Comments | mattcanning: AIDS: The Facts.

mattcanning

AIDS: The Facts.

Nov 20, 2006 09:31

http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/368.html

In the commentary of Ron Jeremy's movie, Ron said AIDS was mostly a homosexual male's disease and IV drug users' disease in North America. He explained that at the HIV clinic he would get his monthly tests at, ( Read more... )

Comments 21

(The comment has been removed)

mattcanning November 20 2006, 22:57:57 UTC

Thank you for your excellent and well written remarks ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

mattcanning November 21 2006, 16:03:42 UTC

ic.

Intriguing.

I got the stats from that link you posted, although I had read it before. Propaganda and brainwashing are stupid, but yes, people should have safer sex.

Thread 18

gdh November 22 2006, 03:09:04 UTC

In any population where unprotected sex with many different partners is the norm, you're going to have a much higher rate of STD spread. And that was the norm for a lot of the gay male community in America in the 1970s and 1980s. Which is a perfectly logical thing to happen when you tell hundreds of thousands of horny men that can't have open, socially accepted relationships, and instead have to seek gratification furtively.

AIDS isn't a "gay disease", it's an "unprotected promiscuity" disease.

Being gay could often mean being promiscuous, particularly around the time of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in America. But being promiscuous was the immediate risk intensifier, not being gay in of itself.

The numbers will start to even out as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted.

mattcanning November 22 2006, 18:17:33 UTC

True in points. Promiscuity is a problem for the spread of HIV.

I should warn you this is a PDF file, so be conscious of that before opening it:

Economics of Sexuality PDF

Go to page 37.

The per-contact probability of HIV transmission is 0.2% for vaginal insertive sex. This means I would have to have sex with five hundred women with HIV before the odds of me getting it strike, or have sex with one woman with HIV five hundred times. Compare that to anal-receptive sex where the odds are 0.8%, or one in 125 (four times the risk). Now let's also use some common sense other than strict science and point out that anal sex is more predominant in the gay community. Also, the overwhelming majority of the 58,000 people today with HIV are homosexual men or drug users. Straight men are a very small part of this picture.

I have many more scientific studies to show you if you wish. Here's another:

Baeten JM, Richardson BA, Lavreys L, et al. Female-to-male infectivity of HIV-1 among circumcised and uncircumcised Kenyan men. J Infect Dis ( ... )

mattcanning November 22 2006, 20:47:30 UTC

Oops, I said 0.2% compared to 0.8%.

The per-contact probability of HIV transmission for vaginal insertive sex is 0.02%, not 0.2%. Meaning the odds of a straight male contracting HIV through a woman is 1 in 5,000. Check the references if you wish, that is scientific fact, not opinion.

So anal receptive sex is 40 times more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal insertive sex.

I get the point that the disease "doesn't discriminate" in a traditional sense of the word, but anal sex is far more dangerous, and what exactly is a person like me not receiving? Anal sex. And what are homosexuals receiving? [...] That's my point. I also have no plans on ever having anal sex with a woman.

You are right that if everyone used protection that incidence of the spread of HIV would be much lower though.

"But the politically incorrect truth is rarely spoken out loud: The dreaded heterosexual epidemic never happened ( ... )

the H in Homosexuals is for HIV gdh November 23 2006, 02:55:39 UTC

I wish they could just keep their goddam cocks out of each others asses, they are draining our tax money, my money isn't meant to be spent on treatment of some homo who couldn't wrap his tool when inserting it is some other dudes ass. Fags should be more responsible.

Thread 6

zermatt November 23 2006, 14:11:36 UTC

I would like to hear the opinion of someone with a degree in medicine on this 1.

mattcanning November 23 2006, 15:17:32 UTC

CLICK HERE

Notice how he skirts around the issue and in no spot mentions that straight males are at high risk? He simply runs that whole spiel along saying straight men "may" contract the virus. Yeah - and I "may" get struck by lightning.

It's a gay man and IV drug users' disease in North America. Not sure what part of this people don't get, but with brainwashing being as it was, we are conditioned to think it is not.

Usually people will see the facts and just want to say they are wrong, knowing how silly that would be. It's hard to undue years of programming telling us something else was true.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Female-to-female HIV transmission is SO RARE, that even this guy (who is biased because he works for the AIDS foundation) actually points out that it is rare. That means it is so rare it is probably like one in 1,000,000,000. So rare that you couldn't possibly try to scare lesbians about HIV because then the propaganda would be too much of a joke even for that.

I also like how he says "Bottom line -- what ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

mattcanning November 26 2006, 21:42:11 UTC

The heading reads "anal receptive sex."

No straight men ever has anal receptive sex. It is a homosexual act, so if you're doing it you aren't technically straight. The odds of transmission for the person receiving anal sex is 40 times higher than vaginal insertive sex - the kind of sex I would be having and other straight men would be having. The risk is about 20 times higher than for anal insertive sex compared to vaginal insertive, but that doesn't concern me since I won't be doing it. All I know is that for the particular type of sex that I have as a straight male, the odds are very low of contracting HIV ( ... )

Thread 6