

No, I would not... because those of us who accept scientific method (and in fact practice it - I am a professional biologist) realize that diabetes is not caused by any pathogenic organisms. It is caused by defective cells in pancreas and therefore not contagious. Germ theory does not mean that every disease is caused by a germ.

Koch's postulates are from the 19th century when viruses could not be isolated!!! They certainly apply for some organisms but not all. Viruses cannot be cultured outside a cell, period.

I am not sure I understand the drift of your argument. May be I misunderstood you. I thought you said you did not accept germ theory. If I misunderstood your post, I accept the blame.

Going back to your earlier post about viruses and bacteria.... whether viruses are in fact living things. It depends how you define life. If it means making more of your own kind (rocks do not), then viruses qualify. But they are obligate parasites - they cannot live for very long (or reproduce) outside another living cell. As for viruses "not eating" - well... eating is essentially a way of getting raw materials to make proteins and other essential substances. If a RNA virus, such as HIV, becomes a part of the host cell genome, then all the work is done for it by the host cell. There is no need to eat. Imagine you being connected to another organism by a tube which does all the eating and supplies you the nutrition. You no longer need to eat. And you are right about viruses being stopped only if they have no receptors on cell surface on which they can attach themselves. But at the same time, viruses undergo rapid changes in their protein coat - which is why it is so difficult to come up with a vaccine for HIV.

George - from your earlier post, it does not sound like you don't believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. Whether you do or not - ultimately science is a self-correcting process. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the theory of natural selection; yet millions of people in the US and elsewhere REFUSE to accept it. Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.

Orange Sunshine

04-02-08, 04:26

No, I would not... because those of us who accept scientific method (and in fact practice it - I am a professional biologist) realize that diabetes is not caused by any pathogenic organisms. It is caused by defective cells in pancreas and therefore not contagious. Germ theory does not mean that every disease is caused by a germ..OK, I think it's safe to assume that you accept there are other disease conditions that are NOT contagious. e.g. atherosclerosis, stroke, asthma, glaucoma, etc. Would you now agree that in each of these conditions, the symptoms are essentially acute/chronic inflammation, hardening or degeneration of the affected tissues?
Koch's postulates are from the 19th century when viruses could not be isolated!!! They certainly apply for some organisms but not all. Viruses cannot be cultured outside a cell, period.But now we have electron microscopes and tons of sensitive equipment that can detect all kinds of critters. So if a supposed pathogen (viral or bacterial) cannot be found despite the development of (disease name) symptoms or if the same symptoms arise without the presence of said pathogen, then, by the scientific method, it cannot conclusively be considered a causing agent, yes?
Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.I agree it would be inadvisable to deny science. But I also feel it would be dangerous to sit smugly and crystalize what we know now as ultimate truth, since science, as formulated by mankind in his ongoing attempts to understand the nature of things, cannot ever be static, and therefore must be evolutionary. Anyway, if you'll let me lean on your bio-science background, I think we have the basis of a fruitful discussion on AIDS, an issue that definitely affects field behavior.

George90

04-02-08, 17:34

Going back to your earlier post about viruses and bacteria.... whether viruses are in fact living things.

That was my post, not Orange Sunshine's.

George90

04-02-08, 17:38

George90

04-02-08, 18:01

George - from your earlier post, it does not sound like you don't believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. Whether you do or not - ultimately science is a self-correcting process. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the theory of natural selection; yet millions of people in the US and elsewhere REFUSE to accept it. Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.

During the 90's, I spoke with several different HIV/AIDS researchers about different biological and sociological aspects of the disease. There is NOT any type of consensus among all researchers. The only thing I am certain of is that no one who is not HIV+ has ever developed AIDS.

Regarding science, my father was a scientist, and I learned and understood enough science in college courses to be thoroughly familiar with the scientific method.

However, as I have seen over the years how science is pursued and applied, I have reservations. Humans make the decisions as to what scientific investigations will be made. Humans make decisions as to how much money will be allocated to different scientific endeavors. Humans interpret scientific results. Humans profit from science. The human factor is FAR from scientific and it taints science.

For example, pharmaceutical companies engage in huge amounts of research into how to treat and cure various diseases. But which ones? The diseases whose treatment will yield the largest profit for that company! How reliable can their results be for third parties who do not share in those profits when the motive for scientific investigation in financial gain?

Another example. What exactly is natural selection? Since 10,000 or so years ago (the end of the last ice age), humankind has been domesticating plants and animals. We have altered their genes so that they have characteristics that suit our needs (not theirs). Some grains crops are so domesticated that they can no longer exist in nature without our actively farming them. What is natural about that selection?

Orange Sunshine

04-02-08, 22:37

george90,

in your contact with aids researchers, did any of them mention changes in diagnostic guidelines over the years, especially the first 4 or 5 years of the epidemic during the early 80s? i bring this up because within the medical profession, symptom lists for various diseases do undergo periodic revisions (for aids i believe it was expanded). this could potentially affect the determination of who is or is not afflicted with aids.

i think it's rare that a person is nowadays able to practise pure science. as you described, the funding politics and commercial interests all weigh heavily on which research programs get the green light; and i suspect disseminating their findings for peer review, if contrary to the sponsors' agendas, does not often become a top priority.

Crypton

04-03-08, 00:02

The only thing I am certain of is that no one who is not HIV+ has ever developed AIDS.

Well... I think thousands of doctors and scientists would disagree with you on that. People who think HIV is not linked to AIDS are a definite minority and do not have any scientific evidence to back them up. There are of course SOME people who even after showing evidence of infection by HIV do not develop full blown AIDS. But that is a very small proportion of people. I am not a medical doctor and I do not work on human diseases; I am sure someone in that field could help you understand the totality of evidence that supports the widely accepted idea that HIV is the cause of AIDS symptoms (resulting from the destruction of immune cells).

However, as I have seen over the years how science is pursued and applied, I have reservations. Humans make the decisions as to what scientific investigations will be made. Humans make decisions as to how much money will be allocated to different scientific endeavors. Humans interpret scientific results. Humans profit from science. The human factor is FAR from scientific and it taints science.

For example, pharmaceutical companies engage in huge amounts of research into how to treat and cure various diseases. But which ones? The diseases whose treatment will yield the largest profit for that company! How reliable can their results be for third parties who do not share in those profits when the motive for scientific investigation in financial gain?

Sure, there is a human element to ANY human endeavor, including science. But that does not mean that ALL science is wrong or otherwise suspect. As I said in my earlier post, for certain conclusions such as natural selection and AIDS, there is SO MUCH evidence that is transcends any human subjectivity. And yes, scientists have been wrong before as I said earlier as well. But, as I also said, science is a self-correcting process. If HIV does not cause AIDS, it would eventually be discovered. But, SO MUCH research has been done on HIV and AIDS, that it is highly unlikely that this conclusion will change. But imagine you are a young scientist. What is the fastest way you can become rich and famous? By debunking a widely accepted idea. If HIV does not cause AIDS and if a young scientist has SCIENTIFIC evidence, he/she would rush it to publication. There is no conspiracy here - any more than there is in hiding the "flaws" in the theory of natural selection.

Another example. What exactly is natural selection? Since 10,000 or so years ago (the end of the last ice age), humankind has been domesticating plants and animals. We have altered their genes so that they have characteristics that suit our needs (not theirs). Some grains crops are so domesticated that they can no longer exist in nature without our actively farming them. What is natural about that selection?

Actually, the example you give is NOT natural selection. It is artificial selection. The principles underlying both are the same (only some, rather than all, individuals in a population reproduce each generation). However, the INTENSITY of selection is quite high in domestication, whereas in natural selection, it is more subtle. Darwin relied heavily on examples of artificial selection to suggest that the same thing could be happening in nature as well.. albeit at a much slower pace. If humans can produce countless breeds of dogs in a few hundred years, what can nature do over hundreds of millions of years? (Here I am assuming you are not a "young Earth creationist).

Ultimately, the talk of HIV not causing AIDS and the theory of natural selection being full of obvious flaws is just talk. There is an underlying current: that there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to "hide" these things. Believe me, scientists are as career oriented as anyone on Wall Street - if I can show that natural selection is flawed, I will do it tomorrow (shit, I might even pull an all nighter). Even more troubling though, there is assumption that thousands of scientists with a cumulative millions of years of training and work are somehow wrong and the preacher is your local church with no training in biology somehow recognizes the flaws that all these scientists cannot. Seriously?

Cheers

Crypton

04-03-08, 00:10

OK, I think it's safe to assume that you accept there are other disease conditions that are NOT contagious. e.g. atherosclerosis, stroke, asthma, glaucoma, etc. Would you now agree that in each of these conditions, the symptoms are essentially acute/chronic inflammation, hardening or degeneration of the affected tissues?

Sure they are. But there are all kinds of chronic diseases - some of which involve pathogenic organisms and some that don't. The broad consensus is that AIDS involves infection of the human immune system with HIV.

But now we have electron microscopes and tons of sensitive equipment that can detect all kinds of critters. So if a supposed pathogen (viral or bacterial) cannot be found despite the development of (disease name) symptoms or if the same symptoms arise without the presence of said pathogen, then, by the scientific method, it cannot conclusively be considered a causing agent, yes? I agree it would be inadvisable to deny science. But I also feel it would be dangerous to sit smugly and crystalize what we know now as ultimate truth, since science, as formulated by mankind in his ongoing attempts to understand the nature of things, cannot ever be static, and therefore must be evolutionary. Anyway, if you'll let me lean on your bio-science background, I think we have the basis of a fruitful discussion on AIDS, an issue that definitely affects field behavior.

So.. can you cite publications in reputable journals such as Nature, Science, JAMA, NEJM, etc., that conclusively show that no HIV was found in patients with full blown AIDS? I agree science is not perfect and it is not designed to be so. As I said in my post below, it is a self-correcting endeavor. But, I think HIV = AIDS is beyond all of that. There is just too much evidence.

Cheers.

Orange Sunshine

04-03-08, 04:27

The broad consensus is that AIDS involves infection of the human immune system with HIV.Yes, that's the current accepted theory. But for the sake of this discussion, let's try to rely as much as possible on physiological first principles in regards to pathological states and their causes.

So we've come to an agreement that some diseases develop without microbes as etiological factors.

If we take a person suffering from asthma; remove all causes of her affliction; institute lifestyle changes to rebuild her health; and if recovery allows her to frolic in a field of spring flowers without ever again inducing a collapse of her bronchial tubes; then we have an expected end result since germs as causal agents were never a factor in this scenario.

But, if we then use the very same protocols and apply them to a person suffering from the common cold; and this person experiences even faster recovery (as expected for acute illnesses); how do we then justify continued acquiescence to the contagion mindset perpetuated by allopathic medical organizations? And if such recoveries number in the thousands, shouldn't that give us pause to re-examine our current views on health care?

Considering that Western medical science has embraced the vaunted germ theory since the mid-19th century, the fact that this body of knowledge has failed miserably to conquer the common cold after all this time, is downright sobering. With this kind of track record, people are apt to wonder if these experts are on the right track, especially in regards to something more catastrophic like AIDS.
So.. can you cite publications in reputable journals such as Nature, Science, JAMA, NEJM, etc., that conclusively show that no HIV was found in patients with full blown AIDS?I was going to offer a lame excuse like "my books are in storage" or "I've given my books away" or that "mainstream medical journals would never publish anything contrary to consensus viewpoints" or just admit that I was too lazy to dig up references. But I thought, what the hell, let's google this. Entering the search terms "AIDS without HIV", I came across a bunch of links. Here are just two related items:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718610.700-cause-unknown-for-aids-without-hiv-.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1883009

Encouragingly, some people are no longer swallowing consensus views lock, stock and barrel. That said, I'm actually surprised that the BMJ published something like this back in the 90s.

George90

04-03-08, 22:43

Well... I think thousands of doctors and scientists would disagree with you on that. People who think HIV is not linked to AIDS are a definite minority and do not have any scientific evidence to back them up.

I think you should re-read my post. Your response to my post implies that you believe it is possible for someone to develop AIDS without being exposed to HIV.

George90

04-03-08, 22:53

But imagine you are a young scientist. What is the fastest way you can become rich and famous? By debunking a widely accepted idea. If HIV does not cause AIDS and if a young scientist has SCIENTIFIC evidence, he/she would rush it to publication. There is no conspiracy here - any more than there is in hiding the "flaws" in the theory of natural selection.

Are you familiar with the referee process in the publication of reserch in academic journals? If so, then you know it is humans who evaluate each article and decide whether is is worty of publication. The human element in that process taints and corrupts it. How? Because that young scientist who is trying to debunk an accepted theory will have his/her article reviewed by the very scientist whose theory is being debunked!!!! It won't get published!!! In fact, older theories get replaced by new theories usually after the earlier scientists have retired or passed away. Unless, it is the the original scientist who is sharing in the updated of his/her older theory.

George90

04-03-08, 23:10

I agree science is not perfect and it is not designed to be so. As I said in my post below, it is a self-correcting endeavor. But, I think HIV = AIDS is beyond all of that. There is just too much evidence.

Crypton,

Read your statement! HIV = AIDS. I disagree with that statement!

What I have problems with is the implied simplicity of that relationship. If HIV, then AIDS. It is not that simple.

The evidence strongly supports that notion that HIV is a necessary but not sufficient condition for developing AIDS within a given time frame. I believe that! There are, as yet, unidentified necessary co-factors for developing AIDS, given that one is HIV+.

In addition, you know there are many variations/strains of the basic HIV because it is a "RNA" virus that mutates easily and rapidly. The research developed in one strain is not entirely applicable to another strain. For example, the US research is based on the strain common in North America. Much less research is being done on the strains found in Africa or Asia.

Even the NA strain is mutating so that the research done in the 80's may no longer be relevant to the strain prevalent in 2010.

Science may correct itself, at varying rates, over time. And that means that, at a point in time, not all scientific knowledge is correct and accurate.

Orange Sunshine

04-05-08, 15:18

The evidence strongly supports that notion that HIV is a necessary but not sufficient condition for developing AIDS within a given time frame. I believe that! There are, as yet, unidentified necessary co-factors for developing AIDS, given that one is HIV+.1) Cases exist in which symptoms developed in the absence of HIV.

2) Cases exist in which symptoms have not developed despite being HIV+.

Combining these two observations, wouldn't it be reasonable to at least consider the possibility that the unknown co-factors alone ARE the causal agents? i.e. HIV!=AIDS.
Science may correct itself, at varying rates, over time. And that means that, at a point in time, not all scientific knowledge is correct and accurate.I agree. As you mentioned, science is also heavily influenced by the human factor. To overturn a theory supported by a vast majority of researchers / practitioners means eating a lot of crow. And if the same theory forms the backbone of a profitable industry (pharmaceuticals), then the correction becomes much more difficult IMO.

That Asshole

04-06-08, 07:49

2008 - Pimps and monks and sex-tourists. What is in common?
---------------------------

1./ *** Birds, dogs and "dog-tors" ***

Birds search and hoard food all day. The bear searches and hoards food all day. People search and hoard food all day. Dog-tors selflessly help people all day. Strange. When do they find the time to search and hoard food? Police selflessly serve the people all day. Strange. When do they find the time to search and hoard food? Ingenious! We have just discovered two species that can live without food, without shelter. Just by "selflessly helping" others. They only give and expect nothing in return. They have no houses, no families, no needs, no digestive systems. Only hearts. This is more amazing than nuclear physics.
------------------

2./ *** Police, Dog-tors and Cocky Cola ***

Despite of the obvious logic against it, why do we still believe that "dog-tors" care for health and police protect public order? Again, why do we associate MIB with computers and McHappy with hamburgers, Cocky Cola with soft drink? Is it because of "advertising"? Endlessly repeating the same messages every day from all media again and again and again, effectively brainwashing everyone who cares to listen.

Clever marketing indeed, free publicity from news-media every single day. Police and dog-tors. Police and dog-tors. What is the news today? We already know: "Police and dog-tors". Same tomorrow too. Same every day. The public are being brainwashed into believeing that dog-tors care for "health" and police protect public order. Every other business pays for publicity. These get it free! Of course, no logic, no evidence for either claim. No more than "McBurger makes you happy"!
-------------------

3./ *** Live from what? ***

Dog-tors are the enemy of good health. Police are the enemy of public order. The above statement is as logical as it gets. They do get paid from disease and from disorder. Never form "health" and "peace". The dog-tor does not actually want to kill you. But if you happen to die as a result of the treatment he couldn't care less. As long as you pay the bills before you die.
---------------

4./ *** Who can count? ***

The author of this posting is confident, that rumours of "disease" strengthen the influence of dog-tors and rumours of "crime" strengthen the position of police. Just as rumours of war empower the Army and weapons production. Of course making "rumours" costs money. But it is just simple business mathematics. I cannot afford a full page advert in the New York Times, saying "Aids is a lie! 9/11 is another lie!"

But there are many who can afford it, saying the opposite: "Aids kills! Terrorists are attacking us!" The $200,000.- you pay for the ad is tax-deductible. The rest are profits, a few million from rockets, another billion from chemicals, etc. Even if you are just a plain electrician, baker or builder and can fill out a balance sheet you will grasp the logic behind it.

----------------

5./ *** Who profits? ***

I thought the first suspect in every murder is the main beneficiary. Out of the 9/11 mayhem for example the NYPD got 20,000 new recruits. Increased powers to the sky too! Who is the beneficiary? Some crazy bearded foreigners? Someone must be really stupid to believe that.
----------------------

6./ *** Did someone say "stupid"? ***

Of course the women are the stupidest class of society. Wonder why they make 80% of doctors clients and 80% of police informers too! They are in fact the most primary target of all advertising. 51% of population, 51% of voters. Combine this with the deprivation of men from sex. They will also do what the women tell them to do. You get control over 99% of the polulation.
----------------------

7./ *** Monks and pimps and sex-tourists ***

As you might have figured by now, sex-tourism is not really about "sex". It is more about freedom and peace. In fact it should be more correctly called "freedom-tourism" or "peace-tourism". Just as monks and pimps, sex-tourists cannot be manipulated by sex. Because we get too much of it. It is pouring out of our ears, we swim in it. Fuck sex, fuck women, fuck propaganda! Give us the facts! Yes, this makes us public enemies. Now you know why.

-----------------
8./ *** A basic answer? ***

The most basic question is in "You". Ask yourself: "Do I lie?" Answer is: Of course I do. "How about others? Do they lie?" Of course they do. "Do they lie less than me?" Very unlikely. So, why do I believe them? Why, why, why???
-----------

9./ *** Blame who? ***

It is useless to blame the President or the Vice-President like Michael Moore does. Or even the Police, or the Doctors. It is "Me" who believes. They cannot mislead me without my cooperation. It is all my fault. Having come this far you have done then first step to freedom. Your next logical one is to become either a monk, a pimp or a sex-tourist. So, you will be free from sex and from manipulation by sex. Today is the great step you must take. Pimp? Monk? Sex-tourist?
--------------------------

10./ *** Different channels ***

It is all about religion. People actually "believe" that there is Aids. They have faith in it, because that's what they are programmed to believe. They do not "know" but believe. Try to convince a Mormon that there is no god. What is your best argument you can tell him? "I heard it on TV that there is no god." What will he say? "We must be watching different channels". Every day you are told that there isn't one. He is told every day that there is one. Who is right? You know who.
-----------

11./ *** Power is truth. Truth is power. ***

The ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. They are always right. Because they get their way. So is with Aids. They have the money and they have the guns. Therefore they are right. You cannot argue with a big fist in your face. Or with a big gun against your head. In fact "power is truth". That is the justice of the present system. Aids believers? Let them have their own religion. All they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on TV. Ridiculous really.
-----------------------
12./ Let there be peace. And "peace-tourism".
----------------------
End "Adidas" posting 2008 (Sport or chemicals, it is all just money.)

EDITOR'S NOTE: I would suggest that the author or another Forum Member consider posting a link to this report in the Reports of Distinction thread. Please Click Here (http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/announcement-reportsofdistinction.php?) for more information.

Starchild2012

04-06-08, 17:07

-----------

11./ *** Power is truth. Truth is power. ***

The ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. They are always right. Because they get their way. So is with Aids. They have the money and they have the guns. Therefore they are right. You cannot argue with a big fist in your face. Or with a big gun against your head. In fact "power is truth". That is the justice of the present system. Aids believers? Let them have their own religion. All they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on TV. Ridiculous really.
-----------------------

It just happened for global warming crap too..now the scientist say..the earth will be cooler this year due to la nina effect and since 1998, the temperature of the earth has not increased but remained stable.

Ha..so much for media and the people..everyone believes...everything blindly now a days...you just need AIDS concert or global warming concert to get all worlds attention.

Now they have given 5 years for warming and when you reach 5..they will postpone to 15 to 20..untill all of present humanity dies naturally.

Orange Sunshine

04-06-08, 21:55

of course the women are the stupidest class of society. wonder why they make 80% of doctors clients and 80% of police informers too! they are in fact the most primary target of all advertising. 51% of population, 51% of voters. combine this with the deprivation of men from sex. they will also do what the women tell them to do. you get control over 99% of the polulation.there are a lot of figures thrown around here but more importantly i'm getting the sense that you don't like women. ;)
just as monks and pimps, sex-tourists cannot be manipulated by sex. because we get too much of it. it is pouring out of our ears, we swim in it. fuck sex, fuck women, fuck propaganda! give us the facts! yes, this makes us public enemies. now you know why.i don't feel it's healthy to repress the sex drive; so although monks may avoid being manipulated by women per se, i can't help but link self-deprivation to one potential pitfall in thailand. e.g. unreported cases of ****philia (http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?id=744)

also, imo not all people are willing to accept facts if that implies they must also accept new responsibilities.
it is useless to blame the president or the vice-president like michael moore does. or even the police, or the doctors. it is "me" who believes. they cannot mislead me without my cooperation. it is all my fault.to me, this is the key point of this post.
it is all about religion. people actually "believe" that there is aids. they have faith in it, because that's what they are programmed to believe. they do not "know" but believe.sometimes it's still easier to perpetuate a belief than to re-examine something that isn't working.
try to convince a mormon that there is no god. what is your best argument you can tell him? "i heard it on tv that there is no god." what will he say? "we must be watching different channels". every day you are told that there isn't one. he is told every day that there is one. who is right? you know who.well, they're both perceived as "right" and the only difference is that one channel may have a broader audience and therefore bigger sponsors. i suppose, then, one could be more "right" than the other (as per your bigger gun model below).
the ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. they are always right. because they get their way. so is with aids. they have the money and they have the guns. therefore they are right. you cannot argue with a big fist in your face. or with a big gun against your head. in fact "power is truth". that is the justice of the present system.yes, the scientific community is far from free of this influence.
aids believers? let them have their own religion. all they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on tv. ridiculous really.rather harsh but that's the gist of it for some people. critical thinking is subordinated to majority rule.

i'm curious, what made you abandon the germ theory? i'm assuming that like almost everybody, you were raised to believe in contagions. what turned it around for you? was it a gradual process or an epiphany? please pm me if you want to take this privately.

George90

04-06-08, 23:52

It just happened for global warming crap too..now the scientist say..the earth will be cooler this year due to la nina effect and since 1998, the temperature of the earth has not increased but remained stable.

This is far off topic so I will be very brief. A few weeks I ago I was watching the Discovery Channel shows on the history of the earth. The gist of one theory is that the last ice age ended of period of time less that the human life span due to a dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) comet that crashed into the glacier that covered Canada at the time. The dry ice turned into gas and caused a dramatic greenhouse effect.

The show ended with a theory of when the next ice age will come and how. The world's climate is maintained by ocean currents. Cold Arctic water sinks and flows to the equater. Water at the equater is warmed and flows north (the Gulf Stream). At the same time the warm water 'sucks' up cold water to be warmed. The warm Gulf Stream keeps New England and Northern Europe with temperate climates.

But the heat transfer system stops when the salinity of Arctic water drops too low. Arctic water will become less salty when the ice caps melt because ice melts into fresh water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water so the cold fresh water won't sink and flow south. It will just stay in the Arctic. That means the Arctic won't get the warm Gulf Stream water and ice will form again possibly leading to a new ice age or mini ice age.

A US president once joked about wanting to have one-handed economists, but I think we can use one-handed scientists as well. LOL!

Carnevalisticus

04-12-08, 11:30

Guys, in " general " an infection is the " starting factor " for a desease. Aids might need a HIV infection, but noone said thats the only condition.

Look at H5N1, Birdflue, a real Killer. And it turned out that the former " spanish flue. Which killed millions in a short periode of time. Is a direct linked exemplar to that H5N1 virus which is rapidly mutating towards human organism acceptance.

Conclusion: It might be true that a disease needs in any case a " start up " by a virus infection, but its not prooven that it couldn't show up with out infection. If there is just one case where its truley prooven that AIDS was pos. Tested without HIV infection, than you have the same problem as you have with H5N1, a desease which could be ignited by a virus, which is also so fast mutating than HIV, that this primar condition is not/ or not in general / needed any longer.

Well, I need a drink, deseasefree!

Cheers, C.

Xion149

04-13-08, 07:46

Also, IMO not all people are willing to accept facts if that implies they must also accept new responsibilities.

Pot, meet Kettle.
I think you'll find you two have alot in common.

Orange Sunshine

04-13-08, 17:32

Pot, meet Kettle.

I think you'll find you two have alot in common.Heh, spell it out, man, and please refrain from useless innuendo. It adds nothing to the discussion. If you're able to put together a cogent argument, I'd welcome the opportunity to examine your input. As it stands there's an outstanding query for which you have yet to provide a logical response: If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent?

While we're at it, if this Roger Cochrane - despite whatever is claimed to be the source of his HIV infection, be it dirty needles in Vietnam or a secret gay lover - recovers under a specific protocol that disregards HIV as THE pathogen, would it be reasonable, again, to expand one's framework regarding the disease process with respect to AIDS?

Xion149

04-14-08, 08:45

Heh, spell it out, man, and please refrain from useless innuendo.

Irony isn't funny if you spell it out, but here goes:
Your senseless denial of basic facts and scientific method appears to be an elaborate flight of fancy- a crude attempt to self-rationalize risky behavior, and to avoid the responsibility of safe sex.
That spelled out clear enough?

As it stands there's an outstanding query for which you have yet to provide a logical response: If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent?

I left the query outstanding, because its already been discussed, AD INFINITUM. Once again because you have trouble reading:

AIDS is a collection of symptoms, resulting from a destroyed immune system.
HIV is a disease, that destroys your immune system.

Is HIV the only way to destroy your immune system? Probably not. Yet you seem to think that this mere possibility is evidence enough to discount the millions who DID arrive at this condition from barebacking/needle sharing. That is simply flawed reasoning- you need to study (and practice) using the scientific method.

Not everyone that has HIV will develop AIDS. This has nothing to do with causality- IT IS THE NATURE OF THE ORGANISM ITSELF. The progress which the disease makes against your immune system is VARIABLE and depends on factors PARTICULAR TO THE INDIVIDUAL like your health, diet, lifestyle, genetics, and likely others yet undiscovered.

VARIABLE. Read it one more time. VARIABLE.

While we're at it, if this Roger Cochrane - despite whatever is claimed to be the source of his HIV infection, be it dirty needles in Vietnam or a secret gay lover - recovers under a specific protocol that disregards HIV as THE pathogen, would it be reasonable, again, to expand one's framework regarding the disease process with respect to AIDS?

Again, already been discussed. This is why I didn't bother retyping this crap the first time. It goes without saying that any treatment which boosts the immune system, natural or otherwise, will improve the condition of HIV/AIDS patients and help fight off the disease. Thats the only part of the story I agree with. Trying to use this as a basis for disproving germ theory and then saying "oh yeah by the way, this guy really liked shooting up smack" is really just silly and irresponsible.

The core of my problem with your argument is not that you are trying to debunk some well-established theories about the disease. There's nothing wrong with that. Its the manner in which you go about it. You can't debunk something just by offering up another possibility. Anything is possible. You need to offer evidence that DISPROVES the current theory (you can't) as well as have evidence that supports your claims (you don't). The evidence I've seen is pretty clear. An uncle who got into heroin in the late 80's- is now dead. A friend's father (straight guy, in the Marines, and at peak health) is now dead.

I don't understand why you argue this so passionately. Ultimately, whether HIV causes AIDS is unimportant, because just having plain old HIV is almost equally as deadly. I wonder; if you had a son, or younger brother in his teens and about to become sexually active- would you recommend your viewpoint to him with equal enthusiasm?

That Asshole

04-15-08, 09:43

Germ-Theory under scrutiny

The text will cover the following:

1.0 Reason for writing
2.0 What is "Germ-Theory?"
3.0 Explanations
--------------------------
3.1 Some historical background
3.2 Tree of science
--------------------------
4.0 Germ Theory
4.1 Why is it popular
4.2 Why does it work?
--------------------------
5.0 A common misconception
--------------------------
6.0 Summary and conclusion
7.0 A Reminder
--------------------------
Epilogue
--------------------------

How to read it?

Each step takes you one step further to understanding it. I suggest a step-by-step approach. And thinking along. Because you can!

--------------------------

1.0 Why to write?

Why write? I feel it is most important to answer this first of all. Why would we talk without reason? We would be like women then. So, the only reason I am writing is because it is a interesting activity. We live now in the age of "Savers", who want to save anything and anyone. "Save the whales, save the rainforests, save the children, save the world, save everything." Unclear why, possibly even they don't know the reason. But that's the command they got from TV so that's what they do.

Save or not to save?

Most definitely I do not want to save you, or anyone, from evil, from aids, from germs or even from doctors. Doctors are just scavengers, preying on the weak, the emotionally unstable, the undecided and uninformed. They are definitely not evil, not any more than lions, vultures, hyenas or maggots are. All these scavengers are a necessity of the world and do a great job in keeping the population of the "unfit" down. Scavengers like these recycle the waste. By waste I mean all the automatons, the programmed robots, the compulsive thoughtless copulators who are just "meat" for the medical predators. "Bodies" should I say, without their own houghts and therefore without "life" anyway.

So, let this be just a simple exercise in putting words in a vaguely meaningful way, simply because it is exciting to do. Especially in contrast of our present "cellfone-age" when words are cheap, plentiful and mostly meaningless.

-----------------------

2.0 What is germ-theory?

The belief that illness is caused by invading microorganisms from the outside. Various types, but most importantly: bacteria and viruses.

-----------------------

3.0 Historical background

3.1 Losing the foundation

Separation of "sciences" is one current phenomenom. Just one century ago all scientists were classified as "natural philosophers", generally having some understanding of the greater World beside their specific fields. Now the trend is "specialization" with the total exclusion of anything except a narrow area of interest. There are "brain specialists, skin specialists, internet specialists, space specialists and every kinds of specialists".

As an actual effect, there is no "overview", no connections among disciplines of science. Numerous theories and speculations just floating in thin air, without a strong foundation from other disciples. Many of these "theories" are simply based on superficial observations, wishful thinking, and the power of commercialism. Also, because of the strong specialization, one so called "expert's" opinion is nearly impossible to challenge, because there is no-one else with that kind of specialized expertize.

-----------------------

3.2 The "Noble Tree of Science"

First the seed

Like everything grows from one single seed, so has "science" - (explaining the workings of the World). Knowledge becomes like a tree, with many branches. But they still stay connected and can be traced back right to the one seed. This is the ideal. But is not happening any more. See #2 above.

The original science, foundation of all other so called "sciences" is mathematics. Starting with the counting numbers of 1,2,3 and basic geometry, gradually diversifying into complex calculations. Each mathematical "theorem" is based on something simpler than itself, on something that had been proved totally, absolutely, doubtlessly. There is no such thing as "maybe" in mathemathics. If the truth of one theorem is such absolutely established, another or many more theorems can be built upon it. Ideas without proof are called "conjectures". Any other idea built on these is also necessarily just a "conjecture" itself. While mathematical proofs are absolute, "conjectures" cannot be relied on. No self-respecting mathematician would do so.

Second step

The next step up tyhe ladder is "physics". It still very often goes hand-in-hand and has strong mathematical foundations. Consider Einstein's famous e=mc2 formula for example. The general theory of relativity is not founded on observations. It is founded on mathemathics and in fact predates observations, predicting them infallibly like a superior future-teller.

The branches

Third step is "chemistry". Often with valuable scientific foundations but with more speculations above them. (Only mathematical proof is absolute and superior to anything else.)

-----------------------

The higher branch we step, the more the speculations, guesses based purely on limited observation. Therefore probability is lower at every step we take. While perhaps possible, but it would take an enormous amount of work and expense to check every idea of every scientific field right back to the basics of 1x2=2. On top of that, there is practically no-one to do it. Hardly no-body is qualified across sciences to that level of understanding. Few if any chemists, biologists, zoologists are trained to a high enough level in mathematics or physics to recognize if there is collision or incompatibility across fields of science.

-----------------------

Computer analogy

Consider the levels of computer languages. On the basic level there is "machine-code". Based on that sits DOS, serving Windows OS above it again. And finally all you see is the Application Softwares (such as word processor, games, etc). While it would be possible to do word-processing in "machine-code" but it would be enormously awkward, unproductive. Much easier to do that in MS Word. While all these levels operate together, 99% of people use the final Application Software only, totally unaware what is really going on and how important all levels are.

Understand today's so called "sciences" as this final stage of software. They are trying to write their own little codes and theories but without understanding every level under it, right back to the basics, they will inevitably fall. They cannot be relied upon for reference. The interface is fancy, the application runs in some instances (in others not) but it is full of bugs and mistakes. Surface observation cannot replace sound theory right to the bottom basics. Maybe this is the point of this whole story.

-----------------------

Growing uncertainty

Next level up chemistry is bio-chemistry, then biology, zoology, antropology, sociology, psychology, medical science and so on and on. All the greater chance for errors, with more speculations, more superficial observations. One of these is "Germ Theory". Observed and proved to a certain level only. Not based on hard and infallible logic (in fact working quite against it).

No-body ever tried to prove germ-theory by logic. It cannot be proven by logic simply because it is illogical and contradicting to more basic scientific principles of physics. Originally I was tempted to elaborate on these. But it would be very easy for any self-made big-ace mathematician come and claim they are wrong. Who would be the judge to decide here? Instead I invite you to do your own research. The more work you put in, the more faults you will find in so called "germ-theory".

-----------------------

Monkeys and germs

To "Germ-theory is closely related another unproven speculation, Darwin's Evolution of Species. Either you keep both or throw out both because they go hand-in-hand, desperately and unconvincingly trying to support each other in dogma.

-----------------------

4.0 Germ theory

4.1 Why germ-theory is so popular?

In fact it is becoming more and more popular in even countries that traditionally discarded it. For example even in conservative Thailand huge "meat-processing-factories" (they call them hospitals) are being built at lightning rate in every city and town. Despite it's obvious contradictions and faults, why is "germ-theory" so enormously commercially succesful?

a. Easy to sell to present day people. They like to blame others for their own misery. Like to think themselves as faultless, blaming everything on the outside "invaders", while they can stay "innocent victims" (of germs, crime, etc). Call the cops, bring the big guns and so on.

b. Offers a "quick cure with no-effort-needed". As opposed to change in whole lifestyle and habits, taking the blame for one's own problems.

c. Political pressure. The alternative to "Evolution/Germ-theory" is too fearsome for many people. They choose "germs" as alternative to religion. (Thereby fooling themselves because "materialism" is a religion too.)

d. Lastly but not least: Because "Evolution/Germ-theory/ hard-core materialism" renders women equal with men. Easy to sell to 51% of citizens (and 80% of shoppers, money spenders) in any country.

-----------------------

4.2 Why does germ-theory work?

Advocators of germ-theory bring it up above else: "But it works! So it must be right!" Take anti-biotics, anti-virals, etc as most cited example. Claimed to bring the most impressive results. The possible cases are:

a. It kills the bacteria. Relieves the symptoms. They consider this as a cure. Most people if take a rest get better anyway, without antibiotics. Believing in the power of the doctor also helps. It eases the depression that comes with helplessness against disease. But also many people get "worse" from antibiotics. This is not often publicised.

b. It kills viruses. Not possible. Virus is already "dead". What I mean is that no-body has actually seen a virus. They do claim to see things, coincidentally present in the blood of "sick" (sick = mentally compromised state= chaos) people. However they are nothing else but some natural protein-formations that "just happen to be there". Imagining them to be "harmful invaders" can be compared to some people seeing all sorts of monsters when looking at the shape of clouds in the sky. Try it!

Viruses are not red, not green and not evil. They have no color (they die them artificially for fotografing). Also they have no life, therefore do no harm. Cannot. Yes, this includes not just "hiv, aids", but also the so called influenza, anthrax, ebola ++ viruses. Please think logically. These "lifeforms" as they are described, cannot exist, they are irrational ideas.

-----------------------

5.0 A common misconception

One common misconception by the public is that: "Doctors are intelligent, so they must be right". False! Only "learned" in a very narrow field they are. Very able to memorize and recite. But sadly lacking logic and scientific reasoning in most cases. Most doctors would never have made a good (or even average) mathematician/physicist. That's why they became doctors instead. The same goes for "medical scientists", eg. microbiologists, etc. Their intelligence is probably lower than an average computer programmer. (At least the latter need to use logic and reasoning on an everyday level.)

-----------------------

Doctors only look up a symptom with a matching treatment from the book (or computer-program now). Most are mediocre, a totally imaginationless class of society. However they are a success-story of today's degenerate world for the very reason. "Follow and never question"! And they are best at that. Most likely the "germ-theory" (incl Aids) wasn't even invented by doctors but simply handed down to them as a dogma by the ruling "Political Elite". Doctors the "germ-mongers" (and police the crime-mongers) are very simply: The Grim Dark Soldiers of Chaos.

-----------------------

6.0 Summary/Conclusion:

1./ Germ-thory does not explain the cause of "disease", very simply because cannot even define (not even trying) the basic terms of :

a. Life
b. Person
c. Suffering (who could?)

-----------------------

2.0 Germ-theory contradicts basic proven physical and mathematical laws. It is illogical, a dogma, a conjecture. Lacking physical and mathematical basis whatsoever. It does not stand before logical scrutiny. A dark by-product of the "materialist religion". It's only merit is that it suits many people psychologically and therefore is extremely easy to sell to the masses. (Very same goes for "Evolution". Sold well.)

-----------------------

7.0 Reminder

Do not forget: Science has one main purpose. What? Advancing humanity? No! That sounds like a line out of Vladimir Lenin's propaganda book. Science's main purpose is to feed people. Take a look at any human (even yourself in the mirror). What lies in the very center of the body? That is the stomach. That is the center of the world of everyone. Main priority is to make a living from science. Truth always comes second best. To protect the stomach, people will defend their ideas from being discredited. Even if they know they are totally wrong. Remember this before giving too much credit to science. Any science, any scientist.

-----------------------

Epilogue

Fishmonger standing before his shop, calling out loud: - "Anybody for fish?" Greengrocer in dirty apron does same: - "Anybody for apples?" Doctor in white coat goes: - "Anybody for germs? I cannot stop you being miserable but I let you blame it on someone else!" The cop is not far behind: -" Anybody for crime? I cannot stop you getting robbed but I'll let you blame some other guy and you can fool yourself being the innocent victim."

-----------------------

End big-germy posting 2008

Xion149

04-15-08, 22:44

Epilogue

Fishmonger standing before his shop, calling out loud: - "Anybody for fish?" Greengrocer in dirty apron does same: - "Anybody for apples?" Doctor in white coat goes: - "Anybody for germs? I cannot stop you being miserable but I let you blame it on someone else!" The cop is not far behind: -" Anybody for crime? I cannot stop you getting robbed but I'll let you blame some other guy and you can fool yourself being the innocent victim."

-----------------------

End big-germy posting 2008

tl;dr
How long did you spend writing that?
Whatever you are smoking, you need to pass that shit.

AfAsia

04-15-08, 23:39

The Origin of AIDS:http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=123

That Asshole

04-20-08, 03:02

RE Posting: Germ Theory examined
-----------------
Due to the nature of this forum, I am unable to edit the posts. Therefore here are corrections of some unfortunate "spelleeng mistaiks":

paragraph #1 "houghts" - should read: "thoughts"
paragraph #4.2 "they die them" - should read: "they dye them"
------------------
Sorry for the mis-spellings. TA

Romano V

05-06-08, 20:51

Situation in Moldova : http://www.aids.md/files/library/2005/478/situational-analysis-hiv-rm-2005.pdf

Balti situation even worse than UKRAINE who has the record in Europe with Russia and Estonia.

Brad Dupree

05-15-08, 15:00

Fellas - I became a hobbyist about five years ago. Since that time, I've maintained a safe sex rate of about 71/75 or 95%.

The most recent of my lapses in better judgment came about 6 weeks ago. It happened in Singapore. I was having a lot of beer with co-workers at OT. I had a beautiful girl sitting in my lap during the drinking binge. After the drinking I go back to my hotel with my smoking hot date and of course with the alcohol and her beauty I proceed to have condom-less sex with her. It was quite nice :-)

Of course, when I wake the next morning I'm immediately struck with guilt and panic that I've put myself in jeopardy of contracting hiv. So for the next six weeks I do nothing but obsess on the chances that I have contracted hiv.

I obsess so much that I spend hours reading about transmission statistics and prevalence rates. Mostly what I read puts my mind at ease as the literature that seems to present the facts honestly w/o use of fear mongering says that men generally dont get hiv from women. But I still obsess and feel that I've very possibly contracted hiv.

I finally went for the hiv test 2 days ago and I ask the doc the deal of female to male trans. He says, 'it's very very hard to pass that way - but not impossible'. Hmmm, that's encouraging. Well, of course, the results were negative.

With the info that I've read over the years and with my personal experiences I'm finally turning the corner on the belief that fem to male trans is nearly impossible. There in lies my dillema, if I start to accept this belief I'll invariable start to use condoms less often.

However, during the window period and test time after condom less sex, I always seem to fall back into my old way of thinking that one slip = hiv contraction = early death.

Questions : shouldn't I just get out of the game since it causes me so much emotional toil? Does anyone care to speak openly about their lack of condom use and personal experiences with doing so? Does anyone here really know of any guys like us who have contracted hiv from sex with working girls?

I understand that there are plenty of other diseases that warrant condom use but I'm mainly interested in attitudes on hiv.

Starchild2012

05-15-08, 19:51

Wow..as always good write from thatasshole..

keep writing..seriously you should write a book on your thoughts...its interesting and gives a new perspective.

Hole In One

05-16-08, 17:58

Carnevalisticus

05-28-08, 21:19

Man, are you seriouse?

The risk to catch an infection like Flu etc is obviouse.Getting Syphillys , or Tripper is easy with daty and BBBJ.

But talking about Aids it is a different story, why do you think that african villages are empty? Its because of Aids, an intire generation 25-45 year old persons has been allmost whiped out in several african countries. Only kids and elder ones ,65 years plus are there.

The risk of getting infected with HIV is high having sex with unknown persons, but BBBJ and DATY have " in general " a lower infection risk, but it exists!

And in Germany , health controle is obligated once a week ! SO , I supose you got a flu ! Take a breath and contact the next doctor!

And look the next time if the entrance area of your partner is well cleaned.

Yours , C.

Intransit

06-09-08, 09:06

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html?service=Print

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts

By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."

In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.

Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread."

Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.

Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.

Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.

Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.

"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."

But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.

"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?"

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.

"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.

"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.

"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.

"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"

Hecker

06-09-08, 10:44

Hi Guys,

I got a similiar question as Brad Dupree. I did a bit of a party on Sunday and Monday in some FKK clubs in Germany. My sessions included kissings, BBBJ, DATY, and normal covered sex. A few days later, I'm down on my knees sick from a bacterial throat infection. I've been laying in bed now for the last 3 days not being able to swallow, fever, headache etc. What is the chances that I caught this infection from one of the girls, and if I did get it was it from kissing or DATY or BBBJ.

Also, if I have BBBJ, and DATY, am I in the risk zone of catching AIDS? I also wonder, just like BD, if someone knows about people getting infected from working girls. Surely this must happen but nobody talks about it.You may have caught gonococcal pharyngitis from DATY.You have to get swabs from throat to get culture but the results can delay some days.

Otherwise you may have normal viral pharyngitis,or bacterial from streptococcus or infectious mononucleosis,all of them not related to DATY.

In any case you need to get throat swabs for microscopic examination unless it is proven that it is infectious mononucleosis.

By BBBJ it is unlikely to get infected by AIDS unless you have scratches from teeth.By DATY is more likely to get infected especially if you have herpes simplex on lips or any injury in oropharyngeal cavity which allows entrance to the virus.
It is important to check the status of the pro,if she is a drug addict,her chances to have AIDS are increased,or if she comes from a place where AIDS is endemic.
Some people get infected from working girls.Most commonly working girls spread gonococcus,chlamydia,herpes,warts and other venereal diseases,so it is more likely to get them than AIDS and if she is HIV carrier,she has almost always another STD far more contagious as well like herpes or HPV which can increase enormously the potential of HIV to get transmitted.

More people get infected by working men.

Jan 156

08-20-08, 08:00

I had a beautiful girl sitting in my lap during the drinking binge. After the drinking I go back to my hotel with my smoking hot date and of course with the alcohol and her beauty I proceed to have condom-less sex with her. It was quite nice :-)

Of course, when I wake the next morning I'm immediately struck with guilt and panic that I've put myself in jeopardy of contracting hiv. So for the next six weeks I do nothing but obsess on the chances that I have contracted hiv.

Questions : shouldn't I just get out of the game since it causes me so much emotional toil?

Or you could improve your game. I avoid mixing large amounts of alcohol and women, for instance. And if you are worried after an accident, it is more logical to go for emergency morning-after drugs than obsessing about it.

Worrying is normal. Doing something sensible gives you more options.

Of course, it is easier to give advice when one is not in the situation. But that is maybe when the forum can help too - thinking calmly, you may say the same thing I just have to someone who had posted what you did while emotionally distracted and stressed.

Take care. Enjoy your life - whatever you do! :-)

Soapy Smith

01-05-09, 08:44

I've nearly completed reading a great book on HIV and AIDS with international scope. The book, entitled **The Wisdom of *****s: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS** came out about six months ago. It is written by Elizabeth Pisani, a Ph.D. epidemiologist trained in Great Britain. It is written to be accessible by most anyone rather than in the stuffy lexicon of academe. She has extensive experience studying HIV/AIDS in the field in Southeast Asia and Africa. The upshot, hinted at in the title, is that you can learn most about how the disease is transmitted by talking to people in settings where it gets transmitted, i.e., from prostitutes and those who inject drugs. It's very down to earth, and avoids condemning people for their behavior. She explodes numerous myths and takes careful aim at American policy under George Bush that tied HIV/AIDS funding to abstinence only programs and discouraged distribution and active education about condom use. She also sheds skepticism on the recent outpouring of reports about the transporting of sex slaves, arguing that most of the Third World prostitutes she has studied had entered the business willingly because it paid much better than factory work or department store retail sales.

Although Pisani anchors her claims in a mountain of existing research, the book is actually kind of a page-turner because it really tells the nitty gritty of what happens out on the streets of the developing world. I highly recommend it.

That Asshole

01-25-09, 21:25

I've nearly completed reading a great book on HIV and AIDS with international scope. The book, entitled **The Wisdom of *****s: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS** came out about six months ago. It is written by Elizabeth Pisani, a Ph.D. epidemiologist trained in Great Britain. Hello there brothers,

Yes, there are lots of oponions about everything. However, I would like to point out that what matters is not really what you say but "who" says it. What can a "Elizabeth" say? Well, not much more than "Fuck me guys, do I look good in the mirror?"

Gentlemen, it is long overdue that women get back where they belong. That is: the kitchen, washing room and the brothels. What can a woman teach to a man? Well, pretty much nothing. We would be fools to listen to a fuckhole. Just looking good and actually being good are two very different matters. A woman can only excell in looking good and that's all. We know better. We would be fools to listen. I am sure all men agree on this.

So, how about less woman doctors, teachers and self-made educators but more (cheap) fuckers instead? It's only up to us. Up to us, men.

John Dough

02-18-09, 03:40

I also noticed that the only one alternative title: Duesberg's "Inventing the aids virus" was gone. It might be out on loan. Or it might have been removed for good. It is a pretty clever book. Makes you think twice. Too dangerous for the "aids business".
http://www.duesberg.com/

In order to develop a hypothesis that explains AIDS we have considered ten relevant facts that American and European AIDS patients have, and do not have, in common:
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/pddrgenetica.html
In view of this, we propose that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and prescriptions of anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe. for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi's sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia.

Tavern

03-05-09, 22:44

For the most part you can enjoy yourself and go bareback, the way it is supposed to be. AIDS/HIV exists, but it is a high risk lifestyle virus. All the scare tactics are just measures for organizations to extract money from taxpayers to fund certain unproductive organizations manned by unproductive people. I don't think twice about AIDS, I am a man it is difficult for men to contract HIV, as long as you and your sex partners are not engaging in a high risk lifestyle.

Yankee 617

03-15-09, 14:51

HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%

Considered a 'Severe' Epidemic, Every Mode of Transmission Is Increasing, City Study Finds

Reporter Darryl Fears speaks with D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty about the HIV/AIDS statistics in the 2008 Epidemiology Annual Report scheduled to be released Monday.

By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page A01

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."

"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said.

In addition to the epidemiology report, the city is also releasing a study on heterosexual behavior tomorrow. That report, funded by the CDC, was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services.

Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex.

Together, the reports offer a sobering assessment in a city that for years has stumbled in combating HIV and AIDS and is just beginning to regain its footing. A more accurate accounting of the crisis offers a chance to contain what is largely a preventable disease.

So urgent is the concern that the HIV/AIDS Administration took the relatively rare step of couching the city's infections in a percentage, harkening to 1992, when San Francisco, around the height of its epidemic, announced that 4 percent of its population was HIV positive. But the report also cautions that "we know that the true number of residents currently infected and living with HIV is certainly higher."

The District's report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006, touching every race and sex across population and neighborhoods, with an epidemic level in all but one of the eight wards. Black men, with an infection rate of nearly 7 percent, carry the weight of the disease, according to the report, which also underscores that the District's HIV and AIDS population is aging. Almost 1 in 10 residents between the ages of 40 and 49 has the virus.

The report notes that "this growing population will have significant implications on the District's health care system" as residents face chronic medical problems associated with aging and fighting a disease that compromises the immune system.

Men having sex with men has remained the disease's leading mode of transmission. Heterosexual transmission and injection drug use closely follow, the report says. Three percent of black women carry the virus, partly a result of the increase in heterosexual transmissions.

"This is very, very depressing news, especially considering HIV's profound impact on minority communities," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's program on infectious diseases. "And remember: The city's numbers are just based on people who've gotten tested."

Yankee 617

06-11-09, 03:25

FYI...

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/india304/aids1.html

I particularly liked the interactive map "Global Impact of HIV/AIDS" as this gives the number of women (and/or men) in each region living with HIV/AIDS.

Agapas

07-20-09, 18:22

Ups, my colleague died 1 year ago because of AIDS. He liked too much OWO with anyone. Since then I never ask for OWO, 69, Not even with classy and clean baby.

Tropical Joe

07-21-09, 14:26

Officially, that new study from Africa only shows that with HIV infected males, circumcised males are not less likely to transmit HIV. Officially, that new study does not show that circumcised males are more likely to transmit HIV.

In that new study, with HIV infected males, 12% of the uncircumcised males infected their partner, and 18% of the circumcised males infected their partner. But the researchers said that some of the circumcised males might of had sex before their circumcision totally healed which may explain why they transmitted at a higher rate. Also, the researchers said that the difference between 12% and 18% in that study are statistically insignificant anyways. So officially, that new study only shows that with HIV infected males, circumcised males are not less likely to transmit HIV to their partner. The first site where I read about that new study it did not mention that the results are statistically insignificant. Because of that, in my previous post I said that according to that study circumcised males are 50% more less likely to transmit HIV, but that is techinically incorrect, and I wouldn't have said that if I knew that the results of the study were statistically insignificant.

Chocha Monger

08-14-09, 21:12

Countries who deport HIV positive foreigners currently are Brunei, China, Cuba, Iraq, North and South Korea, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand.

There are currently 13 countries that bar people with AIDS totally. These countries are Armenia, Brunei, China, Iraq, Qatar, Korea (South), Libya, Moldova, Oman, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the USA.

I found it interesting that Thailand deports HIV positive foreigners given the fact that most of them got AIDS by barebacking Thai prostitutes in the first place.

Rayman

08-27-09, 11:36

Dear All
Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?

Jon32

09-05-09, 04:58

Brad Dupree

09-08-09, 05:10

Dear All,

Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?Not a single response.

I guess you can take that as a 'no'.

Chocha Monger

09-08-09, 23:56

Dear All
Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?
I have known a few people who got AIDS. I can't say how many were mongers or not because people don't usually share that sort of information. In fact, mongers usually keep their activities secret, if that wasn't the case guys would be using their real names on here.

I've had a hooker chase after me in a bar. I blew her off and she got pissed. She started bad mouthing me to the other girls. Less than two years she died from AIDS. I also knew a guy who said he had bad vibes when he was about to bareback the person who infected him. He said that he knew that he shouldn't bareback but he dismissed the alarm bells going off in his head and did it anyway. He cried nonstop for two days when he got confirmation of his positive AIDS test.

Chocha Monger

09-08-09, 23:57

http://www.10news.com/news/20796109/detail.html

Brad Dupree

09-09-09, 06:57

I've had a hooker chase after me in a bar. I blew her off and she got pissed. She started bad mouthing me to the other girls. Less than two years she died from AIDS. The girls are so transient. How did you know what was going on in her life years after a very brief and impersonal encounter? Sounds kinda sensational.

Brad Dupree

09-09-09, 07:03

Chocha Monger

09-09-09, 14:13

The girls are so transient. How did you know what was going on in her life years after a very brief and impersonal encounter? Sounds kinda sensational.
It happened that this one was not transient and was quite famous in the local area. She targeted Americans primarily. When someone goes around trying to make things hard on me for no apparent reason other than my having declined their company, I make it a point to find out who they are. While the encounter was brief and impersonal for me, it wasn't for her. As the saying goes, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. There is nothing sensational about it really. On a typical night in the developing world you can find several HIV positive prostitutes plying their trade in freelance wh*re dens.

Jon32

09-09-09, 20:50

scary stuff guys...

Professor 1

09-09-09, 21:56

Female to Male is very low, and condomless sex with someone positive is a 1 in 2500 (0.04%). Not a statistician, but the more times you do it with someone positive, this number goes up and it's not 'reset' every time you do it? Anyone?

I believe that the percent is for each act. There exists no cumulative effect, so to speak. Of course, you could get a hit on the first try. This would not change the statistical probability.

Hillysex

09-10-09, 16:43

However statistically unlikely it is, even 1 in a billion someone has to be that one. The consequences are so horrific and avoidable to me it's a no brainier.

Macheath

09-12-09, 07:08

However statistically unlikely it is, even 1 in a billion someone has to be that one. The consequences are so horrific and avoidable to me it's a no brainier.

Actually if you're worried about billion to one chances I suggest that you wrap yourself up in cotton wool and stay inside for the remainder of your fearful life. Of course there still remains the chance that eg a piece of space junk could fall on your house etc

Hillysex

09-13-09, 13:08

Actually if you're worried about billion to one chances I suggest that you wrap yourself up in cotton wool and stay inside for the remainder of your fearful life. Of course there still remains the chance that eg a piece of space junk could fall on your house etcSpace junk!?! crap, do you think my tin foil hat will protect me?

Blood Red

09-14-09, 11:22

Hey guys, might be a bit off topic, but could really use some advice/opinions on this.

Just wanted the opinion of some of the people on here with regards to Hepatitis. I've been mongering on and off for about a year, nothing extreme at all. I've always used a condom for penetrative vaginal sex and only had BBBJ with 2 girls a few times and gave oral sex to a couple. I got tested for HIV about a year ago (NEGATIVE) and since then I've ony been a couple of times with 2 WG's from Syria.

Now I'll have to take this medical exam for HIV and Hepatitis A, B and C in a few months and I'm a bit worried about the Hepatitis tests because I hear it is easy to get compared to HIV.

My question is, how easy is it to get Hep A/B/C from BBBJ? How about protected condom sex? My last BBBJ was over 1 year ago, and since then I've only had sex with 2 WG's from Syria 2 times each, all encounters with condom.

Do I have anything to worry about with regards to Hep A/B/C? I don't have any symptoms of anything at all and feel fine, am just feeling a bit paranoid.

Any opinions would be welcome, thanks.

Regards,
BR

Jon32

09-26-09, 17:52

Goga Fung

10-06-09, 16:15

The video tells that HIV does not cause AIDs. That most probable cause are drug use, drugs and AZT(drug to treat HIV)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&hl=en#

Agapas

10-28-09, 20:11

Hi, news from EU committee of 2009, article of The Daily Telegraph.."each 3th of European have NOT IDEA that he is INFECTED by VIRUS HIV already! ". It remind me some pain I have last years.- During the last 2, 5h year's 2 of my colleague's from the office died thanks that shit! You think they were fucking with the cheap staff during their business trips all over Europe, or you think they were not careful enought? Noo, they were very careful as I know. Never any fuck without a protection. If they were meeting some girls, the girls were just "normal and educated girls" from the internet as I know. Yes, some of them were escorts, some of them dancers from night clubs in EU countries, but they did always use a protection, when they were fucking them. I know it from our personal chatting. The only what I know is that they never used the protection for OWO, who could expect that kind of problems later? Now I have a new colleague's and believe that they learn use the protection for OWO when ever they want have a fun. The main problem is that nobody has the complete information, also not a lof of us care very much, right. You think the AIDS is problem of homosexual and "strange people"?

Wake up and open your eyes, be respensible Men!

MumbaiCop

10-30-09, 10:28

The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?Simple, Washington DC is full of fucking politicians.

Siam Slummer

11-01-09, 12:44

I think some of the stronger comments made can hide what is really been said.

Science is dictated now more than ever by the dollar. Research proposals, publications, and general funding is determined by select groups whose interest it is to support the power of the dollar. This ensures that any theory that is financial popular will be accepted.

It may sound cynical but if a company came up with a theory that a tablet that destroyed HIV or AIDS for $5 a pill could be manufactured if money was made available to further research it would that research actually be promoted. Probably not...or if it did by the time it reached the public it would be a course of pills taken over two years at $200 a pill. There are so many people making big money out of the scare campaign.

Remember the drug companies in the US sued South American companies for producing copies of the drugs used to treat HIV. The South American government was practically giving them away because people could not afford treatment. Shows you who the drug companies really care about...it wasn't people!

There is also he idea that AIDS is deadly because villages in Africa are wiped out. Yet the US has 1.2% of the population with AIDS. Does this not suggest a general health problem in Africa? Most of those who died already had other diseases, poor nutrition etc... Do you really think 98% of people in the US use condoms. Do you think all Africans just go around fucking indiscriminately and westerners are monogamous? It would suggest that general health is far more the issue.

Out of the small percent in the US found HIV positive more than three quarters were drug users or homosexual. So out of the population of 350,000,000 Americans about 63,000 vagina fucking males have AIDS (The stats call them high risk hetrosexuals). 7000 of them are white males. Do we really think this is because of condom use and fidelity??? Doesn't seem that scary to me!

Again this supports the idea of general health being the most important factors. It has also been expressed by many medical professionals that a healthy male has less than 1% chance of getting HIV from vaginal sex for the man. Higher for the woman. Drug users and people in poor health are at a higher risks.

It was not long ago Scientists were saying that tobacco smoking was actually good for you because of the kickbacks they receive. This is surely possible in the HIV and AIDS research with all the money that condom factories, drug companies, and governments are making. Look at who donates money to political parties.

Even if you believe the hype, the actual figures seem to suggest you shouldn't start crying in your beer because a condom broke of you got pissed and had sex without a condom one night.

The idea that the world is scary is great for governments that seek greater control of their people whilst they pursue their own agenda. The US is as guilty of this as Iran. It is up to people to question them more than ever.

I also think "That Asshole" raises some actually very insightful concepts about woman and the role they play or have been used in promoting the world as a scary place, and I support his stand on this though even though he would express himself far stronger than I.

Figures from: http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

XXL

11-11-09, 22:25

I found it interesting that Thailand deports HIV positive foreigners given the fact that most of them got AIDS by barebacking Thai prostitutes in the first place.It's now possible to ascertain which strain of the virus one is infected with and where the strain comes from. If one is infected say with a Thailand strain, one should be allowed to stay in Thailand, indeed one should be granted a 10-year stay permit right out. Passports should have a special pages indicating HIV strains carried by the passport bearer. Visas could then be granted or refused accordingly.

Cybertron

11-15-09, 06:23

Hi,

Can I get HIV/AIDS if I get a BJ (without a condom) from an infected girl?

And is it possible that AIDS can also be transmitted through unclean towel and bed sheets?

Starchild2012

11-17-09, 13:16

Hi,

Can I get HIV/AIDS if I get a BJ (without a condom) from an infected girl?

And is it possible that AIDS can also be transmitted through unclean towel and bed sheets?

Absolutely BIG NO, You have to understand that AIDS was created in the laboratory by the elites to control the population, so it effects certain genetic types more than others.

Even if you fuck without condom, chances are very less if your genes comes from island nations who evolved itself without any external help from African continent.

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Its not AIDS that kill people its Ignorance. Do a research on Swine flu and see how the elite plan to depopulate humanity, there is going to be another major pandemic from a cocktail of swine flu virus.

Cybertron

12-01-09, 09:24

Trickbaby

12-04-09, 02:38

from what i see africa, india, haiti, dominican republic have a high rate of this type of transmission. i have some theories on this. in africa the truck drivers do roadside prostitutes and like a sex called 'dry sex" this is where the woman puts astringents in her vagina to dry it up, it creates more friction hence bleeding or microcuts in the epidermis that allow the virus to enter the bloodstream.
anal sex is another biggie because of friction and acids in the anus that create cuts and the proximity of blood vessels in the anus and lower colon area.

uncircumcised males which is prevalent in african americans, and 3rd. world men, evidently the skin under the foreskin is more delicate possibly.

men with syphilis sores, herpes sores or ulcerations on the penis is a direct entry for the virus which is carried in female mucosa.
long sex sessions where the woman may start to get dry or the penis gets burned or scraped from friction.

i read all the stats about the usa statistics and sometimes i wonder if some of the men that claim to have caught it from a female may be closet homosexuals feeling ashamed enough they have the virus and so they keep the secret that they have had gay sex.
in the late 70s through the early 90s until i heard about magic johnson i believed this to be a gay and iv drug use disease or iv drug users passing it to females.
i personally banged hundreds of street prostitutes and i am certain many were hiv positive if not in actual aids full blown and i am negative is it luck? god? or is the threat slanted a little? i have not personally known a man to have caught aids from a woman from sex, i know some will argue and i will continue using condoms just to be safe but i think that for proper research to be done that the seropositive men must be more forthcoming with the real source of how they were infected.

Chocha Monger

12-04-09, 03:04

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Born Loser,

You mean that there are no Filipinos with AIDS? There have been reports of numerous expats dying from AIDS after fucking Filipina girls raw dog. Are you fucking skinless in the Philippines? :eek:

Warbucks

12-04-09, 04:29

Absolutely BIG NO, You have to understand that AIDS was created in the laboratory by the elites to control the population, so it effects certain genetic types more than others.

Even if you fuck without condom, chances are very less if your genes comes from island nations who evolved itself without any external help from African continent.

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Its not AIDS that kill people its Ignorance. Do a research on Swine flu and see how the elite plan to depopulate humanity, there is going to be another major pandemic from a cocktail of swine flu virus.
Born Loser,

You mean that there are no Filipinos with AIDS? There have been reports of numerous expats dying from AIDS after fucking Filipina girls raw dog. Are you fucking skinless in the Philippines? :eek:

BL Filipinas are notorious for carrying Chlamydia which increases the likelihood of a HIV infection by 5 times. Native Filipinas are very ignorant of STDs and very accommodating to a mate...recipe for disaster. They always say shit like they don't like condoms well I don't like Herpes, HIV or a kid.

Man don't talk this immunity stuff no one is immune to anything that infects the human body. Don't spread misinformation and get some newbie sex monger fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_Philippines

Prevalence

The Philippines is a low-HIV-prevalence country, with less than 0.1 percent of the adult population estimated to be HIV-positive. Since 1984, when the Philippines’ first case of HIV was reported, approximately one-third of diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases have occurred among returning migrants. However, because HIV testing for these workers is mandatory in most host countries, this number may be disproportionately high. As of September 2008, the Department of Health (DOH) AIDS Registry in the Philippines reported 3,456 people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA)- www.plwha.org . UNAIDS estimates that 12,000 Filipinos were HIV-positive by the end of 2005.[1]

Up until 2007, heterosexual intercourse accounted for the majority (61 percent) of the Philippines’ reported HIV/AIDS cases, followed in descending order by homosexual and bisexual relations, mother-to-child transmission, contaminated blood and blood products, and injecting drug use, according to UNAIDS, with men comprising 66 percent of reported cases. However in 2007 the proportion was reversed, with homosexual and/or bisexual modes of infection surpassing heterosexual transmission — 56% versus 43%, with the figure rising to 67% for the January to September 2008 period, as against 34%.

[edit] At-risk groups

Most-at-risk groups include men who have sex with men (MSM), with 395 new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections among within this group from January to September 2008 alone, 96% up from 2005’s 210 reported infections. A spokesperson of the National Epidemiology Center (NEC) of the Department of Health says that the sudden and steep increase in the number of new cases within the MSM community, particularly in the last three years (309 cases in 2006, and 342 in 2007), is “tremendously in excess of what (is) usually expected,” allowing classification of the situation as an “epidemic". Of the cumulative total of 1,097 infected MSMs from 1984 to 2008, 49% were reported in the last three years (72% asymptomatic); 108 have died when reported, and slightly more MSMs were reportedly already with AIDS (28%).[2]

Among MSM's, ninety percent of the newly infected are single (up to 35% of past cases reported involved overseas Filipino workers or OFWs and/or their spouse), with the most of the affected people now only 20 to 34 years old (from 45 to 49 years old in the past). The highest number of infections among MSMs is from Metro Manila, though increasing infection rates were also noted in the cities of Angeles, Cebu, and Davao.[2] 1 to 3 percent of MSM's were found to be HIV-positive by sentinel surveillance conducted in Cebu and Quezon cities in 2001.

Another at-risk group are injecting drug users (IDUs), 1 percent of whom were found to be HIV-positive in Cebu City in 2005. A high rate of needle sharing among IDUs in some areas (77 percent in Cebu City) is of concern. Sex workers, because of their infrequent condom use, high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and other factors, are also considered to be at risk. In 2002, just 6 percent of sex workers interviewed said they used condoms in the last week. As of 2005, however, HIV prevalence among sex workers in Cebu City was relatively low, at 0.2 percent.[1]

[edit] Other risk factors

Several factors put the Philippines in danger of a broader HIV/AIDS epidemic. They include increasing population mobility within and outside of the Philippine islands; a conservative culture, adverse to publicly discussing issues of a sexual nature; rising levels of sex work, causal sex, unsafe sex, and injecting drug use; high STI prevalence and poor health-seeking behaviors among at-risk groups; gender inequality; weak integration of HIV/AIDS responses in local government activities; shortcomings in prevention campaigns; inadequate social and behavioral research and monitoring; and the persistence of stigma and discrimination, which results in the relative invisibility of PLWHA. Lack of knowledge about HIV among the Filipino population is troubling. Approximately two-thirds of young women lack comprehensive knowledge on HIV transmission, and 90 percent of the population of reproductive age believe you can contract HIV by sharing a meal with someone.[1]

The Philippines has high tuberculosis (TB) incidence, with 131 new cases per 100,000 people in 2005, according to the World Health Organization. HIV infects 0.1 percent of adults with TB. Although HIV-TB co-infection is low, the high incidence of TB indicates that co-infections could complicate treatment and care for both diseases in the future.[1]

[edit] National response

Wary of nearby Thailand’s growing epidemic in the late 1980s, the Philippines was quick to recognize its own sociocultural risks and vulnerabilities to HIV/AIDS. Early responses included the 1992 creation of the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC), the country’s highest HIV/AIDS policymaking body. Members of the Council represent 17 governmental agencies, including local governments and the two houses of the legislature; seven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and an association of PLWHA. The passing of the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act in 1998 was also a landmark in the country’s fight against HIV/AIDS. However, the Philippines is faced with the challenge of stimulating government leadership action in a low-HIV-prevalence country to advocate for a stronger and sustainable response to AIDS when faced with other competing priorities. One strategy has been to prevent STIs in general, which are highly prevalent in the country.[1]

The PNAC developed the Philippines’ AIDS Medium Term Plan: 2005–2010 (AMTP IV). The AMTP IV serves as a national road map toward universal access to prevention, treatment, care, and support, outlining country-specific targets, opportunities, and obstacles along the way, as well as culturally appropriate strategies to address them. In 2006, the country established a national monitoring and evaluation system, which was tested in nine sites and is being expanded. Antiretroviral treatment is available free of charge, but only 10 percent of HIV-infected women and men were receiving it as of 2006, according to UNAIDS.[1]

The Government of the Philippines participates in international responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Most recently, in January 2007, the Philippines hosted the 12th Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit, which had a special session on HIV/AIDS.[1]

The Philippines is a recipient of three grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (2004 third round, 2006 fifth round, and 2007 sixth round) to scale up the national response to HIV/AIDS through the delivery of services and information to at-risk populations and PLWHA.[1]

Philippines sits on HIV time bomb

Some sources suspect that the Philippine government has concealed the extent of the HIV/AIDS problem.[3]

[edit] References

Warbucks

12-11-09, 04:22

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20091210-241194/Rising-HIV-cases-in-RP-alarms-Saudi-embassy

Rising HIV cases in RP alarms Saudi embassy
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net

First Posted 13:21:00 12/10/2009

Filed Under: Overseas Employment, Health, Diseases, Middle East Africa - Africa

Global Nation Most Read RSS

Close this MANILA, Philippines—The rising number of HIV and AIDS cases in the country has so worried the Saudi embassy here that it advised medical clinics processing overseas Filipino workers bound for Middle East countries to intensify medical exams and screening for workers to be deployed there, it was learned Thursday.

Departing Saudi Ambassador to the Philippines Muhammad Ameen Wali had called Dr. Rodolfo Punzalan, president and chairman of accredited clinics that screen OFWs leaving for the Gulf countries, to express his concern over the reported upsurge in the cases of human immuno-deficiency virus and acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome in the country.

Punzalan’s 17 Gamca (Gulf Cooperation Council Accedited Medical Center Association) clinics screen OFWs leaving for Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for infectious diseases.

On December 1, 2009, during the 21st World AIDS Day, the United Nations noted that HIV and AIDS cases in the country have climbed steeply in recent years. More than 9,000 HIV cases have been reported since 1984, with the highest number of monthly cases seen last May 2009.

“The Philippines, with the first AIDS case reported in 1984, remains a low prevalence country, with cases registered at less than 0.1 percent of the total population. However, the recent report of the Philippine HIV and AIDS Registry shows a steep and accelerating number of reported cases in the country,” the UN had said then.

Punzalan stressed that the screening is to prevent the spread of diseases. He said the Gamca referral decking system red-flags an applicant found or suspected with an infectious disease.

The Gamca official said Saudi is very strict with this requirement, performing confirmatory medical exams on all OFWs coming from the Philippines.

He said that in the faxed memo from the Saudi embassy, the latter noted that an increasing number of OFWs have been declared unfit for work by hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

“Now, if we have a lot of repatriations due to infectious diseases, it would affect the hiring of OFWs,” Punzalan warned.

OFWs declared unfit for work by hospitals in Saudi are repatriated at the expense of the employer or the clinic, which is then fined $1,000 for every repatriated OFW.

Punzalan said that among the infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS is the most feared by Middle East employers, followed by pulmonary tuberculosis, venereal diseases, hepatitis, congestive heart, diabetes, and hypertension.

Jon32

12-13-09, 02:53

A Wall Street Journal article on AIDS reports that the chance of contracting HIV from random unprotected sex with non-IV drug using heterosexuals is "smaller than the risk of ever being struck by lightening."

Chance your partner was infected, say 10%. Chance you were infected if she has HIV, 1 in 1000 tops (probably closer to 1 in 2000). That makes your odds of having HIV 0.1 x 0. 001 = 0.0001. That's 1 in a 10,000.

About the same odds of bowling a 300 game or winning an academy award.

Geneva Guy

12-16-09, 01:20

I'm afraid you are living in some unreal world. Let me tell you, when you tell someone they are HIV+ and or have AIDS, and what the implications are, they don't hold back and give you more details on what risky behavior they had. You never see your medical caregiver? And if you do, I assume that they ask you questions that are pertinent to your sexual practices and health (if they don't they aren't doing their job). Telling someone who is an IV drug abuser is not hard. Cause they just don't quit, and even when they are injecting in the veins between their toes (pretty ingenious huh). You can see the long term results on the veins.

It is not just gay men and IV drug users that get HIV and yes, we all are at risk with bareback sex.

But, the ultimate answer to your question is YES, I do KNOW people that got HIV from heterosexual sex ONLY! In fact, one man recently decided to end his own life he was so racked with guilt about infecting some other women that he was with. I had nothing to do with his care, he was a person living in my community who was a member of a car club that I am in. And don't respond saying "well, that is only ONE person" because sadly, there are millions infected with heterosexual sex.

Chocha Monger

12-21-09, 15:23

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was deleted because it appeared to be a completely malicious attempt to expose or threaten to expose the personal identity of another Forum Member.

There's simply no excuse and no justification for posting or threatening to post Personal Identity Information or otherwise threatening or attempting to "out" any Forum Member.

Posting Personal Identity Information in the Forum is strictly prohibited and will result in the perpetrator being permanently banned from the Forum.

Thanks!

Clandestine782

12-21-09, 16:16

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was deleted because it contributed nothing of value and in fact constituted a complete waste of bandwidth.

The purpose of this Forum is to provide for the exchange if information between men on the subject of finding women for sex. Let's stick to the subject.

Zhuren

12-21-09, 16:57

Jon32

01-02-10, 09:26

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/research/29zinc.html?_r=1

Pretty interesting article here from the other day about someone who was cured with aids from a bone marrow transplant.

What also i find interesting is the guy who donated the marrow was actually "naturally immune" to aids.

I did not know that even existed (natural immunity). Anyone else ever hear about that?

Admin

01-04-10, 08:41

Greetings Everyone,

I recently cleaned up this thread by deleting a number of off-topic and otherwise pointless posts, as well as a number responses made by other forum members to these deleted posts.

This cleanup process is not perfect, and it's possible that I may have inadvertently deleted a few otherwise legitimate posts. If you find that your own report was also deleted, please don't take it personally.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jon32

01-04-10, 18:21

thanks for deleting those posts jackson.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34048658/ns/health-aids

Check this map out. Seems that outside africa everything is less than 1% infection.

But I wonder how many sex workers as a percentage are infected? For example in the USA less than 1% of the population is infected. But maybe 30% of sex workers are infected?

Thoughts?

Jon32

01-04-10, 18:27

In Seville, Spain, 20 percent of intravenous drug users are HIV seropositive and 2.5 percent of the non-needle using prostitutes. Only 8 in 10,000 non-needle-using prostitutes are HIV seropositive in the Philippines.

Studies of drug-free prostitutes in Amsterdam, London, Zurich, Paris. Vienna, Athens, Pardenone (Italy), Callao (Peru), Reno (Nevada), Tijuana (Mexico), and Central Tunisia over the last eight years have found only a handful of cases of HIV infection.

Thus, American researchers M. J. Rosenberg and J. M. Weiner concluded in 1988 that "HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity alone does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV."

Jon32

01-04-10, 20:55

Seven percent Amsterdam prostitutes has hiv virus

published: Tuesday, January 24 2006, 5:35PM

Research has shown that on average 7% of the Amsterdam prostitutes carry the hiv virus, that can cause AIDS.

For the investigation a sample of 242 prostitutes were examined.

The virus occurs more often with transsexual prostitutes (17%), and also more often with prostitutes who use drugs (11%, versus 3% for prostitutes who don't use drugs). Of the prostitutes who operate behind windows in the Red light district, 4% was infected.

Also, 52 clients were tested, in order to find out how they could best be reached with information. None of them were infected.

HIV, in short, is not behaving like a typical sexually transmitted disease. Sexual promiscuity, per se, does not put female prostitutes at risk for either HIV or AIDS. There is only one possible conclusion: vaginal intercourse and oral forms of sex (which are by far the most common forms practiced by the prostitutes interviewed in the studies summarized above) are not high risk activities for either the acquisition or transmission of HIV and AIDS.

Clandestine782

01-05-10, 00:16

http://aids-clinical-care.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1998/201/1

Pragmatically, how do you determine if a sexual exposure confers sufficient risk to warrant postexposure prophylaxis (PEP)?
Drs. Katz and Gerberding: The quantitative risk associated with a specific sexual exposure to HIV is hard to measure. The available data suggest that the probability of transmission through a single episode of rectal or vaginal intercourse with someone known to be HIV infected is within the same order of magnitude as that associated with occupational needle punctures (0.003). Probability of transmission is highest for unprotected receptive anal intercourse (0.008 to 0.032). Unprotected receptive vaginal intercourse (0.0005 to 0.0015) is riskier than insertive vaginal intercourse (0.0003 to 0.0009).

Per-episode risk estimates for other types of sexual exposure to HIV are not available. There are no published estimates of the per-contact risk of HIV transmission with insertive anal or oral intercourse, but both of these behaviors transmit HIV. Even for the sexual behaviors for which we have per-contact risk estimates, a number of other factors influence transmission (e.g., trauma, inflammatory or ulcerative genital lesions). Moreover, in some cases (e.g., sexual assault, anonymous sexual contacts), it may be unknown whether the partner is HIV infected.

Given the tremendous uncertainty in the estimates of risk of HIV transmission with a single exposure, we recommend offering PEP to people who have had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with a person known to be HIV infected or in a group at risk for HIV, such as an injection drug user. We also recommend offering treatment to people who have had unprotected receptive oral intercourse with ejaculation. Condom breakage and slippage would be considered unprotected sex

Brad Dupree

01-05-10, 02:08

Jon32

01-06-10, 05:13

http://aids-clinical-care.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1998/201/1

Yeah was a good one.

Ricci1003

01-09-10, 07:32

Luc Montagnier is credited with being the first discoverer of hiv. He was awarded a Nobel prize for this discovery.

He's recently said in an interview that:

People can be exposed to hiv many times without being chronically infected. And that people who have a good immune system will rid itself of the hiv virus.

He says some other controversial stuff. Watch the interview here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4I have better news after doing research on "HIV" and "AIDS" actually in Uganda for the last six years and consulting doctors and scientists who have charged for many years that "AIDS" is not even caused by a virus, that the tests referred to as an "AIDS test" don't even detect any virus and that the medications are often a big part of the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL1yagwaKM4

Jon32

01-19-10, 21:35

Rubber Nursey

01-20-10, 18:38

HIV, in short, is not behaving like a typical sexually transmitted disease. Sexual promiscuity, per se, does not put female prostitutes at risk for either HIV or AIDS. There is only one possible conclusion: vaginal intercourse and oral forms of sex (which are by far the most common forms practiced by the prostitutes interviewed in the studies summarized above) are not high risk activities for either the acquisition or transmission of HIV and AIDS.
Sexual promiscuity, per se, does not put female prostitutes at risk of HIV...if they consistently use condoms. Australian sex workers have lower rates of HIV than the general Australian community, thanks to almost universal condom use within our sex industry. It certainly doesn't mean that unprotected vaginal and oral sex is safe. What a bizarre conclusion for so-called 'research' to reach!

HIV and STI infection have nothing to do with sexual promiscuity, and everything to do with safe sex practices. A sex worker can work for decades, using condoms, and never catch anything. A 'regular' person can have unprotected sex with one random hookup and catch a raft of diseases.

Informater

01-20-10, 19:51

The truth about aids is much more difficult to believe than that; Here are a fiew informtions everybody is aloud to know;

When vih was declared as cause of aids it hasn't even been isolated as a virus wich is the medical term for " found in the blood of the patient". It was in fact only a theory thouthed by Gallo

The tests are actually only detecting an antibody that can be present in your blood for many reasons mainly certain medicents

In the 80 the the amount of the presence of this antibody nessecary to be declade seropositif wasn t the same in us australia and Africa!

2000 very scientist of the whole world whithin 5 nobel prices signed a declaration saiyng that vih is not the cause of aids

The mortality of aids starting to decline when it stopped to be treated with important quantity of azt

This medicent is was actually prevíously used for cancers but banned because of his to dangerous toxic effects

A lot mores informtions if you try "aids vih lies" on google

Tiny 12

01-20-10, 20:54

A sex worker can work for decades, using condoms, and never catch anything.

She would probably end up with herpes and venereal warts.

Rubber Nursey

01-21-10, 04:00

She would probably end up with herpes and venereal warts.
You're absolutely right. Mind you, rates of herpes and HPV are still comparatively low among Australian sex workers. It mostly comes down to adequate sexual health education (to recognise visible symptoms of infection) and a legal enironment that allows sex workers to refuse and/or alter the services offered, if infection is suspected. Sure, there are 'invisible' STIs that sex workers won't be able to spot, but at least they're looking for them. The average sexually active person doesn't even know what to look for, and probably wouldn't bother if they did.

But my point was that, in relation to HIV, 'promiscuity' has nothing to do with transmission risk. Condom use is what matters.

Starchild2012

01-21-10, 17:05

AIDS virus man made....proof

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy30.htm

SW Man

01-25-10, 03:46

Great report!

Jon32

02-01-10, 22:15

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

10% of new hiv cases of men per year in 34 states is high risk heterosexual contact. (e.g. sex with needle drug users). Not sure how many prostitutes use needles, but it's probably a high percentage.

Jon32

02-01-10, 22:26

Member #2041

02-01-10, 22:32

There is now very strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by around 50%, which is enough to justify its promotion as an HIV prevention measure in some high-prevalence areas. However, studies of circumcision and HIV suggest that the procedure does not reduce the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and the effect on male-to-male transmission is unknown.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm

There is the link if you want to read where this study was done or the technical aspects of it.

Comes down to the simple mechanics of who's pitching, and who's catching. The male is generally always passing bodily fluids along to the internals of the female. The female's bodily fluids only contact the surface of the male's skin, unless he has an open wound or sore. It's more difficult to contract HIV when it merely contacts your skin. Being circumcised means the fluids with the HIV are less likely to be trapped and maintain skin contact for lengthy periods of time, rather than be wiped off or killed by exposure to the air. Same is true with male gay sex - one individual is pitching, and one is catching - the risk is always greater for the catcher, but being uncircumcised would increase the risk for the pitcher in the same manner as it would in Hetero sex.

Tropical Joe

03-18-10, 21:44

There is now very strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by around 50%, which is enough to justify its promotion as an HIV prevention measure in some high-prevalence areas. However, studies of circumcision and HIV suggest that the procedure does not reduce the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and the effect on male-to-male transmission is unknown.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm

There is the link if you want to read where this study was done or the technical aspects of it.At Http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html they list 20 reputable studies that show male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, 4 of those studies show that male circumcision INCREASES HIV risk. In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. In the U.S. around 80% of adult males are circumcised, but the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrailized country in the world, and the U.S. has the highest STD rates of any industrailized country in the world according to the CDC. So there are also very strong evidences that circumcision does not reduce HIV risk. With organizations that claim it's evident that male circumcision reduces HIV risk, they are just cherry-picking evidences and misleading everyone.

Circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of penile skin and around 20,000 erogenous nerve endings. So male circumcision does a lot of sexual damage, and it is controversial if male circumcision has any significant health benefits at all. Many medical organizations in the world state that male circumcision has little to no health benefits. Just read what different medical organizations around the world say about it.

Johnny Maldiva

04-05-10, 14:32

Clandestine782

04-21-10, 04:10

I thought this was interesting. I was doing some investigation on Google about STD prevalence in China, and so in order to find the most recent publications I did a restricted range of dates search (within the last year). The article that came up among the first page was this one.

I could not do a thorough back calculation on this, but a back of the envelope calculation goes like this:

1. 1,350 million people, 55% men. 742 million men.
2. Imagine that 50% of those men are sexually active. 371 million.
3. Now imagine that 3% of those men are MSMs. 9 million.
4. This article demonstrates that about 9% of the MSMs are infected. Assume that this percentage is constant over space. That works out to 810,000 infections in the whole country-- which is actually a few more than officially reported.

Article, below. http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2010/02011/HIV_STD_Prevalence_Among_Men_Who_Have_Sex_With_Men.13.aspx

Objective: To assess the prevalence of HIV and selected sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Chengdu, China, and the risk factors associated with HIV infection.

Methods: A cross-sectional study using a snowball sampling method was conducted from March to July 2007. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about sexual history, high-risk behaviors, STD infection history, HIV knowledge and testing, and an assessment of depression. Blood samples were taken for antibody testing for HIV, herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2), and syphilis.

Results: A total of 538 MSM were recruited, and 513 (95.4%) consented to complete the questionnaire. HIV, HSV-2, and syphilis prevalence were 9.1%, 24.7%, and 28.1%, respectively. The rate of consistent condom use was low and varied by types of sexual partners. The highest was with casual male partners (38.6%), and the lowest was with wife or girl friend (17.8%). Money boys were 6 times more likely to be infected with HIV compared with clerks/students. Infection with either HSV or syphilis increased the risk of HIV infection more than 4-fold.

Conclusions: The prevalences of HIV and STDs were high among MSM in Chengdu. To prevent HIV/STDs, campaigns promoting condom use are needed not only to boost the frequency of condom use but also to educate MSM about proper condom use.

I also noted in another article (http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/High_Prevalence_of_Syphilis_and_Other_STD_Among_Sex_Workers_in_China_Spread_of_HIV.pdf) specifically about sex workers that 1.4% of them had HIV (and this is in Guangzhou--Africans all over the place-- and the average girl had been working for ONE YEAR at the rate of 7 clients per week), but that 6% of them had injected drugs before (THE BEST way to get HIV bar none).

Can it be that MSMs account for over 90% of all HIV infections in China and that straight men have a lower chance of getting infected through any heterosexual encounter than of dying in a bicycle crash? This gets even more likely if the assumption that 50% of men are sexually active is too low. If you go up to 75%, then the number of HIV infections that should exist is actually much greater than what the PRC government has even said.

Just some food for thought.

Clandestine782

04-21-10, 04:16

At Http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html they list 20 reputable studies that show male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, 4 of those studies show that male circumcision INCREASES HIV risk. In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. In the U.S. around 80% of adult males are circumcised, but the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrailized country in the world, and the U.S. has the highest STD rates of any industrailized country in the world according to the CDC. So there are also very strong evidences that circumcision does not reduce HIV risk. With organizations that claim it's evident that male circumcision reduces HIV risk, they are just cherry-picking evidences and misleading everyone.

Circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of penile skin and around 20,000 erogenous nerve endings. So male circumcision does a lot of sexual damage, and it is controversial if male circumcision has any significant health benefits at all. Many medical organizations in the world state that male circumcision has little to no health benefits. Just read what different medical organizations around the world say about it.
Ok, this is compared to how many that say that it DOES? This is where a metaanalysis would come in handy. (Since it happens that you can always find some number of studies that say the direct opposite of what is known/ thought to be true.) I guess we will have to wait until a metaanalysis is done to get a more conclusive answer.

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.

Clandestine782

04-21-10, 04:20

That's why we need to be so careful when "entertaining" WGs. The odds of catching it increase tenfold.and that's at the rate of 10% of your partners being infected. I suspect that the number of non IDU women infected in China is lower that that. If 1% of such women are infected, then that makes your numbers more like 1/100,000-1/200,000 (lower than the chance of dying in a car crash).

Zircon

04-21-10, 06:56

Ok, this is compared to how many that say that it DOES? This is where a metaanalysis would come in handy. (Since it happens that you can always find some number of studies that say the direct opposite of what is known/ thought to be true.) I guess we will have to wait until a metaanalysis is done to get a more conclusive answer.

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.What's the world coming to when a fuck ite has a discussion of meta-analysis? Amazing. LOL. Enjoy (safely)

Tropical Joe

04-21-10, 09:18

Westy

04-22-10, 14:30

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.We in "the West" practice circumcision on newborns, and the newborn boy's foreskin is much smaller than fifteen square inches.

Muslims practice adult circumcision - ouch!

Tropical Joe

04-23-10, 12:13

We in "the West" practice circumcision on newborns, and the newborn boy's foreskin is much smaller than fifteen square inches.

Muslims practice adult circumcision - ouch!The U.S. is the only country in the West where circumcising baby boys is common though. Circumcising baby boys also used to be common in Great Britian, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but it's not common in those countries any more. The infant male circumcision rate in the U.S. has dropped down to about 56% however. Claiming that circumcision reduces HIV risk is the U.S. medical community's latest attempt to justify, support, and to spread male circumcision. I don't believe that the U.S. medical community is honest about male circumcision though, so I don't trust anything they claim or say about it. Many U.S. doctors still tell parents that it's just a little snip, that he'll feel little or no pain, and give parents just one sided biased information, which shows how dishonest they are about circumcision.

Clandestine782

04-23-10, 16:47

Clandestine782,

Obviously I meant adult males who are circumcised are missing about 15 square inches of skin. According to condom companies the average circumference of males is about 5 inches. The average foreskin goes up and down about 3 inches. If a male doesn't believe that he can measure himself to see for himself that the foreskin is about 15 sq. inches. The only reason I brought that up is because I was trying to describe how much circumcised males are missing.Well, no, it was not that obvious. In any case, we are getting way too technical here. Muslims/ Arabs/ Jews all circumcise their children, and I know that the former (at least) has NO problems with fertility. For that matter, Orthodox Jews also don't have any problems with fertility (look up birth rates in Israel or Kiryas Joel).

The claim that circumcision reduces hiv risk by 60% heterosexually is based just on 3 random controlled studies in Africa. The U.S. controlled WHO claims that those 3 studies conclusively prove that circumcision reduces HIV risk by about 60% for heterosexual males, and many medical organizations in the world just followed what the WHO said like sheep. The WHO though just ignored the fact that in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males, and that dozens of studies show circumcision does not reduce HIV risk for heterosexual males. Also those 3 randomly controlled studies were done by pro-circumcision extremists, and the funding for those studies was donated to "prove" circumcision reduces HIV risk. A lot of things weren't taken into account with those 3 studies also that made the results inaccurate, to include that the circumcised males had to wait 6 weeks while their circumcision healed, where as the uncircumcised males did not have to wait. So I think those 3 randomly controlled studies are about as credible as if cigirette companies did studies to prove smoking is good for your health. So I don't believe the claim that circumcision reduces HIV risk for heterosexual males.Can you prove any of this?

1. "There are only 3 studies." That is not true. Going to PubMed/Medline and entering in the words "HIV Circumcision," I get no less than 684 hits.

2. There is a mechanism to explain why HIV is more easily transmitted to circumcised men, and that is because they have Langerhans cells there, which are receptors of HIV virus. The fact that HIV is asymmetrically receptive to certain parts on the body is not news. I was reading the other day that the reason that anal sex is so dangerous is because there are some larger number of white blood cells around the anus and that (plus the tearing) makes it a dangerous place.

3. No, the WHO is not US controlled. Sorry. I know that you want to find a conspiracy here (it never ceases to amaze me how many nutballs there are with time to think up conspiracy theories). So, if the WHO declares anal sex to be dangerous, then is that also a conspiracy? Should men who like anal sex (either as pitcher of catcher) ignore those recommendations just because the WHO wrote them (and it MUST be a conspiracy that the US government is behind)?

4. The link to pubmed medline is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. You can check for yourself.

5. "...nerve endings." Not sure what to think about this one. I know that male circumcision happens before puberty (way before puberty), and so I have a good idea that there is plenty of time for nerve regeneration. (I know this because I suffered third degree burns on both of my hands as an infant and had to have skin grafted from my hip to repair them.) The sensation on my hands is just fine. In any case, a small cut of circumcision is much less bad than 3rd degree burns.

Clandestine782

04-23-10, 16:49

What's the world coming to when a fuck site has a discussion of meta-analysis? Amazing. LOL. Enjoy (safely)Sorry about that. I have interests other than unshaved Asian vagina (particularly reading)-- and sometimes they seep through to the discussion site.

Tropical Joe

04-23-10, 22:18

There was never a consensus that circumcision reduces HIV risk until 3 random controlled studies were done in Africa that showed circumcised males are about 60% less likely to get AIDS. After those 3 studies were completed, the WHO stated that those 3 studies conclusively prove circumcision reduces HIV risk for males by about 60% heterosexually. Before then there were studies that showed circumcision reduces HIV risk, but there was never a consensus that those studies were conclusive proof because there are also dozens of studies that show circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, and in many parts of Africa circumcised males have higher HIV rates than uncircumcised males.

Circumcised males still have a lot of inner foreskin remnant left which contains Langerhans' cells. Also the head and shaft skin have a high concentration of Langerhans' cells. So cutting off Langerhans' cells by circumcision I don't think really can reduce HIV risk. The purpose of the Langerhans' cells is to detect invading viruses and bacteria so it can be killed, and according to some studies the Langerhans' cells help prevent HIV infection.

Circumcision cuts off the most highly innerverated parts of the penis. That's according to the Sorrells study, and according to Canadian doctor John Taylor who extensively studied the nerve endings of the penis. According to the Sorrells study circumcision cuts off the most sensitive parts of the penis. And according to Dr. John Taylor circumcision cuts off the most pleasurable parts of the penis. If circumcised males have a lot of inner foreskin remnant left they can see that the farther from the head the more pleasurable the inner is.

The U.S. donates a lot of money to the WHO. A lot of WHO officials and advisors are from the U.S. So maybe I'm wrong, but to my understanding the U.S. has a lot of influence over the WHO if not a lot of control over them.

Sound7

05-28-10, 17:26

TJ HIV 2009 Study article

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090710205359.htm

Iamsterdam

07-20-10, 23:59

I am thinking about this for a while. I read that the infection rate of HIV among SA prostitutes is very high. When men coming back from SA to Europe or US after the game, they bring back the disease and pass it on to local prostitutes.

I would like to know your opinion on this issue. Thanks.

Clandestine782

10-02-10, 10:46

UPDATE 1-1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV
Thu, Sep 23 2010
* Nearly half are unaware of their infection-CDC

* CDC calls for renewed HIV prevention efforts

(Adds CDC interview, other comments)

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO, Sept 23 (Reuters) - Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.

Young men, and especially young black men, are least likely to know if they are infected with HIV, according to a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"We need to reinvigorate our response to preventing HIV among gay and bisexual men," Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, said in a telephone interview.

"We can't allow HIV to continue its devastating toll among gay and bisexual men, and in particular, among young black men."

Mermin's comments echoed an AIDS policy rolled out in July by the White House that asked states and federal agencies to find ways to cut new HIV infections by 25 percent. [IDnN13274350]

Researchers at the CDC studied 8,153 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities. The men were taking part in the 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, which looked at prevalence and awareness of the human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Overall, they found that 19 percent of gay men are infected with HIV.

The study found that 28 percent of gay black men infected with HIV, compared with 18 percent of Hispanic men and 16 percent of white men.

Black men in the study were also least likely to be aware of their infection, with 59 percent unaware of their infection compared with 46 percent of Hispanic men and 26 percent of white men.

Age also plays a role. Among 18 to 29-year-old men, 63 percent did not know they were infected with HIV, compared with 37 percent of men aged 30 and older, the team reported in the CDC's weekly report on death and disease.

The CDC recommends that gay and bisexual men of all ages get an HIV test each year, and men at highest risk -- those who have multiple sex partners or use drugs during sex -- get tested every three to six months.

"This alarming new data provides further evidence that prevention efforts for gay men have not been adequate to meet the growing epidemic and should be dramatically scaled up," said Carl Schmid of the nonprofit AIDS Institute.

"The severity of the impact of HIV in the gay community is nothing new. What has been missing is an appropriate response by our government, at the federal, state and local levels, and the gay community itself," he said in a statement.

Mermin said some studies had shown that there was less urgency and fear associated with HIV infections than in the past, which may be due to the effectiveness of AIDS treatment.

While not a cure, drug cocktails can keep patients healthy and can reduce the risk that they will infect other people. Companies that make HIV drugs include Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Bristol-Myers (BMY.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Abbott Labs (ABT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). (Editing by David Storey)