The truth about AIDS

#51
#51
kptvol said:
The initial HIV infection isn't much different symptomatically than the flu. It takes about 10 years for you to start seeing the AIDS symptoms. So I don't see how we could have quarantined everyone. There wouldn't have been a way to identify them.
Click to expand...

Especially since we had no early detection available. Hell we didn't even have a good way to protect our blood supply early on. A family member of mine was infected in the 80's by a blood transfusion he received during surgery.
 
#52
#52
kptvol said:
I'm pretty sure you can't contract HIV from sweat.
Click to expand...

I never suggested there was a significant risk of catching it from sweat. Just wondering how someone could make the leap of comparing sweat, saliva and normal vaginal sex to a doctor performing surgery in an operating room, and use that example as a way to discredit me or say I was being inaccurate. As I said, you almost have to be going out of your way to catch the HIV/AIDS virus because there are just a handfull of things you have to be engaged in to come in contact with the virus. I mean, how many people do you know that are around airborne blood because they are using a bonesaw and what not...

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/64747-truth-about-aids-2.html#post2030563
 
#53
#53
kptvol said:
The initial HIV infection isn't much different symptomatically than the flu. It takes about 10 years for you to start seeing the AIDS symptoms. So I don't see how we could have quarantined everyone. There wouldn't have been a way to identify them.
Click to expand...

By 1983, we knew who Patient 0 was and who their partners were... really, I think we knew as early as 1981. And at that point, we were only talking about several hundred to maybe 2000 worldwide.
 
#54
#54
Rasputin_Vol said:
By 1983, we knew who Patient 0 was and who their partners were... really, I think we knew as early as 1981. And at that point, we were only talking about several hundred to maybe 2000 worldwide.
Click to expand...

So are we going to run around the jungle and round up all the primates that have HIV? And who was Patient O? As I recall the guy that first put forth that theory has since said it was a load of crap.
 
#55
#55
kptvol said:
So are we going to run around the jungle and round up all the primates that have HIV? And who was Patient O? As I recall the guy that first put forth that theory has since said it was a load of crap.
Click to expand...
You're right, just saw that. But that guy was still involved with 40 of the first 250 known cases in 1983. 250 people being quarantined worldwide wouldn't have been futile...
 
#56
#56
Rasputin_Vol said:
You're right, just saw that. But that guy was still involved with 40 of the first 250 known cases in 1983. 250 people being quarantined worldwide wouldn't have been futile...
Click to expand...

There's no way to know that, but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being futile. Perhaps it would have delayed the spread, but it almost certainly wouldn't have stopped it.
 
#57
#57
Rasputin_Vol said:
You're right, just saw that. But that guy was still involved with 40 of the first 250 known cases in 1983. 250 people being quarantined worldwide wouldn't have been futile...
Click to expand...

But there would still have been the unknown cases. By the time we saw it coming the train was too big to stop. Like I said we might have slowed it down a little but irresponsible people would have spread HIV fairly rapidly anyway.
 
#58
#58
Rasputin_Vol said:
What about vaginal sex, sweat or saliva makes what I said inaccurate or makes it in anyway comparable to doctors working in the operating room with blood flowing all over the place? Not only that, but you don't see a higher incidence of AIDS/HIV among doctors than any other profession... or at least not as stark of a contrast as you would between heterosexual and homosexual men.
Click to expand...

Your response above was covered in my second paragraph -- not my first.
 
#59
#59
VolByBirth said:
Your response above was covered in my second paragraph -- not my first.
Click to expand...

In which you mention blood being airborn during an operation. Again, that doesn't diminish or make inaccurate the statement I made that said you almost have to be going out of your way to catch AIDS. Your average, everyday person is not going to encounter a situation where blood is airborn or they are performing an operation. Doctors may be in danger, but even with the possibity of blood being airborn in the operation room, you would think that you would see a very high incidence of surgeons coming down with the disease at an alarmingly higher rate than the general public... but we don't see that kind of bias, now do we?
 
#60
#60
Rasputin_Vol said:
I wasn't arguing that the threat of AIDS wasn't worthy of it being at least 10X's the threat that mad cow would be. My point is that the they specifically (and heavily) concentrated on activities associated with the gay male lifestyle. And it was done in a pretty politically incorrect manner. In any other case, had the type of language or bias been present, an ACLU or liberal group would have been up in arms about the blatant insinuation that gay male intercourse is more of a threat than heterosexual intercourse. That is where the double standard... the level of sanctimonious outrage in other instances would be far greater than what has apparently been exibited in this case.

And thanks for showing your true colors and using the old liberal attack on me and questioning my sexuality. I was waiting for one of you to try that attack. I hope it doesn't disappoint you, but I like chics exclusively.
Click to expand...

I could care less who or what you sleep with. My question came from the observation that you would prefer to see PC questions rather than helpful questions from a group attempting to protect the public from harm.
 
#61
#61
AIDS is partially due to Dave Clawson's offense and our former head coach not cussing....it is spread primarily through the changing of our uniforms to anything involving the color (or lack of) black.
 
#62
#62
One of the greatest threats from the aids epidemic is the possibility of a renewed scourge of the disease of tuberculosis, (and possibly other diseases that we thought we had conquered.)

TB has shown an ability to overcome drugs developed to control it, only about three or four effective drugs were ever developed and these days there is practically no research into new drugs to combat TB.

Most of us can't remember when TB was a major problem, it hasn't been that long ago.

Because of aids, new strains of TB have made a come back and there have been some strains who have demonstrated an ability to overcome any drug we now have.

I suggest that when we spend all this new money on aids that we spend a prudent amount of it on research of related medical problems now, rather than later.
 
#63
#63
Rasputin_Vol said:
So I gave blood on Thursday and had to do all of the paperwork and questionaire jazz. Anyways, the majority of the questions asked were "have you had sex with a man since 1977", "have you ever had sex with a partner that had sex with a man since 1977"... blah blah blah. Inside the bus, there was a sign hanging up saying essentially the samething and that you can't give blood if any of these conditions are true. Very politically incorrect, and very (very) much directed towards an anti-gay male bias. Now how can something like be so openly allowed to carry on in 2008/2009 with all of the hypersensitivity there is about alternative lifestyles?

The truth is, that the ACLU/California hippie types that run our country know the truth about how AIDS is commonly spread... Sure, you have your occasional blood transfusion that went wrong or the IV drug user. But the truth is that these guys can't come out and say that gay male sex is an activity that is highly likely to transmit the HIV/AIDS virus. And these guys can't risk a public outbreak of tainted blood fom some of these donors. Even ACLU types have car accidents or operations that will need blood from donors, and even they don't want to be infected. But if it came down to covering up this truth for say some other knd of personal or political gain, these same people would not tolerate the type of language or innuendo that was exibited on the bloodmobile.
Click to expand...

WOW, I just saw this old post I made in 2009 and remembered this post I made this year in the monkey pox thread...

Monkeypox-alypse!!!!!

Rasputin_Vol said:
Kind of off topic, but then again...

So I donated blood last week, and before they draw your blood, they have you fill out a questionaire with some interesting and politically incoorect questions. Asking if you are a man if you had sex with another man, if you had been in contact with someone with HIV/AIDS and a few more questions of that nature. No inquiries about "normal" heterosexual contact that stood out. But I wonder why the focus and concern is on male/male sexual activity in order to give blood. Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#66
#66
In the medical field I’ve heard multiple professors teaching falsehoods about HIV. One tried saying vagina intercourse was just as likely to lead to transmission (obviously false, vaginas are self lubricating unless VN members are around them). Another professor tried claiming heterosexuals were at a higher risk than homosexuals for contracting HIV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and norrislakevol
#67
#67
Vol8188 said:
In the medical field I’ve heard multiple professors teaching falsehoods about HIV. One tried saying vagina intercourse was just as likely to lead to transmission (obviously false, vaginas are self lubricating unless VN members are around them). Another professor tried claiming heterosexuals were at a higher risk than homosexuals for contracting HIV.
Click to expand...

This isn't a surprise. Look at all the lies that were tossed around by some in the medical community during the scamdemic. The sad thing is that some fools will actually believe these people when they blatantly lie about HIV transmission being greater with normal sex practices.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, davethevol, allvol123 and 1 other person
#68
#68
VolByBirth said:
This isn't accurate. It's actually been proven that AIDS can become airborne for a few seconds in the case of surgery (bonesaw, etc) where it turns the blood into a fine mist. Many doctors well versed in HIV/AIDS have complained about this and have wanted to implement mandatory HIV/AIDS test on all patients (currently not allowed).
Click to expand...
So we now see that they are able to screen out people that are unvaccinated, which pose zero threat to them, but when it comes to screening for HIV, their hands are tied...
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and norrislakevol
#69
#69
Vol8188 said:
In the medical field I’ve heard multiple professors teaching falsehoods about HIV. One tried saying vagina intercourse was just as likely to lead to transmission (obviously false, vaginas are self lubricating unless VN members are around them). Another professor tried claiming heterosexuals were at a higher risk than homosexuals for contracting HIV.
Click to expand...
I hope those professors were long ago and far away.
 
#74
#74
EasternVol said:
That's pretty disturbing. Do you think they're lying to fit an agenda or were just miseducated?
Click to expand...

I think one of them misunderstood an article, but that her political bias played into her misunderstanding.

I think the second was miseducated herself by someone with an agenda and was just repeating a falsehood she heard
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top