»Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really«
|
|||
 knn: Let's consider this stat from the US
gmhc.org...  There are currently approx 500'000 HIV infected persons in the US. Let's subtract all homosexuals hemophiliacs drug intakers non-your-race your-own-sex (since we assume, that you are heterosecual) and you get approx ONLY 1400 people (= potential sex partners of yours) in the WHOLE US. Ok, first off, how are you getting that mathematical result? It can't come from the link you provided. That site mostly lists cumulative stats. Plus that 500,000 is of reported cases through 2001. It's it estimated to really be btw 800,000 and 900,000. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgTechnology, Computers, Science, InternetScience (Assorted topics)Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really |
|
||||||||||
 volonteshiva: Ok, first off, how are you getting that mathematical result? It can't come from the link you provided. That site mostly lists cumulative stats. No, they list all kinds of fractions. Like "blacks vs whites". volonteshiva: Plus that 500,000 is of reported cases through 2001 Persons reported to be living with HIV infection and with AIDS in the U.S. through December 2001:
506,154 Where is the question mark? Even if you increase the number to 800'000 it doesn't make a big difference. From the 800'000
AIDS _IS_ a typical gay illness. Junkies and blood transfusion users don't die earlier because of AIDS. If you are a junkie or a blood transfusion recipient you have a shorter life anyway. posted by knn |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
knn: AIDS _IS_ an illness of gays. Heterosexuals practically never get AIDS (because they don't have sex with gays). And they hardly spread AIDS. ok, now this just wrong. If you want to say that homosexuals spread HIV more, fine. If you want to say that homosexuals are at a greater risks to contracting HIV, fine. But saying that heterosexuals never get HIV and hardly spread HIV is ridiculous. At the end of 2003, the CDC estimates that 405,926 persons were living with AIDS in the USA.
Of these,
Of the adults and adolescents1 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,
Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
An estimated 1,998 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2003. That's around 34,381 men and 55,953 women w/ HIV/AIDS in the US as of 2003 according to this site. Plus it shows that 8% of men got it from male-to-male sexual contact AND shot up, and then 22% got it from shooting up. Thus going from a gay male w/ HIV to shooting up w/ a straight person, to that straight person having sex w/ a woman and infecting her is not that unlikely of a scenario. posted by volonteshiva |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
knn: Where is the question mark? Even if you increase the number to 800'000 it doesn't make a big difference.
From the 800'000 400'000 are gay (this alone tells you that AIDS is very gay) 200'000 are drug users (= injection junkies et al). 50'000 are gay drug users 12'000 are hemophiliacs+blood transfusion "users" The rest doesn't tell you or uses non-injection drugs (poppers etc) AIDS _IS_ a typical gay illness. Junkies and blood transfusion users don't die earlier because of AIDS. If you are a junkie or a blood transfusion recipient you have a shorter life anyway. How are you avoiding the number from your site: Heterosexual contact 90,131 or this one: Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4) 15% of new cases isn't the majority by any means, but it's still an appreciabe number. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||
|
volonteshiva: But saying that heterosexuals never get HIV and hardly spread HIV is ridiculous. Of course heterosexuals can get AIDS:
Now, how many of these injection drug free heterosexuals use drugs? The statistics won't tell you. Why? Because AIDS by medical dogma is spread by viruses and has little to do with drugs. AIDS by MY understanding has a lot to do with drugs. There is simply too little virus in body fluids. Even in AIDS patients who have just died, there is only little of the virus in their body fluids, as shown by this study: One CDC study of more than 2,000 young adults in three inner-city neighborhoods found that crack smokers were three times more likely to be infected with HIV than non-smokers. In other words: 3/4 of these AIDS adults were on crack. Or this: People with alcohol use disorders are more likely than the general population to contract HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). Or this: There has long been an association between recreational drugs and AIDS. Surprisingly, some of the strongest associations are not with injection drugs, but with inhalant nitrites... and with non-injection forms of cocaine, such as crack. Cocaine use is closely associated with the risk of testing positive for HIV and having AIDS - even if the usage is non-injection! In other words: The heterosexuals that the statistics tell you about MAY VERY WELL BE DRUG ADDICTS. I actually spoke once with a reporter who was visiting these so called "heterosexuals who got infected with AIDS by heterosexual sex". He told me that these people are heavy smokers, drinker, druggers. volonteshiva: Plus it shows that 8% of men got it from male-to-male sexual contact AND shot up, and then 22% got it from shooting up. Thus going from a gay male w/ HIV to shooting up w/ a straight person, to that straight person having sex w/ a woman and infecting her is not that unlikely of a scenario. THEORETICALLY ikely. But where is the proof that it ever happened? And if then how often? To say it again: These "innocent heterosexuals" that got AIDS may have taken strong drugs. Yet it is not shown in this statistic. I seriously doubt that you (as a heterosexual man) can get AIDS when not being surrounded by gays or drug users. posted by knn |
||||||
|
||||||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Homosexuals have a greater chance of being involved with other perverse sexual behaviors, such as beastiality, yes. You are just being ridiculous. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. Show some stats. Show a link that says some guy had sex w/ a monkey in the early 80s. Talk to people, get information first hand. You can't just make up a statement like you did and expect people to take you seriously without backing it up. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Now, how many of these injection drug free heterosexuals use drugs? The statistics won't tell you. Why? Because AIDS by medical dogma is spread by viruses and has little to do with drugs. knn: THEORETICALLY ikely. But where is the proof that it ever happened? And if then how often? Simple scenario. Guy shoots up, gets HIV from it. Guy has sex unprotected sex w/ one different woman once a week, for a whole year. That's at least 52 women who may have HIV now. But there are many men who are this promiscuous and more. Indeed, HIV going from an HIV infected gay person to a straight person w/o drug use seems unlikely but it can happen. Some guy is unsure he is gay or not. So he has sex w/ a gay guy and woman. This scenario isn't that uncommon today. Now it may be a very small percent, but it is still something. Still, once a guy gets HIV, he can then spread it to alot of women through heterosexual sex. It's harder for women to spread HIV to men through sex but it's still possible and does happen(although at a very low percentage). knn: I seriously doubt that you (as a heterosexual man) can get AIDS when not being surrounded by days or drug users. Agreed, but if I was a woman, having unprotected sex, then I would be at a great risk for contracting HIV. knn: AIDS by MY understanding has a lot to do with drugs. There is simply too little virus in body fluids. Even in AIDS patients who have just died, there is only little of the virus in their body fluids, as shown by this study: I won't disagree that drug use is a large part of HIV spreading. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: Simple scenario. Guy shoots up, gets HIV from it. Guy has sex unprotected sex w/ one different woman once a week, for a whole year. That's at least 52 women who may have HIV now. No, that's scenario A -> B That is documented. But A -> B -> C is undocumented (as far as I know). Moreover, having sex for 1 year with 52 different women is statistically NOT enough. The statistical average is 1 infection per 500x sex with an infected porson, as I write above. Thus 1 HIV guy must have sex for 10 years with a different woman every day until he infects 1. No this 1 woman must have sex for 10 years with a different partner everyday until she infects 1. It's very hard to get+spread AIDS unless you take drugs/are gay. The statistics prove that. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: I seriously doubt that you (as a heterosexual man) can get AIDS when not being surrounded by gays or drug users. And you, sir, are a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards. We've already presented you with statistics and specific cases where AIDS is transmitted from heterosexual female to heterosexual male. I can't make you believe anything if you're so determined to embrace ignorance. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: We've already presented you with statistics and specific cases where AIDS is transmitted from heterosexual female to heterosexual male. I can't make you believe anything if you're so determined to embrace ignorance. Where? Where are your statistics? You haven't featured any. To the contrary, _I_ have given you the statistics that show that a huge majority of AIDS patients are gays and/or druggies. Yes, there are seldom cases of HIV heterosexuals, but even then they are connected with drugs. It's highly unlikely to get AIDS unless you are gay, a druggie, or a medical case anyway. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: And you, sir, are a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards. Aaah, Tiefling, trying to be political correct to gays, even when the statistics are against you? 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gawd, is it "KNN the Troll" day? I'm assuming you're just playing devil's advocate. Because otherwise, you're making yourself look ridiculous. Ok, you believe a heterosexual man can't get AIDS? Prove it to me. Have unprotected sex with women with HIV. Let's see if you get it or not. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Ok, you believe a heterosexual man can't get AIDS? Prove it to me. Have unprotected sex with women with HIV. Let's see if you get it or not. Tiefling, I am not gonna repeat the gazillionth time what I have written in all of my posts above. YES, a heterosexual man CAN get AIDS, although it's unlikely. (Africa aside). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Africa aside? It clearly proves that heterosexuals can very readily contract AIDS. Is it because that doesn't jibe with your argument? posted by Dark Star |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Yes, there are seldom cases of HIV heterosexuals, but even then they are connected with drugs.
It's highly unlikely to get AIDS unless you are gay, a druggie, or a medical case anyway. Once again, you are taking things too far. Heterosexual women are very likely to get HIV from unprotected sex. Now if you want to say that men are rather unlikely to get HIV w/o unprotected anal sex or drugs then fine. But saying that getting HIV through straight sex is seldom is just wrong. 10-15+% of men does not equal seldom. Plus from all the stats shown, the majority of women w/ HIV get it from straight sex. Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003 for Women:
Injection Drug Use 3,096 Heterosexual contact 8,127 posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 10 January 2009, 00:04 php B.B. |