Should a cure for AIDS be sought? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Should a cure for AIDS be sought?

Ixtab

12-02-2005, 03:02 PM

Should a cure for AIDS continue to be sought?

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 03:03 PM

Absolutely not. You know why I say this so I needn't repeat myself.

Ixtab

12-02-2005, 03:07 PM

(I like what you have named as your location. I am going to borrow it.)

Atlas

12-02-2005, 03:10 PM

Of course not. As long as it kill black, drugs addict and fags, it's ok.

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 03:10 PM

I will allow you to do this.

Berianidze

12-02-2005, 03:12 PM

Of course not. As long as it kill black, drugs addict and fags, it's ok.

I said no, as long as it continues to kill drug addicts, fags, and other sexual devients (whorish individuals).

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 03:14 PM

That is the main reason yes. Also, it is an excellent form of populationcontrol for Africa. They already need whitey to feed them, they could stand to lose quite a few of their own.

Anarch

12-02-2005, 03:14 PM

Sure, get the cure, just be selective about who its given to. Let fags, drug addicts and coons drop like flies, for example.

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 03:17 PM

That's quite naive. You know with 100% certainty that it WILL be used to keep those degenerates alive.

Ixtab

12-02-2005, 03:20 PM

Sure, get the cure, just be selective about who its given to.Ideally, yes, I would agree -- but the possibility that any government would countenance selective use seems very unlikely to me.

Billy Score

12-02-2005, 07:39 PM

No I am 100% against curing it. i also do not have to explain this.

Berianidze

12-02-2005, 08:15 PM

No I am 100% against curing it. i also do not have to explain this.
ROFL, in my mandatory sensitivity training program we had to take an assessment test to evaluate our "tolerance level" and my scores showed i have 0 tolerance for homosexuals and peoples of alternative lifestyle choices.

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 08:16 PM

What did you score for negroes?

daisy

12-02-2005, 08:25 PM

yes everyone deserves a chance to live.

Berianidze

12-02-2005, 08:59 PM

What did you score for negroes?

87%, I have no problems with blacks, just with hip-hop/"gangsta" culture.

Sinclair

12-02-2005, 09:28 PM

I say yes, because it's realistic. As things are now, Western nations aren't going to adopt a policy of "LET ALLA THEM DEGENERATES DIE" or "LET'S ONLY GIVE THE CURE TO RIGHT-LIVIN' WHITE FOLK" or whatever.

I mean, OK, if we're all going to turn the question into "Would you support a cure for AIDS in your ideal fantasy world where everything works as your ideology says", then yeah, whatever. In my fantasy world, AIDS doesn't exist, because I'm level 40 in all classes, and can use my Wish spell. :p

It's possible to get HIV/AIDS without being a "degenerate". It isn't possible, in the Western world as it is now, to deny something to some people and give it to others based on "morality". How would it be determined whether or not somebody should get it? There would be huge amounts of scamming, hospital personnel would be bribed, etc.

Jimbo Gomez

12-02-2005, 09:43 PM

Well Sinclair, let me rephrase it like I think most meant it: 'I hope they'll never discover the cure even if they're looking for it'

Better now?

Sinclair

12-02-2005, 09:55 PM

Scenario: You are witness to an automobile accident, and you pull a guy out of the wreck, getting a bit cut up in the process, and perform first aid. You get his blood on you.

Whoops, he had HIV/AIDS, and now you do too. What now?

Not everybody who gets the disease is a "degenerate", and what is a "degenerate" anyway? There's rape, there's deceit, there's children born with HIV/AIDS, there's failed contraceptives, etc.

Vindex

12-02-2005, 10:11 PM

I agree with Sinclair there are people with AIDS who did not do anything degenerate thousands of people got AIDS from bad blood transfusions. There is a cure for AIDS, but nobody will ever hear about it on mass, and most people have been so conditioned they would never believe there was unless it was in a pill jar. But I say no sharing with the non-Whites, Whitey has given those muds enough and they still hate and attack us.....for them sweet fuck all.

Felix the Cat

12-02-2005, 10:28 PM

All medical research is commendable, though it's questionable whether the time and resources spent on AIDS could not be better spent elsewhere...

OVERWATCH

12-02-2005, 10:35 PM

The vast majority of HIV infections are either degenerate westerners, or the teeming masses of turd whirrlders.

It's possible that HIV could mutate and become far more deadly, being a threat to non-degenerate westerners. Furthermore, HIV research can lead to other serrendipitious discoveries.

On the other hand, HIV could be considered to be nature's way of population control.

SO I arrive at the conclusion: Yes, pursue HIV research, but also pursue aggressive poopulashun control, as a condition.

Anarch

12-03-2005, 12:11 AM

Ideally, yes, I would agree -- but the possibility that any government would countenance selective use seems very unlikely to me.
Of course.

To those who seem to think that only degenerates get AIDS: a daughter of my mom's friend at work was a virgin til 21, dated a guy, condom popped, and now she has AIDS. I'm not entirely sure she's a degenerate and earned it. For people like her - rare as they are - I would suggest the AIDS cure be applied.

Berianidze

12-03-2005, 12:51 AM

Péter

12-03-2005, 12:53 AM

The Retard

12-03-2005, 01:39 AM

In March 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses, a field he helped pioneer, wrote in Cancer Research that he didn't believe HIV, a retrovirus, caused AIDS. He argued that HIV was too inactive, infected too few cells, and was too difficult to even find in AIDS patients to be responsible. And since the virus is notoriously difficult to isolate, antibody detection became the indicator of infection-something Duesberg protested is highly inconsistent. Antibodies dominant over a virtually unfindable virus has always meant the immune system has triumphed over the invader, not capitulated to it. Finally, there were AIDS cases without any HIV, virus or antibody, further weakening the hypothesis. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) swept those under the carpet by changing the definition of what an AIDS patient is to necessarily include HIV infections. But hundreds of HIV-free, certified AIDS cases surfaced again at the 1992 International Conference on AIDS, and now total over 4,000. This time the CDC changed the name of the disease. Duesberg contends it's AIDS nonetheless and changing the name only further distracts from the likelihood that HIV doesn't cause it.
Source
(http://www.duesberg.com/articles/bginterview.html)

HIV doesn't cause AIDS, weak immune systems do!

Woman A has tuberculosis, no HIV. Woman B has tuberculosis and HIV; she is said to have AIDS. Now, are there any physical differences?

No. In terms of diagnostic features, it's the same.

Absolutely the same? And they should, if they're both of average health, either recover or die at the same pace?

It should be exactly the same. The only thing is that because HIV is rare in this country, only one in 250 Americans, 0.4 percent, are HIV-positive, and because it's so difficult to pick up, the odds are that he or she may have been one of those people who have practiced risk behavior, or been receiving transfusions.

Woman B must be a degenerate because she had tuberculosis, but she is still gonna die of the same illness. :mad:

Banat

12-03-2005, 02:25 AM

There was a healer that claimed to have found a herbal tea able to prevent AIDS.

One day, a group of young men came to him, asking for the recipe of the tea. He didn't say it to them, but he invited them into his house, and offered them to try the tea, instead.

They looked at each other and agreed to come in.

The old man prepared them the tea, and they started drinking it. It had a very bitter taste, and was very unpleasant.

They casually chatted over the tea, but whenever young men tried to ask the old man about the recipe and the way the tea worked, he virtuously managed to change the course of discussion.

But at some point, one after another, each young man started to feel bowel movements. Eventually one of them couldn't resist no longer and asked the old man about the toilet. The old man said that his house was but a modest cottage, and that it had neither toilet nor bathroom, and he suggested them to go out, and find a place in the bushes or by the river, out of sight.

One after another, they all started to run out, came back in short time, and after a while ran out again. The old man seemed to pay no attention. He kept pouring them the tea and had his chat with those who were in at the moment, like if nothing was happening. But after some time, one of the young men raised his voice, annoyed, and said:

- Listen, old man, we have no more time to waste here, and certainly aren't going to drink any more of this tea. Are you going to tell us about this cure for AIDS you've got, or not?!

And the old man replied:

- But *this* is the cure! The cure is that ye all fuckin' faggots get to learn what the asshole is used for!

:D

Starr

12-03-2005, 03:09 AM

If it wasn't for AIDS there would now be and would continue to be more worthless people in the world. The loss of Fags, Africans, drug addicts and other assorted trash can only be a positive thing. And these people are aware that AIDS exists and they still choose to "live it up" rather then to stop engaging in their risky behaviors. If they don't care about their own lives, why in the hell should I or anyone else?

For people like her - rare as they are - I would suggest the AIDS cure be applied.

I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

Vindex

12-03-2005, 05:09 AM

I really think people should go back to waiting for marriage for sex, and having the blood test before getting married. But to do that society will have to be restructed so people normally get married around 19 again. Cause I do not see people waiting till 26 etc.

Anarch

12-03-2005, 06:36 AM

I would be in favour of this, supposing the possibility of severely crushing the massive divorce rates in Western countries.

Helios Panoptes

12-03-2005, 07:39 AM

The vast majority of HIV infections are either degenerate westerners, or the teeming masses of turd whirrlders.

True. Some deaths are unfortunate, but most are for the best. Overall, AIDS is overwhelmingly beneficial. Of course, ideally, there would be a cure that would be distributed selectively, but we know that in reality, it would be used to cure everyone and anyone.

Dr. Anti-Christ, agreed for once.

Björn

12-03-2005, 07:48 AM

There is a cure for aids, it's called quarentine.

Anarch

12-03-2005, 08:03 AM

There is a cure for aids, it's called quarentine.
That's containment, not cure.

Leif

12-03-2005, 08:45 AM

The question is somewhat odd as AIDS is a symptom and not a disease.

But, if one were to change "AIDS" to "HIV" it might make more sense, as trying to cure a symptom is impossible without curing the cause, which is either HIV or HIV retrovirals. The details don't matter, necessarily, as long as one recognizes an underlying agent at work.

Now, would I want to find a cure for a highly infectious disease that results in the eventual destruction of one's immune system...YES?!?

Why would one be opposed to it? The idea that AIDS is punishment from God and thus a damnation of certain groups doesn't make sense, otherwise there would be no point in an afterlife if everyone recieved their punishments & rewards on Earth. Well, I suppose one could believe that if one was a Jew or a Calvinist, but I am not aware of anyone here with those belief systems...

I have no idea why the self-proclaimed atheists are opposed to finding a cure...

1) Why would you care what someone does in the bedroom enough to wish death upon them...?

2) Assuming you did care about what someone does in the bedroom, because certain promiscuous practices lead to widespread STDs, why wouldn't you want to find a cure? Why the hell would you want these diseases to continue to run unchecked through society? Would it be worth it to sacrifice 'moral' people in an attempt to spite a few 'degenerates?'

From my perspective, the only reason why I hold a negative view of 'degenerates' is precisely because they spread diseases. Thus, having the capability to stop these diseases, why wouldn't one want to?

I'm not even going to bother with the idea that maybe homosexuals and Africans deserve the same right to life as everyone else.

Earl_Cerberus

12-03-2005, 11:03 AM

No.

AIDS is one of the few remaining Eugenic forces left in the World. (Abortion is the other, Planned Parenthood was started by Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger) It appears the inferior negro is highly susceptible to this AIDS Eugenic force (most likely due to ignorance about reproductive knowledge and a tendency to be 'on the down low').

When someone acquires AIDS from contraceptive devices mal-functioning it is actually due to user error so it is good that these error-making types are weeded out as well.

OVERWATCH

12-03-2005, 04:26 PM

All people eventually die. Some don't "deserve" their fate; others deserve worse.

But it is necessary to think logically about any selective agents--whether they are viruses, bacteria, lions, dinosaurs, three-toed sloths, or purple unicorns--and realize that although some "innocent" people become "victims," by and large selection works to improve a species in the long run. It is unfortunate that someone may die of AIDS after contracting it through a blood transfusion, but death is a part of life, and a healthy view of existence understands this without any a priori moralizing.

Science died when individualistic moral imperatives were created by the self-proclaimed "irreligious" scientific community, who unwittingly in their humanistic quest destroyed the very agencies of our natural world which man for so long sought to discover. As such, science turned from being the ultimate faustian dream into a bleak nightmare whose greatest impetus--as is for most action today--is economics.

Good thoughts, I agree with much of them. Although I believe that artifical selection should supplant natural selection.

The most powerful argument for using natural selection would be that allowing the disease to run it's course would give humankind natural immunity to HIV, as it becomes incorporated into the endogenous retroviruses of our genome.

On the other hand, wouldn't an HIV vaccine do the same, eventually?

If I may diverge from the topic momentarily, wouldn't artificial selection be superior to natural selection, since natural evolution(and natural selection) is supposed to occur at random, whereas with artifical selection we could evolve in a deliberate direction.

I mention this because population control(i.e., artifical selection) is the only condition under which I support HIV research. Over-population is a real threat to humankind.

Starr

12-03-2005, 08:51 PM

1) Why would you care what someone does in the bedroom enough to wish death upon them...?

I am not neccessarily wishing death upon anyone, but many of those that have aids have brought death upon themselves. A heroin addict shoots up and overdoses and almost anyone with any sense will say they are responsible for their own death, but when someone fucks everyone in town and aquires HIV it is a different story. Then everyone puts on their AIDS ribbon and cries.

From my perspective, the only reason why I hold a negative view of 'degenerates' is precisely because they spread diseases. Thus, having the capability to stop these diseases, why wouldn't one want to?

It could be said that the acceptance of the behaviors that lead to the disease is much more harmful then the disease or the spreading of the disease itself.

behave jewrselves:nono:

LOL. this is cute.

Sinclair

12-03-2005, 10:00 PM

HIV/AIDS is a very nasty disease because it's a bit slow.

Diseases are living or sorta-living things too, remember. Their biological imperative is also to survive. It doesn't help them if they're so virulent they kill their hosts before they can infect lots of others...

A vaccine would actually be better than a "cure", as it might well be cheaper, wouldn't require a hospital bed like a cure probably would, and would not rely on somebody KNOWING they had the disease.

infoterror

12-03-2005, 10:19 PM

Should a cure for AIDS continue to be sought?

No; we have too many people, especially too many morons. You have to be gay, psychotically promiscuous, or on IV drugs to get AIDS. Let it cleanse the earth!

Sinclair

12-03-2005, 10:21 PM

No; we have too many people, especially too many morons. You have to be gay, psychotically promiscuous, or on IV drugs to get AIDS. Let it cleanse the earth!

Or get raped, be a hemophiliac and get it through tainted blood, get the blood of somebody with it on you for instance by helping them when they're injured, be born to a mother who's infected, etc etc.

Fuckin' degenerates. :rolleyes:

Péter

12-04-2005, 12:28 AM

I believe that artifical selection should supplant natural selection.

The most powerful argument for using natural selection would be that allowing the disease to run it's course would give humankind natural immunity to HIV, as it becomes incorporated into the endogenous retroviruses of our genome.

On the other hand, wouldn't an HIV vaccine do the same, eventually?

1) Natural immunity is immunity that is possessed by a group (as a race, strain, or species) and occurs in an individual as part of its natural biologic makeup and that is sometimes considered to include that acquired passively in utero or from mother's milk or actively by exposure to infection

2) Acquired immunity is immunity that develops after exposure to a suitable agent (as by an attack of a disease or by injection of antigens).

3) Active immunity is usually long-lasting immunity that is acquired through production of antibodies within the organism in response to the presence of antigens.

4) Passive immunity is immunity acquired by transfer of antibodies (as by injection of serum from an individual with active immunity).

An HIV vaccine would not result in natural immunity, as it is a source of acquired immunity, even though both vaccinations and genetic predispositions for immunity are active forms of immunity. Therefore, one could not pass on the immune response characteristics acquired from a vaccine, as this would imply Lamarkian inheritence, which does not occur.

If I may diverge from the topic momentarily, wouldn't artificial selection be superior to natural selection, since natural evolution(and natural selection) is supposed to occur at random, whereas with artifical selection we could evolve in a deliberate direction.

I mention this because population control(i.e., artifical selection) is the only condition under which I support HIV research. Over-population is a real threat to humankind.

Natural selection is a determinstic process, not a random one--it is subject to antecedent environmental causes, or stressors. The random processes of evolution, mutation, and genetic drift do not in themselves result in the evolution of complex structures or mechanisms.

Evolution only occurs relative to the stressors of a particular environment, and that particular environment is subject to change over geological time. Therefore, a species had better continue to evolve to its changing environment or else it will no longer remain extant. The deliberate direction of evolution is always towards adaptation to the environment.

Péter

12-04-2005, 12:35 AM

By the by, this thread should most probably be in the Science section.

Billy Score

12-04-2005, 12:43 AM

as i have said before, i use the idea of "god" as simply an embodiement of justice. If we humans no longer can stand up for virtuous and noble behavior, at least nature is thinning the herd.

And yes, it is worth sacrificing a few moral people for a large majority of degenerates.

"better to let 100 innocent die than one guilty go free"- Dzerzhinksy

Helios Panoptes

12-04-2005, 02:38 AM

Billy Score

12-04-2005, 02:43 AM

This happens all of the time! :rolleyes:
What about all those guys who went into gay bars looking for directions to the nearest church and trip and fall into HIV positive homosexuals' laps who happen to be lying on the floor, naked? They deserve the right to a cure too :rofl:

Leif

12-04-2005, 07:50 AM

And yes, it is worth sacrificing a few moral people for a large majority of degenerates.

What makes them degenerate? Engaging in activities that spread disease? If that were the case, then curing the diseases would no longer make their activities degenerate.

Billy Score

12-04-2005, 10:17 AM

What makes them degenerate? Engaging in activities that spread disease? If that were the case, then curing the diseases would no longer make their activities degenerate.

No, sodomy and heroin use are degenerate. Their activities are degenerate regardless, but at least AIDs clears out a few of the vermin

Sinclair

12-04-2005, 01:34 PM

This happens all of the time! :rolleyes:

You're saying that AIDS among hemophiliacs is uncommon? Bullshit! It was quite common before proper screening of blood supplies existed in the West, and there's no promise that proper screening is global.

Sinclair

12-04-2005, 01:39 PM

And HIV/AIDS doesn't do a really good job of clearing out so-called "degenerates" anyway. If you wanted to get rid of heroin users, you'd sneakily sell poisoned junk, or whatever.

If it's being viewed as eugenics, of course, then you're just cleaning out the dumb "degenerates", ever think of that? Use a condom, or of course "Look upon their works, and clean yours with bleach".

Billy Score

12-04-2005, 07:54 PM

Sinclair

12-04-2005, 10:29 PM

Oh i support this too. putting bad batches of heroin into circulation etc.

But isn't viewing HIV/AIDS as a way of "killing degenerates" sort of stupid?

I mean, if in Western society it was permissable to openly say that HIV/AIDS was great for killing "degenerates" and so a cure shouldn't be sought, it probably wouldn't be so hard to just say "Look, let's round 'em all up and shoot 'em".

I think Ymir is right: The only bad things about such behaviour are its effects on others. If HIV/AIDS didn't exist, then that would be so many less problems: Less healthcare costs, less risk to others, etc. If somebody causes no harm, or minimal and indirect harm, to others, how exactly can they reasonably be condemned?

Helios Panoptes

12-04-2005, 11:28 PM

You're saying that AIDS among hemophiliacs is uncommon? Bullshit! It was quite common before proper screening of blood supplies existed in the West, and there's no promise that proper screening is global.

I am more concerned with "the West" than whatever you mean by "global." It happens that here there is proper screening of blood donors, therefore, this is no problem.

OVERWATCH

12-05-2005, 12:05 AM

By the by, this thread should most probably be in the Science section.

Thanks for your enlightening previous post.:) The content of this thread is sufficiently highbrow, but I'm moving it to the political forum instead, since much of the discussion seems to be centered around the non-scientific aspects.

Sinclair

12-05-2005, 02:21 AM

I am more concerned with "the West" than whatever you mean by "global." It happens that here there is proper screening of blood donors, therefore, this is no problem.

What about people infected before proper blood screening was in place? They're not all dead you know.

Helios Panoptes

12-05-2005, 04:50 AM

What about people infected before proper blood screening was in place? They're not all dead you know.

How many of them do you think there are? It's been accepted that a very small percentage of people with AIDS contracted it through unfortunate circumstances. I have not attempted to deny this. However, I do not see why you cling to this fact as a legitimate, convincing objection. It is akin to saying that nothing should be done to criminals because some will be wrongly punished. It's akin to saying that there ought to be no government because some will be marginalized by it.

Sinclair

12-05-2005, 02:28 PM

Because "doing something" about AIDS is what keeps it from getting worse. If it was just accepted that HIV/AIDS was a way to kill off "undesirable" elements, and those people were denied treatment and so forth, it would probably spread further...

Leif

12-05-2005, 02:33 PM

No, sodomy and heroin use are degenerate. Their activities are degenerate regardless, but at least AIDs clears out a few of the vermin

Okay. What makes sodomy and heroin use degenerate?

How many of them do you think there are? It's been accepted that a very small percentage of people with AIDS contracted it through unfortunate circumstances. I have not attempted to deny this. However, I do not see why you cling to this fact as a legitimate, convincing objection. It is akin to saying that nothing should be done to criminals because some will be wrongly punished. It's akin to saying that there ought to be no government because some will be marginalized by it.

Why do we punish criminals? To save innocents.
Allowing HIV to spread isn't saving innnocents.

The former actually serves a constructive purpose, while the latter is done out of mere spite.

Jimbo Gomez

12-05-2005, 06:21 PM

If you have to ask what is degenerate about another man's penis being shoved into your rectum, you may be degenerate yourself. Some things are just self-explaining.

Helios Panoptes

12-05-2005, 09:51 PM

Okay. What makes sodomy and heroin use degenerate?

The best societies have successful unions between men and women at their most fundamental level because this, and this alone, yields virtuous children. The homosexual lifestyle is selfishly individualistic. I find nothing immoral about sodomy per se, but as an exclusive proclivity it is entirely degenerate. As for heroin usage, a man is not virtuous if he would be a hindrance to a virtuous society. The whole is better off without men completely subservient to base appetites.

Leif

12-05-2005, 11:12 PM

If you have to ask what is degenerate about another man's penis being shoved into your rectum, you may be degenerate yourself. Some things are just self-explaining.

The Greeks, the founders of your most cherished Western civilization, were degenerates? Plato, Socrates, and all the rest, total degenerates?

The best societies have successful unions between men and women at their most fundamental level because this, and this alone, yields virtuous children.

I'm not disputing this itself, but what is your definition of "virtuous?"

The homosexual lifestyle is selfishly individualistic.

I doubt heterosexuals choose to engage in sexual intercourse out of "collectivism."

As for heroin usage, a man is not virtuous if he would be a hindrance to a virtuous society. The whole is better off without men completely subservient to base appetites.

I agree.

Helios Panoptes

12-06-2005, 12:39 AM

On Plato, The Athenian states: "A very proper observation. That was precisely the reason why I stated that in reference to this law I know of a device for making a natural use of reproductive intercourse, -- on the one hand, by abstaining from the male and not slaying of set purpose the human stock, nor sowing seed on rocks and stones where it can never take root and have fruitful increase; and, on the other hand, by abstaining from every female field in which you would not desire the seed to spring up. This law, when it has become permanent and prevails -- if it has rightly become dominant in other cases, just as it prevails now regarding intercourse with parents, -- is the cause of countless blessings. For, in the first place, it follows the dictates of nature, and it serves to keep men from sexual rage and frenzy and all kinds of fornication, and from all excess in meats and drinks, and it ensures in husbands fondness for their own wives: other blessings also would ensue, in infinite number, if one could make sure of this law."

Here, in his Laws, Plato advocates a ban on homosexuality, which is to be accomplished by having the gods decree that it is shameful, like incest.

Socrates also, while taken with Alcibiades, refuses the young man's advances in favor of continuing an intellectual, non-sexual relationship.

I doubt heterosexuals choose to engage in sexual intercourse out of "collectivism."

I'm talking about how things ought to be. I also believe that rulers should be wise, but I look about and see that they are not.

Revolution_of_the_Mind

12-06-2005, 07:06 AM

Should a cure for AIDS be sought?

Yes for the unfortunate ones, but for those who are degenerates should learn their lesson and suffer from AIDs. :nono: Think about it, if degenerates were cured everytime they got the virus then what kind of example are we setting for the Youth? Feel free to experiment with degeneracy? Besides we need to control the population. Less people, less problems.

Jimbo Gomez

12-06-2005, 10:26 AM

Jimbo Gomez

12-06-2005, 10:28 AM

The Greeks, the founders of your most cherished Western civilization, were degenerates? Plato, Socrates, and all the rest, total degenerates?

In many ways: yes, they were. They just happened to be smart degenerates.

Sinclair

12-06-2005, 09:24 PM

Getting a cure for a disease is hardly making that disease risk-free... I mean, considering how nasty AIDS is, it's unlikely that the cure is just gonna be "Take this pill and call me in the morning".

EDIT: Again, a vaccine would hands-down be better than a cure. Cheaper, for one thing, and it would achieve better coverage. In the parts of the world where AIDS is really a major crisis, a lot don't even know they have AIDS.

Leif

12-06-2005, 10:06 PM

sugartits

12-07-2005, 01:12 AM

There is a risk of being HIV positive if you have had a blood transfusion prior to 1985 in Canada, use intravenous drugs, and have had unprotected sex.

I saw that on a poster at a clinic.

Anarch

12-07-2005, 01:38 AM

There is a risk of being HIV positive if you have had a blood transfusion prior to 1985 in Canada, use intravenous drugs, and have had unprotected sex.

I saw that on a poster at a clinic.
There is also a risk of a plane slamming into my house and exploding, burning me alive, if not crushing me, right now ;)

sugartits

12-07-2005, 01:46 AM

There is also a risk of a plane slamming into my house and exploding, burning me alive, if not crushing me, right now ;)

:rofl:

GET OUT OF YOUR HOUSE!

infoterror

01-01-2006, 06:05 PM

Or get raped, be a hemophiliac and get it through tainted blood, get the blood of somebody with it on you for instance by helping them when they're injured, be born to a mother who's infected, etc etc.

Ah! I see how this reputation system works: when you disagree with someone, you fire off a flame and then vote them bad rep points. The intarweb has matured!!!1!

People born of infected parents are most likely to be degenerates of low IQ also. Sorry about your mom, but it's a truth.

Exceptions including those above are less than one tenth of a percent. WHy worry? There will be plenty of people... after AIDS comes to clean house!

I'm also a big fan of the Asian Flu, Ebola and syphilis.

Fade the Butcher

01-01-2006, 06:26 PM

Should a cure for AIDS be sought? Why? Straight white heterosexuals who don't miscegenate or abuse drugs are rarely affected by this disease.

Geist

01-01-2006, 06:30 PM

Yes it should, if I should happen to be stabbed by an infected syringe during a mugging or something it'd be nice to know there was a cure for it.

Plus it should be done to see if it can be done, as another challenge overcome by science.

infoterror

01-01-2006, 07:29 PM

Plus it should be done to see if it can be done, as another challenge overcome by science.

It's a matter of priorities. A cure is easy - segregate the infected. Saves the rest of us and your muggers won't be able to important AIDS-blood that way.

Sinclair

01-01-2006, 08:02 PM

Ah! I see how this reputation system works: when you disagree with someone, you fire off a flame and then vote them bad rep points. The intarweb has matured!!!1!

People born of infected parents are most likely to be degenerates of low IQ also. Sorry about your mom, but it's a truth.

You wanna talk about firing off a flame? Don't insult me or my mother. Real classy. Just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I'm gonna take your childish little slur for fear of looking "unobjective".

I was giving you negative rep points because, dammit, a cure for HIV/AIDS would be of great benefit to people who have the disease through no fault of their own. Do you honestly think that the disease just stays to people who are "degenerates"?

It's very easy to sit there and just consign people to death from behind a keyboard. Yeah, just throw in the occasional term like "degenerate", accuse people of having "low IQ". Just make up some rationale.

Sinclair

01-01-2006, 08:12 PM

Why? Straight white heterosexuals who don't miscegenate or abuse drugs are rarely affected by this disease.

Or fail to use protection.

Sinclair

01-01-2006, 08:17 PM

It's a matter of priorities. A cure is easy - segregate the infected. Saves the rest of us and your muggers won't be able to important AIDS-blood that way.

And this will be done how exactly? Really. How is a political system in which segregating large numbers of people is acceptable going to be established? Then, how is it going to be figured out how who has HIV/AIDS or not? Remember, false positives and negatives occur, and testing is often quite impractical. So, that will cost money. After that, you have to find a way to round all these people up, put them somewhere, and then... Do what with them, exactly?

Whereas a cure for the disease, or preferably a vaccine, might well cost less, and wouldn't require the full-fledged reform of the political system, and the very concept of human rights, that most "brilliant" ideas like yours do.

raven

01-01-2006, 08:39 PM

Or fail to use protection.
Not to mention oral sex. How many people actually use a condom/some sort of device when performing cunnilingus on a woman or receiving fellatio?

OVERWATCH

01-01-2006, 08:46 PM

Personal insults aren't going to be tolerated in highbrow. :nono: read the rules. (http://thephora.net/forum/announcement.php?f=8)

Infoterror, check your PM plz.

Fade the Butcher

01-01-2006, 08:48 PM

Or fail to use protection.Even without protection. AIDS isn't much of a problem for straight white heterosexuals who aren't 1.) race mixers or 2.) drug abusers.

raven

01-01-2006, 08:56 PM

Even without protection. AIDS isn't much of a problem for straight white heterosexuals who aren't 1.) race mixers or 2.) drug abusers.
It becomes a problem for these white heterosexuals if the chain leads to race mixing/drug abuse. For eg. If an honest individual was cheated on during a relationship with a white woman. The cheating female was with another guy (say he was white).. Now if that white guy she slept with was with a girl during that time who was with a black guy... you get the drill. It's a deadly chain which is why we all gotta be careful. These STDs can get so out of control that it could be like indirectly sleeping with a whole bunch of people.

jcs

01-01-2006, 09:09 PM

I was giving you negative rep points because, dammit, a cure for HIV/AIDS would be of great benefit to people who have the disease through no fault of their own.
We all deserve to die, and we'll all get what's coming one way or another. So let some die from AIDS.
One wonders if the imperative of curing AIDS for those 'innocent victims' stems from one's own fears... (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/self/)

And this will be done how exactly?
And you will find some medicinal cure for AIDS how exactly? :p

Sinclair

01-01-2006, 10:02 PM

And you will find some medicinal cure for AIDS how exactly? :p

Within the current atmosphere of the West, whether or not a cure or a vaccine can be found is a scientific issue. It's "can they or can't they". For all we know, cure/vaccine research is being let slide because drug companies make more money selling the treatment drugs.

The concept of segregating large numbers of people would require fundamental differences in political and social viewpoints, on top of the practical side of things. And the practical side of things is nothing to sneeze at.

Leif

01-02-2006, 01:20 AM

Why? Straight white heterosexuals who don't miscegenate or abuse drugs are rarely affected by this disease.

Most diseases don't affect the majority of any given population, that doesn't mean we shouldn't cure them...

Ixtab

01-02-2006, 01:22 AM

Most diseases don't affect the majority of any given population, that doesn't mean we shouldn't cure them...It means we should take into consideration whom the disease threatens before seeking a cure.

Leif

01-02-2006, 01:27 AM

It means we should take into consideration whom the disease threatens before seeking a cure.

HIV threatens everyone.

Ixtab

01-02-2006, 01:58 AM

HIV threatens everyone.In varying degrees. It threatens undesirables to the greatest extent, and good men it threatens only very slightly.

infoterror

01-02-2006, 02:08 AM

I was giving you negative rep points because, dammit, a cure for HIV/AIDS would be of great benefit to people who have the disease through no fault of their own.

...who are a statistically insignificant number, less than the margin of error for ANY such division.

Argumentative crap, old chap.

infoterror

01-02-2006, 02:09 AM

Most diseases don't affect the majority of any given population, that doesn't mean we shouldn't cure them...

Natural selection must be preserved.

Some errors will occur, but for the most part (99.99%) AIDS strikes those who get it through bad behavior.

When was the last transfusion case? 1986?

Sinclair

01-02-2006, 02:40 AM

...who are a statistically insignificant number, less than the margin of error for ANY such division.

Argumentative crap, old chap.

The disease already affects a pretty small number of people in the West. The reason for a vaccine would be to try to prevent the sort of epidemic that was feared in the 80s. Just because HIV/AIDS never became the unstoppable killer of every demographic group, does not mean it can't get nastier. More unpleasant strains of the disease are showing up.

It might be a good thing to take care of a disease BEFORE it spreads beyond "degenerates".

Sinclair

01-02-2006, 02:42 AM

Natural selection must be preserved.

Some errors will occur, but for the most part (99.99%) AIDS strikes those who get it through bad behavior.

When was the last transfusion case? 1986?

Natural selection? HIV/AIDS hardly kills fast enough to really do any such job. If one is looking for a way to kill "degenerates", well, a lousier way could hardly be found. Considering that it's a disease that is not especially hard to avoid, barring something really unfortunate.

So if you want to keep it around to act as "natural selection", bear in mind all it's doing is breeding out the "degenerates" who can't be arsed to protect themselves. You're not breeding "degeneracy" out, you're breeding smarter "degenerates". :p

Péter

01-02-2006, 03:19 AM

Moralizing reveals the primitive nature of one's ideological bases.

Nature does not work on any moral scale, but on a level which ensures that as a rule, the healthiest survive. Modern artifice is the greatest form of decadence, insofar as it seeks to destroy this mechanism in favor of humanistic ends.

DeathtoPrejudice

01-02-2006, 04:11 AM

Yes.

AIDs is a bane among man, it kills many, and many children are born with it.

a cure for aids, would be nothing but positive.

Ixtab

01-02-2006, 04:52 AM

Yes.

AIDs is a bane among man, it kills many, and many children are born with it.

a cure for aids, would be nothing but positive.It weeds out undesirables.

Leif

01-02-2006, 07:31 PM

It weeds out undesirables.

All diseases have a tendency to do this. Does this mean we should stop curing diseases? Close down the hospitals, we are culling the herd! :rolleyes:

Starr

01-02-2006, 08:06 PM

All diseases have a tendency to do this. Does this mean we should stop curing diseases? Close down the hospitals, we are culling the herd! :rolleyes:

Though I suppose this could basically be said about a lot of things, in the case of AIDS, this disease is something a large majority of them most likely bring on themselves by behaviors that they know put them at risk for it.

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 04:51 AM

While the vast majority of AIDS recipitants have gotten it by making mistakes, a crime which all humans commit, many get it by accidental means... such as coming into contact with infected blood or needles (accidentally, im not talking about meth heads).

You can't ignore those people, and AIDs is something anyone can get. And considering how undeducated much of the world is regarding the disease, it's much much easier for them to make those mistakes.

jcs

01-03-2006, 04:54 AM

While the VAST MAJORITY of AIDS recipitants have gotten it by making mistakesYou'll have to prove this claim.

You can't ignore those people
Yes we can.

A prayer:
Dear Lord,
Please give AIDS to a larger number of people this year than you did last
and please help them infect a lot of people
and let them all die
Amen.

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 04:58 AM

You'll have to prove this claim.

Or, you can think about the amount of people who have gotten aids on purpose.

Is there anything left to proove?

jcs

01-03-2006, 05:04 AM

Or, you can think about the amount of people who have gotten aids on purpose.
I read contextually, and contextually, with you going on about needles and such (not meth heads!), I assumed you meant 'mistakes' to mean something else.

I still want statistics for people who got aids accidentally and those who sought it.

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 05:07 AM

I doubt any, sane, person sought AIDs.

If you want statistics, google is your freind. I'm no library...

AID's is primarily spread through sexual contact is it not? Thus mistakes. And heroine junkies using dirty needles not knowing it is infected with HIV (not like they care).

jcs

01-03-2006, 05:11 AM

If you want statistics, google is your freind. I'm no library...
If you make a claim, you need to substantiate it. I once got chicken pox on purpose. They say that's the pot of illnesses.

One day you might get AIDs. Will you still keep it up then?
The morality behind all this: fear. If I had AIDS, I'd infect everyone I could, then die.

edit: I'd infect eugenically.

Starr

01-03-2006, 05:17 AM

I am tired of hearing about mistakes. AIDS is out there and it has been drilled in our heads constantly about how you get it and still people don't care. They don't think or care about it when they decide to sleep with numerous unknown people and slut themselves around town, or when they use the dirty needles,etc. If one doesn't care enough to protect themselves(it is not exactly difficult to do so) why should I? I am also tired of people making all kinds of bad "spur of the moment" decisions and then expecting that everybody is going to hold their hand and cry with them when they are forced to deal with the consequences of those decisions(like comforting children) That kind of mindset just keeps on telling them to go right ahead, since we will be there to pick up the pieces and try to help them go on with their pitiful lives. And never must we judge them.:nono:

How many people get AIDS these days from tainted blood, honestly?

Almost everyone I know has made that one or two mistakes in their life and not one of them has contracted aids even though they tell us "that is all it takes" )which I suppose is true, for some) but they don't turn those mistakes into a whole degenerate(I can't believe I used Mazdak's favorite word:p ) lifestyle, which for most, I believe is the difference.

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 05:43 AM

If you make a claim, you need to substantiate it. I once got chicken pox on purpose. They say that's the pot of illnesses.

The morality behind all this: fear. If I had AIDS, I'd infect everyone I could, then die.

edit: I'd infect eugenically.

Well by substantiate you mean google it and then find an article that supports it, that's not really support now is it.. It's pointless.

And it's safe to say, the vast majority get it from making mistakes, unless the world is out to get it.

AIDS is out there and it has been drilled in our heads constantly about how you get it and still people don't care.

Despite what many think, many third world countries and even third world communities aren't nearly as educated as any of us. Afrika is a prime example of this lack of education, and that's why it's so rampant.

How many people get AIDS these days from tainted blood, honestly?

Enough not to ignore, these are people who have not gotten it from needles, or from careless sex habits, but from a cruel twist of fate that took over their whole lives, what lives they have left to live... Well, unless they're so incredibly rich they can afford all the top-notch treatments to keep AIDs down (Like that one rich NBA player who has HIV, but it never progressed due to his bottomless pockets of cash he shovels to keep it down).

Starr

01-03-2006, 06:07 AM

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 06:12 AM

With all the crime, out of control breeding in places that are already vastly overpopulated, food shortages,etc.etc.etc. in the third world, especially Africa, it is a good thing(for them even) that AIDS is helping to thin out their numbers some.

AIDs, works far too slow, to have that effect...

The only thing that will help places like that out, is major revamping.

Sinclair

01-03-2006, 09:16 PM

With all the crime, out of control breeding in places that are already vastly overpopulated, food shortages,etc.etc.etc. in the third world, especially Africa, it is a good thing(for them even) that AIDS is helping to thin out their numbers some.

HIV/AIDS is too slow to do that. Sometimes, a big disease wave can be good for a society, for instance it is arguable that the Black Death actually resulted in progress in Europe. HIV/AIDS is not going to do that.

Helios Panoptes

01-03-2006, 10:50 PM

Natural selection? HIV/AIDS hardly kills fast enough to really do any such job. If one is looking for a way to kill "degenerates", well, a lousier way could hardly be found. Considering that it's a disease that is not especially hard to avoid, barring something really unfortunate.

So if you want to keep it around to act as "natural selection", bear in mind all it's doing is breeding out the "degenerates" who can't be arsed to protect themselves. You're not breeding "degeneracy" out, you're breeding smarter "degenerates". :p

Part of their degeneracy is that they are too irresponsible to protect themselves against disease.

HIV/AIDS is too slow to do that. Sometimes, a big disease wave can be good for a society, for instance it is arguable that the Black Death actually resulted in progress in Europe. HIV/AIDS is not going to do that.

I disagree: "In the 35 African nations with the highest prevalence, average life expectancy is 48.3 years—6.5 years less than it would be without the disease. For the eleven countries in Africa with prevalence rates above 13 percent, life expectancy is 47.7 years—11.0 years less than would be expected without HIV/AIDS."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_Africa

"In 2001, 2.3 million Sub-Saharan Africans died of AIDS-related causes, compared with 2.2 million deaths in 1999. This was 80 percent of all the AIDS-related deaths in the world. AIDS is by far the leading cause of death in Africa, causing one of every five deaths on the sub-continent."

"The population growth rate in Zimbabwe has been reduced to nearly zero because of AIDS-related deaths. Sharply reduced growth rates are also seen in South Africa, Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Swaziland and Zambia."

"By 2003, there will be negative population growth in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Negative population growth has never before been projected in a developing country; it is caused by a combination of high HIV prevalence and declining relatively low fertility."

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsinafrica/aidsinafrica.html

DeathtoPrejudice

01-03-2006, 11:40 PM

Part of their degeneracy is that they are too irresponsible to protect themselves against disease.

That's why they need better education programs... They are ignorant, and need to have better education programs.

Helios Panoptes

01-04-2006, 12:26 AM

That's why they need better education programs... They are ignorant, and need to have better education programs.

That part of my post was referring to AIDS in the West.

Starr

01-04-2006, 07:50 AM

Part of their degeneracy is that they are too irresponsible to protect themselves against disease.

exactly.......

infoterror

01-04-2006, 04:32 PM

Degeneracy? Who cares? Here's my argument:

1. They're not my responsibility. I stand for people who share my values, which includes some homosexuals (the non-promiscuous, quiet kind) but not people who have random, frequent sex.

2. We're overpopulated. Losing some people is really healthy for our long-term prospects.

3. Nature has predators for a reason. If you cannot figure out not to put a plastic bag on your head, and die, it's positive for the gene pool. Same with being unable to avoid AIDS.

The sixty or so people who got AIDS from transfusions in the 1980s are excepted of course (as well as you HIV pos phora posters who got it through means unknown).

Sinclair

01-04-2006, 08:41 PM

HIV/AIDS won't do much to help solve overpopulation. It lets people live long enough that it will never burn itself out. Thus, it is not the sort of disease that is helpful to humans.

jcs

01-04-2006, 08:45 PM

HIV/AIDS won't do much to help solve overpopulation. It lets people live long enough that it will never burn itself out. Thus, it is not the sort of disease that is helpful to humans.
AIDS kills enough people for it to make a difference in the population problem. Of course it is not a solution to overpopulation; we'll need many more diseases and a few wars for the problem to be solved. AIDS is pretty much the only thing killing people in large numbers right now, though.
Hail AIDS!

Faustian Dreams

01-04-2006, 09:43 PM

HIV/AIDS...it is not the sort of disease that is helpful to humans.

...No disease is "helpful to humans." They did not evolve for the benefit of mankind, just as mankind didn't evolve to benefit the Earth. The primogenitors of every existing lifeform evolved as necessity--or rather, opportunity--arose for a particular function. For example, bacterial infections, through random mutations, will display quite different behavior as in the streptococcus pyogenes species, which can mutate from its common form, the one that causes "strep throat" infections, to a form that results in necrotizing fasciitis. The goal of every species is to ensure its survival; the fact that only humans are completely "aware" of this goal does not alter the fact that nature continues to strike a balance, it will always find a way, and the ensemble of ecosystems does exactly this without encouragement of any kind. This is the "role" of the HIV/AIDS virus. This was the "role" of the Spanish Flu, which in the midst of the widescale industrialization of the West, actually managed to pull off a decrease in the ever-increasing human population. A laudable accomplishement, if I do say so myself.

Human beings suffer from something greater than AIDS. It is a short-sightedness of epic proportions. It is altruism and humanism. Gone are the days of creation myths and eschatalogical musings; we have lost touch with the cyclical nature of time, because in its stead we have replaced the individual as "God," and not even in an Eastern, or rather, Hindu metaphysical perspective. This self-worship, which is of secular origin, results in a humanistic approach to social issues--after all, if we are gods, everyone else in them must have the same God striving for its realization, its dreams and its ultimate potential. Unfortunately for our little secular humanist friends, any metaphysical reasoning for why we ought to do good for the whole of humanity is utterly devoid of context. It is also unable to discriminate, because the esoteric faith which once provided a thorough background and understanding of culture-specific rituals, mores, politics, etc. has been inverted, and now, as individualists, this path is a solitary and solipsistic one. Once again, we see the individual deified. Now every persons sob-story matters, as bovine emotions tug at the heartstrings of the masses. AIDS has been sensationalized, humanized, and Hallmark is crossing its fingers that they'll be able to pull those "I heard you have AIDS" cards off the back-burner...

In the meantime, it was just nature trying to come up with a cure to humanity! Be patient, it's slow in the process! But give her a few thousand years and there should be a cure out there sooner or later!

If anything, we need more stringent terms for population control, eugenics has always been a favorite of mine, but since people today enjoy stirring the hoopla, perhaps we're in for a good-old-fashioned genocide.

Sinclair

01-05-2006, 01:17 AM

Diseases can often be helpful to humans, or at least some humans. For instance, the Black Death did quite a bit for the peasantry: While it killed a lot of them, the remainders were able to demand higher wages.

Sinclair

01-05-2006, 01:18 AM

AIDS kills enough people for it to make a difference in the population problem. Of course it is not a solution to overpopulation; we'll need many more diseases and a few wars for the problem to be solved. AIDS is pretty much the only thing killing people in large numbers right now, though.
Hail AIDS!
I'm pretty sure the HIV/AIDS death numbers in, say, Africa are lower than other infectious diseases.

Helios Panoptes

01-05-2006, 01:20 AM

HIV/AIDS won't do much to help solve overpopulation. It lets people live long enough that it will never burn itself out. Thus, it is not the sort of disease that is helpful to humans.

As the references in my post pointed out, it is lessening overpopulation. It is true that it takes it awhile to cause death, which means it won't "burn itself out." However, in the civilized West, education can protect a person against it with a high degree of success, excluding only the terminally stupid. As for Africa, it will lay waste to their population until they take some action against it. I really don't give a damn what happens to them.

Leif

01-05-2006, 01:37 AM

I'm pretty sure the HIV/AIDS death numbers in, say, Africa are lower than other infectious diseases.

This is correct. Two billions are infected with tuberculosis bacterium. Last year I found out from a friend of mine that herself and a few others who work at the local Pizza Hutt had tuberculosis...among other diseases. You can imagine that my family and I stopped eating their Pizza. Another acquaintance of mine told me, I don't know why as it was quite personal, that he and some buddies had contracted tuberculosis and had to remain on medication for a couple of months.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/tb.htm

Sinclair

01-05-2006, 01:47 AM

TB is getting more common. Drug-resistant TB is also getting more common.

The closest I want to get to tuberculosis is a performance of "La Boheme".

daisy

01-05-2006, 02:32 AM

yeah my friend carl sears died of tb. it is strange he never gave it to anyone
because we were all around him before he died. i don't know why none of us caught it. glory be to God

jcs

01-05-2006, 02:35 AM

Knut Hamsun was working in Minneapolis and coughed up blood one day. He went to the doctor and was told he had TB and would die in three months. Instead of curling up and dying like a fatalist weakling, he bought a train ticket to New York and rode on top of the train, gulping down air the whole ride. When he arrived in New York, he pronounced himself cured and returned to Norway. He lived to be in his nineties and was never bothered by TB again.

Leif

01-05-2006, 03:30 AM

daisy

01-06-2006, 10:24 PM

jcs i will give you good rep for posting about a cure for tb
it says i gotta spread some rep first so ahah you didn't get it yet
now if only you would have posted about a cure for aids instead of wishing it on everyone

Sulla the Dictator

02-07-2006, 12:18 PM

I have absolutely no idea why Europeans find bigotry so revolting as to outlaw hatespeech.

I mean, look at how reasonable this discussion about letting millions of people die has been.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 12:30 PM

Sulla the Dictator

02-07-2006, 12:34 PM

Everyone dies at some point or another.

Encouraging the death of millions shouldn't be the goal of someone involved in medicine.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Encouraging the death of millions shouldn't be the goal of someone involved in medicine.

How are we encouraging the deaths of millions?

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 12:45 PM

I'm pretty sure the HIV/AIDS death numbers in, say, Africa are lower than other infectious diseases.

Actually, nobody dies from HIV/AIDS. They die from infectious diseases at a time they are "testing" positive for HIV antibodies. More infrequently, they die from various cancers. I put "testing" in quotes because in Africa, blood tests are rarely administered since they are said to be too expensive. A collection of symptoms that persist for a month or more are diagnosed as HIV/AIDS. Also, the TB deaths have been moved under the rubric of HIV/AIDS.

Sulla the Dictator

02-07-2006, 01:04 PM

How are we encouraging the deaths of millions?

The poll implies the hypothetical that the voters in it have an input into the research of an AIDS cure.

Half of the voters don't want one. For the most disgusting of reasons.

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 01:06 PM

Actually, nobody dies from HIV/AIDS. They die from infectious diseases at a time they are "testing" positive for HIV antibodies. More infrequently, they die from various cancers. I put "testing" in quotes because in Africa, blood tests are rarely administered since they are said to be too expensive. A collection of symptoms that persist for a month or more are diagnosed as HIV/AIDS. Also, the TB deaths have been moved under the rubric of HIV/AIDS.

You are correct. I should have written ''dying because of''. Of course, there is a great deal of misdiagnosis in Africa... It goes hand in hand with subpar medical care in general.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 01:08 PM

I'm all for finding cures for all diseases... knowledge can't hurt.

You're not thinking in advance.
Eventually society will have to evolve and take the role of a grand selective force
which will better the species. A rise of population density and a reduction of resources will eventually cause that.
When push comes to shove, it's best to know as much as possible.

Let me remind you that there is a place where natural selection
ruled supreme over humans for the last million years. A place where
natural forces, predators and diseases ruled unchecked, and shaped
a part of the human species into the best fit.

That place of ultimate natural selection of Humans is called
Sub-Saharan Africa.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 01:14 PM

The poll implies the hypothetical that the voters in it have an input into the research of an AIDS cure.

The poll simply asks: should a cure for AIDS be sought? It does not imply that the members of this forum would have any input in process of finding or not finding a cure. It simply asks them for their opinion.

Half of the voters don't want one. For the most disgusting of reasons.

I am one of those voters. The resources of society are limited. We have better things to spend our resources on than a cure for a disease whose victims are primarily irresponsible drug addicts, homosexuals, and blacks.

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 01:15 PM

The poll implies the hypothetical that the voters in it have an input into the research of an AIDS cure.

Half of the voters don't want one. For the most disgusting of reasons.

The question can be made quite reasonable. The AIDS virus is extremely fragile. It requires an anaerobic environment for transmission since the virus dies upon exposure to air. Thus, prevention is simply a matter of refraining from intravenous drug use and/or promiscuous sex and anal intercourse.

The choice comes down to spending billions in an attempt to "cure" a viral disease (an impossible task) or people simply refraining from promiscuous sex and/or anal intercourse and intravenous drug use. In the long run, a cure, even assuming such a thing was possible, would actually be counter-productive since it would remove the incentives against dangerous behaviors.

Basil Fawlty

02-07-2006, 01:34 PM

I knew someone who died of AIDS contracted from his wife who in turn contracted it prior to their meeting. How she contracted it I do not know. Both of them are dead.

To this we can add all the others who have contracted this through no fault of their own (fault being defined as reckless promiscuity, sharing needles etc).

So how do those who oppose finding a cure justify their attuitude in the light of such cases?

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 01:39 PM

For starters, there is no cure for viral diseases.

HIV/AIDS is unique to individuals with compromised immune systems, that is, drug users, sodomites, and people who receive large blood transfusions. The last group can be helped by testing the blood supply. The two former groups simply need to refrain from harmful behaviors.

Basil Fawlty

02-07-2006, 01:44 PM

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 01:45 PM

I knew someone who died of AIDS contracted from his wife who in turn contracted it prior to their meeting. How she contracted it I do not know. Both of them are dead.

To this we can add all the others who have contracted this through no fault of their own (reckless promiscuity, sharing needles etc).

So how do those who oppose finding a cure justify their attuitude in the light of such cases?

As you can see, some here are so sure they won't contract a viral disease
because they believe they lead 'good lifestyles'.

It's basically a fault of christian upbringing for this sort of idiocy.

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 02:00 PM

Not for all those who now have it through no fault of their own.

How many of those are there? Enough to justify billions of dollars in fruitless research?

HIV/AIDS has never broken out of the high-risk groups of sodomites, drug users, and recipients of large volume blood transfusions. The CDC et al. have given up on using it as a hobgoblin in the US, so they dredge up Africa, where people continue to die of infectious disease at the same rates as previously. The African "AIDS pandemic" is just the statistical legedermain of moving TB and other deaths into the HIV/AIDS category.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 02:06 PM

It's basically a fault of christian upbringing for this sort of idiocy.

I wasn't brought up as a Christian.

Basil Fawlty

02-07-2006, 02:06 PM

How many of those are there? Enough to justify billions of dollars in fruitless research?Possibly not. But then there are drugs which can quite effectively suppress the virus.

HIV/AIDS has never broken out of the high-risk groups of sodomites, drug users, and recipients of large volume blood transfusions. The CDC et al. have given up on using it as a hobgoblin in the US, so they dredge up Africa, where people continue to die of infectious disease at the same rates as previously. The African "AIDS pandemic" is just the statistical legedermain of moving TB and other deaths into the HIV/AIDS category.That's an interesting point. The real scandal in all this is the patenting laws which make AIDS suppressant drugs so expensive. This is equally true for a lot of tropical diseases which could be wiped out quite easily and cheaply if such laws were not there to inhibit their distribution.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 02:08 PM

How many of those are there? Enough to justify billions of dollars in fruitless research?

HIV/AIDS has never broken out of the high-risk groups of sodomites, drug users, and recipients of large volume blood transfusions. The CDC et al. have given up on using it as a hobgoblin in the US, so they dredge up Africa, where people continue to die of infectious disease at the same rates as previously. The African "AIDS pandemic" is just the statistical legedermain of moving TB and other deaths into the HIV/AIDS category.

That's simply the fault of world oligarchs who rule the economy and thus science.

If they are lying to you and everyone about HIV/AIDS,
then, who's to say they won't invent some other boogeyman
called XIV/AIBZ or SARS or whatever other acronym
and continue to 'relocate' resources to researching some new found 'modern plague'?

The principle should be: 'man must invent ways of coutnering enemies of mankind, whatever they may be'

If this principle is being abused, it's not the fault of the principle,
simply the abuser must be discovered and removed.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 02:10 PM

Why should we concern ourselves with the fate of mankind? Why should I care about what goes on in Guinea or Somalia?

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 02:14 PM

I have absolutely no idea why Europeans find bigotry so revolting as to outlaw hatespeech.

I mean, look at how reasonable this discussion about letting millions of people die has been.

Would you care to present an argument or have you decided to revive this thread solely to litter it with your emotional outbursts? We're shedding tears now, man. :(

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 02:18 PM

This is equally true for a lot of tropical diseases which could be wiped out quite easily and cheaply if such laws were not there to inhibit their distribution.

Yes. Soap and isopropyl alcohol are extremely expensive.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 02:18 PM

Would you care to present an argument or have you decided to revive this thread solely to litter it with your emotional outbursts? We're shedding tears now, man. :(

You forget. Antiracists don't think; they feel. :/

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 02:20 PM

As you can see, some here are so sure they won't contract a viral disease
because they believe they lead 'good lifestyles'.

It's quite simple. If one avoids known reckless behavior, then one is safe from this virus. I cannot justify wasting resources on a disease that is so easy to prevent.

It's basically a fault of christian upbringing for this sort of idiocy

Why must you denigrate my reasonable thought process with your ad hominem attack?

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 02:29 PM

I'm all for finding cures for all diseases... knowledge can't hurt.

Some knowledge is more valuable than other. Which knowledge we pursue is determined by its value in proportion to the resources it will require. AIDS scores quite low in this department.

You're not thinking in advance.
Eventually society will have to evolve and take the role of a grand selective force
which will better the species.

I agree.

A rise of population density and a reduction of resources will eventually cause that.
When push comes to shove, it's best to know as much as possible.

As has been said, it is not worthy of the required resources to find a cure to save Africans, homosexuals, and drug addicts.

Let me remind you that there is a place where natural selection
ruled supreme over humans for the last million years. A place where
natural forces, predators and diseases ruled unchecked, and shaped
a part of the human species into the best fit.

That place of ultimate natural selection of Humans is called
Sub-Saharan Africa.

What is your point vis-a-vis AIDS? We already know how to prevent it with near absolute certainty. Why do we need to stretch ourselves thinner for the sake of the wantonly self-destructive and people inhabiting another continent?

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 03:51 PM

You forget. Antiracists don't think; they feel. :/

Pfft. I guarantee you that a lot of the ''We shouldn't pay for [x]" crowd are looking at things in an emotional sense. As in, they don't like feeling that they're paying for somebody else's bad decisions.

Of course, fully embracing that philosophy requires a libertarian view of human free choice. It is too easy to paint a picture where everybody who catches HIV has fully made the decision to have promiscuous sex, or use drugs, or whatever. However, that's not reality. In Africa, for instance, women simply don't have the power they do in Western countries to, for instance, say no to their husbands. So, if hubby has been off fucking around on the side...

An HIV vaccine would be a damn good thing.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 04:17 PM

I wasn't brought up as a Christian.

You were brought up in a civilization heavily influenced by christianity.
None can escape the symbolism which is integrated into our minds from the day we're born.

On a basic level, you think Santa Clause will bring you health,
if you do everything right,
then, your reasoning brings in darwinian 'natural selection'.

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 04:24 PM

You were brought up in a civilization heavily influenced by christianity.
None can escape the symbolism which is integrated into our minds from the day we're born.

On a basic level, you think Santa Clause will bring you health,
if you do everything right,
then, your reasoning brings in darwinian 'natural selection'.

That's just the thing. I don't need luck(Santa Clause) to protect me from AIDS. I merely need to avoid sharing needles and having unprotected sex, particularly with homosexuals.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 04:24 PM

You were brought up in a civilization heavily influenced by christianity.

True. I wasn't brought up as a Christian though.

None can escape the symbolism which is integrated into our minds from the day we're born.

Are you coming around to historicism, AWAR? If so, then good for you. I have no doubt been influenced by Christianity.

On a basic level, you think Santa Clause will bring you health, if you do everything right, then, your reasoning brings in darwinian 'natural selection'.

No, I haven't even considered my own individual welfare when considering this question. I think AIDS research is a misallocation of limited community resources.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 04:34 PM

Why should we concern ourselves with the fate of mankind? Why should I care about what goes on in Guinea or Somalia?

Because you can't foresee future.
Somalians and Guineans won't become extinct from HIV/AIDS either,
so it's not even a sort of 'final solution'.

Imagine if someone invented a system for automobiles which saves pedestrians,
only it's ugly and raises the car's cost for a tiny bit.

Most people will say
"It's ugly and expensive, fuck it. The pedestrians who get ran over must be stupid and reckless. I'm a good, smart man, I won't become roadkill ( because I obey all the rules of safety for pedestrians )"

And then your loved-one gets killed by a car which was in turn hit by a drunk driver.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 04:36 PM

That's just the thing. I don't need luck(Santa Clause) to protect me from AIDS. I merely need to avoid sharing needles and having unprotected sex, particularly with homosexuals.

How do you know your future wife hasn't secretly slept with some guy
who's had sex with some other woman who's had sex with some bisexual
who contracted HIV from his gay lover?

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 04:38 PM

Pfft. I guarantee you that a lot of the ''We shouldn't pay for [x]" crowd are looking at things in an emotional sense. As in, they don't like feeling that they're paying for somebody else's bad decisions.

When considering a political matter such as this, I ask what would be the most productive use of resources to improve the state and benefit its inhabitants. The payoff(cure for the self-destructive) is not worth the expenditure. The citizens' money is better spent on research for diseases that cannot be prevented by simple precautionary measures. I believe the state should better the community and I advocate policy I find best suited to this end.

Of course, fully embracing that philosophy requires a libertarian view of human free choice. It is too easy to paint a picture where everybody who catches HIV has fully made the decision to have promiscuous sex, or use drugs, or whatever. However, that's not reality. In Africa, for instance, women simply don't have the power they do in Western countries to, for instance, say no to their husbands. So, if hubby has been off fucking around on the side...

You don't understand. Africa is not my concern. Let their states fund the research for their people. Fixing their mess is not the best thing for my countrymates. Here, we have an educational system that begins telling us about the risks of intravenous drug use and irresponsible sexual practices beginning in junior high, if not before.

Okay guys, no more replies from me until tonight.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 04:42 PM

Pfft. I guarantee you that a lot of the ''We shouldn't pay for [x]" crowd are looking at things in an emotional sense.

Probably. That is not true in my case. I have given a very definite reason why AIDS research should not be pursued: it is a misallocation of collective resources. I can think of other reasons as well. Morality is the most effective cure. If you don't engage in irresponsible behavior because you are a rational and moral individual, then the chances of you getting AIDS are next to zero. Why look for a cure for AIDS when we already have one? Is this not inefficient?

As in, they don't like feeling that they're paying for somebody else's bad decisions.

If the goal is to fight AIDS, then why dispense with AIDS prevention in favor of a hypothetical undiscovered cure the pursuit of which would cost billions of dollars (which, as far as we know, might be flushed down the toilet)? Prevention has been proven to work, it encourages libertines to adopt morals, and it is far more cost effective.

Of course, fully embracing that philosophy requires a libertarian view of human free choice.

How so?

It is too easy to paint a picture where everybody who catches HIV has fully made the decision to have promiscuous sex, or use drugs, or whatever.

Who has made this argument?

However, that's not reality.

Does prevention not work? Does it not effectively reduce cases of HIV contraction?

In Africa, for instance, women simply don't have the power they do in Western countries to, for instance, say no to their husbands. So, if hubby has been off fucking around on the side...

We are not Africans. How is this our problem?

An HIV vaccine would be a damn good thing.

Why don't you pay for it then?

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Because you can't foresee future.

I don't see how this requires us to care about humanity.

Somalians and Guineans won't become extinct from HIV/AIDS either,
so it's not even a sort of 'final solution'.

I'm not wishing death upon these people. I am just saying that they are not our problem. Let them use their resources to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. Suppose we did find a cure and we cured all these people. What would they contribute to our collective in return for the resources we have expended working to ensure their salvation? Probably nothing of value. That is why it makes no sense to help them.

Imagine if someone invented a system for automobiles which saves pedestrians, only it's ugly and raises the car's cost for a tiny bit.

We have no assurance that there is a cure for AIDS.

Most people will say "It's ugly and expensive, fuck it. The pedestrians who get ran over must be stupid and reckless. I'm a good, smart man, I won't become roadkill ( because I obey all the rules of safety for pedestrians )" And then your loved-one gets killed by a car which was in turn hit by a drunk driver.

This isn't a valid analogy. The people who contract and die from HIV/AIDS do so by engaging in sexual intercourse and drug abuse. How is this comparable to motor vehicle accidents? Are these people accidently injecting themselves with needles? Are they accidently having sex with each other? This would hold true in some cases; the minority . Rape comes to mind. Blood transfusion is another. There are more effective remedies, however, to such problems than AIDS research.

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 05:03 PM

Probably. That is not true in my case. I have given a very definite reason why AIDS research should not be pursued: it is a misallocation of collective resources. I can think of other reasons as well. Morality is the most effective cure. If you don't engage in irresponsible behavior because you are a rational and moral individual, then the chances of you getting AIDS are next to zero. Why look for a cure for AIDS when we already have one? Is this not inefficient?

What if somebody is raped? What if somebody is involved in some sort of unfortunate accident?

If the goal is to fight AIDS, then why dispense with AIDS prevention in favor of a hypothetical undiscovered cure the pursuit of which would cost billions of dollars (which, as far as we know, might be flushed down the toilet)? Prevention has been proven to work, it encourages libertines to adopt morals, and it is far more cost effective.

...Prevention is all well and good to talk about in situations where it is possible. What happens when somebody ends up in a situation where it isn't?

How so?

Because it assumes that everybody is in control of their fate. Talking, and that is all that is being done here, about how a disease is perfectly avoidable, doesn't take into account the situations where it isn't.

Who has made this argument?

It's been made repeatedly, by many people in this thread. You yourself said "If you don't engage in irresponsible behavior because you are a rational and moral individual, then the chances of you getting AIDS are next to zero." Even if this is true, which it isn't necessarily, it still basically abandons those who happen to have ended up next to zero.

Does prevention not work? Does it not effectively reduce cases of HIV contraction?

Of course it reduces cases. But it doesn't eliminate them. Again, rape and unfortunate accidents. I have read of nurses treating AIDS patients contracting HIV through accidents. Etc.

We are not Africans. How is this our problem?

Well, there's always basic humanity. Then there's the fact that trouble in third-world countries usually leads to refugees and emigration in general. Also, it is possible that in such a crucible, HIV could become much, much nastier.

Why don't you pay for it then?

That's just playground level. Yeah, Fade, I just have a few billion lying around. On the other hand, I am willing to pay a couple hundred extra in taxes per year when I'm a productive adult, to fund it. I'd just spend the cash on computers and shit anyway.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 05:12 PM

I don't see how this requires us to care about humanity.

Exactly. You don't see.

I'm not wishing death upon these people. I am just saying that they are not our problem. Let them use their resources to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. Suppose we did find a cure and we cured all these people. What would they contribute to our collective in return for the resources we have expended working to ensure their salvation? Probably nothing of value. That is why it makes no sense to help them.

I don't like to go off on such tangents, but, let me ask just this:
What have YOU done to contribute to our collective?

What single thing have you achieved which repays all the centuries
of medical progress which brought us antibiotics, and provided you with a lifespan longer than 24 years?

How many quadrillions of dollars, how many people have died through the last 3000 years... and the product is you... and how do you intend to repay that?
Sure, potentially, you can achieve something sometime, or you might not...or, you might meet some chick online, fuck her and contract HIV and die. ;)

Or, perhaps, you go bungie-jumping, and some genetic disease activates
within you. The treatment is costly, so your mama and papa decide you're
not going to make enough money through life, to justify their expenditures,
so they let you die. :D

We have no assurance that there is a cure for AIDS.

AIDS is just one thing... medical science has discovered lots of useful shit,
while trying to discover something completely different.
Who knows if some HIV research won't cure some

This isn't a valid analogy. The people who contract and die from HIV/AIDS do so by engaging in sexual intercourse and drug abuse. How is this comparable to motor vehicle accidents? Are these people accidently injecting themselves with needles? Are they accidently having sex with each other?

In a similar manner, people don't exactly need motor vehicles.
You can spend a perfectly normal life living as far away from cars and highways as you can.

Yet, millions die each year in motor vehicle accidents.
Even though they could've avoided them, by living in a cottage in some distant forest.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 05:33 PM

What if somebody is raped?

Rape is a separate issue that should be considered and dealt with in its own right. In any case, rape accounts for only a small percentage of HIV infections.

What if somebody is involved in some sort of unfortunate accident?

How many people acquire HIV through accidents like blood transfusion?

...Prevention is all well and good to talk about in situations where it is possible.

And that would include the vast majority of cases would it not?

What happens when somebody ends up in a situation where it isn't?

Look. Medicine doesn't have to be absolutely effective to be sufficient. Prevention is a sufficient cure for HIV/AIDS in so far as it is a problem for us.

Because it assumes that everybody is in control of their fate.

Who here assumes that everyone is absolutely in control of their fate?

Talking, and that is all that is being done here, about how a disease is perfectly avoidable, doesn't take into account the situations where it isn't.

How many people in the U.S. acquire HIV/AIDS through rape and/or blood transfusion every year? How many of them are white heterosexuals?

It's been made repeatedly, by many people in this thread. You yourself said "If you don't engage in irresponsible behavior because you are a rational and moral individual, then the chances of you getting AIDS are next to zero."

I never said that such people were in total control of their actions. They do, however, have some degree of control over the sort of activities they engage in.

Even if this is true, which it isn't necessarily, it still basically abandons those who happen to have ended up next to zero.

How many people is that?

Of course it reduces cases. But it doesn't eliminate them.

It is effective, right?

Again, rape and unfortunate accidents. I have read of nurses treating AIDS patients contracting HIV through accidents. Etc.

How many such cases exist?

Well, there's always basic humanity.

I acknowledge we are of the same species. So what?

Then there's the fact that trouble in third-world countries usually leads to refugees and emigration in general.

This is a problem that is facilitated by international law and can be dealt with by changes in international law.

Also, it is possible that in such a crucible, HIV could become much, much nastier.

I suppose that would be unfortunate for the Africans who live there.

That's just playground level. Yeah, Fade, I just have a few billion lying around.

I was referring to those who are in favor of searching for a cure for AIDS.

On the other hand, I am willing to pay a couple hundred extra in taxes per year when I'm a productive adult, to fund it. I'd just spend the cash on computers and shit anyway.

I am not willing to pay a couple hundred dollars in taxes every year to waste away on a cure for a disease that afflicts immoral and irresponsible homosexuals, drug addicts, and libertine miscegenators.

Leif

02-07-2006, 05:49 PM

SST, there is a debate going on in the Re: Democracy thread where someone is arguing that the U.S. is run by a libertarian elite... Maybe you'd be interested in discussing that.

The AIDS virus is extremely fragile.

AIDS is not a virus, it's a syndrome. HIV is the virus.

The choice comes down to spending billions in an attempt to "cure" a viral disease (an impossible task) or people simply refraining from promiscuous sex and/or anal intercourse and intravenous drug use.

Viruses can be vaccinated against and fought with antibodies...

In the long run, a cure, even assuming such a thing was possible, would actually be counter-productive since it would remove the incentives against dangerous behaviors

If one could remove the dangers associated with sexual intercourse, there wouldn't be a need for an incentive against it.

Why should we concern ourselves with the fate of mankind? Why should I care about what goes on in Guinea or Somalia?

That's a very odd thought for a communitarian. One might as well be asking why we should concern ourselves with our neighbors or co-workers...

The answer is that we are affected (sometimes infected) by everyone else. It is our business to care about what lies past the tip of our noses.

Ample evidence is provided by the mass die-off occurring after the introduction of European-carried diseases into the Americas.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 06:00 PM

Exactly. You don't see.

Because you are not making a valid argument.

I don't like to go off on such tangents, but, let me ask just this:
What have YOU done to contribute to our collective?

I have seen you ask this question numerous times before. My answer is that I don't contribute to our liberal democratic society and have no plans on doing so. Do you think I am willing to die for the inalienable right of faggots with AIDS to dress like women and parade around in their panties in our city streets? Why do I have any obligation to people like Edana who care about nothing but themselves?

What single thing have you achieved which repays all the centuries
of medical progress which brought us antibiotics, and provided you with a lifespan longer than 24 years?

We don't make singular accomplishments as individuals. If you are saying that we have a duty to preserve our traditions and to people beyond ourselves, then I absolutely agree. We don't, however, have any obligation to the enemies of such things; to those who would like nothing better than to positively destroy such traditions. Such obligations are mutual or they are not obligations at all.

How many quadrillions of dollars, how many people have died through the last 3000 years... and the product is you... and how do you intend to repay that?

We can't choose our historical and social circumstances. That is why individualism doesn't make sense. There would be lots of ways to contribute to the collective in an ideal world. I don't live in such a collective. I live in a contract society that is the antithesis of such collectivism; a liberal state based on an individual rights regime. I 'repay' such people by helping to alleviate the ignorance of most people hold about their social condition.

I am glad to see that I have helped you, AWAR, as you have obviously learned a few things in your stay here. :)

Sure, potentially, you can achieve something sometime, or you might not...or, you might meet some chick online, fuck her and contract HIV and die. ;)

My own self interest is irrelevant to this question.

Or, perhaps, you go bungie-jumping, and some genetic disease activates
within you. The treatment is costly, so your mama and papa decide you're
not going to make enough money through life, to justify their expenditures,
so they let you die. :D

AIDS is just one thing... medical science has discovered lots of useful shit,while trying to discover something completely different.

We should direct our resources towards useful activities, right? We wouldn't want to waste them, correct?

Who knows if some HIV research won't cure some

Is it not true that the billions of dollars that now goes to HIV research can be spent more effectively in other areas?

In a similar manner, people don't exactly need motor vehicles. You can spend a perfectly normal life living as far away from cars and highways as you can. Yet, millions die each year in motor vehicle accidents. Even though they could've avoided them, by living in a cottage in some distant forest.

There is no comparison to be made between HIV/AIDS infection and motor vehicle accidents, as the victims who are hit by drunk drivers interact with them only by accident, unlike homosexuals who engage in multiple promiscuous encounters with anonymous partners and people who inject themselves with contaminated needles.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 06:03 PM

That's a very odd thought for a communitarian.

How so? The human species isn't a collective. It is just a taxonomic classification.

One might as well be asking why we should concern ourselves with our neighbors or co-workers...

Our neighbors and coworker are part of our community.

The answer is that we are affected (sometimes infected) by everyone else. It is our business to care about what lies past the tip of our noses.

Not really. What goes on in Guinea or the Central African Republic has little affect on our lives.

Ample evidence is provided by the mass die-off occurring after the introduction of European-carried diseases into the Americas.

Couldn't this very example prove the opposite: that the lack of New World diseases proves that Europeans should be unconcerned about Indians?

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 06:09 PM

AIDS is not a virus, it's a syndrome. HIV is the virus.

True. I misspoke.

Viruses can be vaccinated against and fought with antibodies...

Also true but again, in a world of finite resources--and more to the point, private or public socialization of risk--you have to justify the costs. The choice comes down to spending billions to save a few self-destructive individuals or simply deciding that people who engage in anal intercourse and IV drug use have to bear the consequences of their actions.

If one could remove the dangers associated with sexual intercourse, there wouldn't be a need for an incentive against it.

Also true. My post was rather sloppy.

Ample evidence is provided by the mass die-off occurring after the introduction of European-carried diseases into the Americas.

I don't doubt this happened to some extent but given that there are millions of indigenous and mixed-indigenous peoples still alive on the American continents, I think it's overstated.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 06:11 PM

Why do I have any obligation to people like Edana who care about nothing but themselves?

I want to thank you for not feeling any obligation towards me. People like me would rather go about our own lives as we see fit without Boy Kings and wannabe dictators getting the silly notion that they have the authority to dictate a single thing to us. :)

Thomas777

02-07-2006, 06:45 PM

I want to thank you for not feeling any obligation towards me. People like me would rather go about our own lives as we see fit without Boy Kings and wannabe dictators getting the silly notion that they have the authority to dictate a single thing to us. :)

Would you consider yourself to be a guerrilla partisan who is fighting to liberate Canada from the grotesque excesses of the mad, boy-king known as FadetheButcher?

Perhaps some noble instincts WERE in fact cultivated within you during your years at Degrassi Jr. High.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 06:49 PM

Would you consider yourself to be a guerrilla partisan who is fighting to liberate Canada from the grotesque excesses of the mad, boy-king known as FadetheButcher?

Nah, I don't have such delusions of self-importance. No one needs to be liberated from an internet hobbyist. Like most, I use the internet for amusement and curiousity. :)

Thomas777

02-07-2006, 06:54 PM

Nah, I don't have such delusions of self-importance. No one needs to be liberated from an internet hobbyist. Like most, I use the internet for amusement and curiousity. :)

Well, your description of him as a youthful despot led me to believe that he is both insidious and an oppressor of bovine-tempered Canucks. I am glad to hear that you are not suffering under his iron heel.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 06:59 PM

Perhaps some noble instincts WERE in fact cultivated within you during your years at Degrassi Jr. High.

There are far more profound things in life that should concern us than the nature of justice or the content of morality, say, the inalienable right of adolescent libertine nihilists to gorge themselves with soda and cheese doodles while watching the latest gay porn on the internet.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 07:01 PM

Jimbo Gomez

02-07-2006, 07:03 PM

Why is it that you only see rats in the streets when the sewers are flooded?

Eddy

02-07-2006, 07:04 PM

There are far more profound things in life that should concern us than the nature of justice or the content of morality...

You have ran from that discussion here (http://www2.iptcp.net:36668/opendebate/showthread.php?t=607&page=5).

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 07:09 PM

Well, your description of him as a youthful despot led me to believe that he is both insidious and an oppressor of bovine-tempered Canucks. I am glad to hear that you are not suffering under his iron heel.

My philosophy amounts to the assertion that anyone should be free to indulge any irrational whim, bestial desire, or fleeting caprice that strikes their fancy whenever they please so long as its consensual. We should be moving towards a more lawless society and insolent populace. Who is to say the philosopher is better than the pimp?

Thomas777

02-07-2006, 07:14 PM

My philosophy amounts to the assertion that anyone should be free to indulge any irrational whim, bestial desire, or fleeting caprice that strikes their fancy whenever they please so long as its consensual. We should be moving towards a more lawless society and insolent populace. Who is to say the philosopher is better than the pimp?

I agree wholeheartedly.

I was poking fun because when Eddy talks about you like you are a cruel Gauleiter, I really get a kick out of it...it brings to mind images of Feyd-Rautha in "Dune".

I actually rather enjoy Eddy's flair for the dramatic...even if it is a bit tainted by weird Canadian sensibilities.

Pablo Escobar

02-07-2006, 07:24 PM

The reasoning for finding a cure against AIDS is the same as the logic
of the early humans. They were threatened by wolves, so they were urged to invent ways to fend-off wolves.

Thus came technology.

The reasoning against finding a cure against AIDS is purely emotional
and rooted in religion and arrogance. The only thing such a worldview can
produce is ultimate stagnance.

Frankly, I don't see what's the difference between the anti-cure crowd
and common niggers. Both only see only as far as they's monays is concerned.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 07:27 PM

I sympathize with the argument that taxpayer monies would be better spent on research to cure and treat cancer (though for some treating, legalizing maurijuania won't take much money).

Taking that into account, if cures are found through private research funds, why would anyone oppose that?

Eddy

02-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Hey if Fade is tapping underage tail, power to him.

I agree. I think the age of consent should be reduced, after all.

However, the "permissiveness and license for me and not for thee" schtick from Fade is over the top.

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 07:30 PM

=FadeTheButcher]Rape is a separate issue that should be considered and dealt with in its own right. In any case, rape accounts for only a small percentage of HIV infections.

OK, what's your plan for dealing with rape? Also, tell me, how does it only accounting for a small % mean that the victims are somehow less deserving of their health?

How many people acquire HIV through accidents like blood transfusion?

In countries with modern health care systems? Well, with blood transfusions, not really since 1985. But in countries with poorer health care? In Romania, there are problems with HIV because of transfusions in orphans.

And that would include the vast majority of cases would it not?

The vast majority of cases occur in countries where there isn't a great deal of statistics being kept, or the government lies about it, etc.

Look. Medicine doesn't have to be absolutely effective to be sufficient. Prevention is a sufficient cure for HIV/AIDS in so far as it is a problem for us.

This is of course assuming that HIV will always stay in the form it is now. It's been known of for about 25 years. That's not a long time. Diseases mutate.

Who here assumes that everyone is absolutely in control of their fate?

A lot of assumptions seem to be made.

How many people in the U.S. acquire HIV/AIDS through rape and/or blood transfusion every year? How many of them are white heterosexuals?

The CDC stats don't sate whether or not the contact was consensual when it's sexual contact. The "Other" category is relatively small. In 2004, something like 30.91% of reported infections were reported as due to heterosexual contact. 12.53% were among whites. Yes, both whites and heterosexuals are disproportionately underrepresented in diagnoses of HIV. Of course, so are Asians/Pacific Islanders, by my calculations only being around half a percentage of the cases of HIV in 2004, while being around 4% of the US population. (Numbers on HIV from the CDC, US demographics from Wikipedia).

I never said that such people were in total control of their actions. They do, however, have some degree of control over the sort of activities they engage in.

In the United States? Yes. In dirt-poor countries? Not so much.

How many people is that?

Again, the countries that have significant HIV problems aren't too good with statistics. In the US, a relatively small number, but then again, in the US HIV is relatively uncommon.

It is effective, right?

Yes. Have I said it is not?

How many such cases exist?

In the US, not so many. Probably ditto other Western countries. In places where the Bureau of Statistics was burned down in a civil war or something? Again, couldn't say.

I acknowledge we are of the same species. So what?

Well, I for instance tend to feel sympathy for people who are suffering. This is combined with a more thoughtful, philosophical notion along the lines of "Gee, am I ever fucking lucky I was born upper-middle-class in a Western country with few problems to supportive parents."

This is a problem that is facilitated by international law and can be dealt with by changes in international law.

Like, how?

I suppose that would be unfortunate for the Africans who live there.

Well, diseases do travel. Also, it's funny that you're so nonchalant about the possibility of the death of who knows how many people.

I was referring to those who are in favor of searching for a cure for AIDS.

As I am. Now, will only the people who pay get to choose who gets the vaccine?

I am not willing to pay a couple hundred dollars in taxes every year to waste away on a cure for a disease that afflicts immoral and irresponsible homosexuals, drug addicts, and libertine miscegenators.

I am disturbed that you seem to find it so easy to dehumanise people merely by tacking words onto them.

Thomas777

02-07-2006, 07:34 PM

I agree. I think the age of consent should be reduced, after all.
The age of consent varies dramatically from state to state in the USA. Most states have codeified age of consent at 17 years, but in some states, it is as low as 14. I think a "home rule" approach is best.

However, the "permissiveness and license for me and not for thee" schtick from Fade is over the top.

Most people cannot handle freedom, and should not be allowed to indulge in sex and/or vices. Women, Congoids, Canadians, Proles/Troglodytes need to be kept on a tight leash.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 07:42 PM

I was poking fun because when Eddy talks about you like you are a cruel Gauleiter, I really get a kick out of it...it brings to mind images of Feyd-Rautha in "Dune".

Yes. We racists have the temerity to tell immature childish libertarians what they should they be doing; that there are more important things in life than the trivialities that infatuate them like, say, Bladerboyz gay pornography or Nintendo video games. Have we not realized the great libertarian truth that any course of action is just as good as any other so long as force or fraud is not involved? Have we not heard that absolute unmitigated lack of restraint is the only principle around which we can justifiably order our society?

I actually rather enjoy Eddy's flair for the dramatic...even if it is a bit tainted by weird Canadian sensibilities.

Is it not self evident that the man who imagines himself to be a chicken, the transvestite sissy who makes love to adolescent boys, and the adolescent bourgeois housewife who cares about no one but herself should possess the same rights as the distinguished veteran, the renowned pianist, and the esteemed statesman?

SteamshipTime

02-07-2006, 07:46 PM

...[I]t's funny that you're so nonchalant about the possibility of the death of who knows how many people.

Good Lord. You must really tear your hair out over deaths from influenza, or fatal traffic accidents. I bet you dare not even leave your house.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 08:04 PM

Then why were you watching it? You even took the time to tell people that you decided to stick around the house drinking and watching Playboy instead of smoking pot with your drunk buddies.

Last fall, I was at a friend's house and some buddies of mine watched the Playboy channel for a few minutes after flipping through the channels. It doesn't really surprise me, however, that a pervert like yourself would assume that I sat around with a bunch of guys and collectively jerked off with them.

And racial communitarian isn't a different phrase for white nationalism.

RC isn't a different phrase for WN. White Nationalism is nothing but a political proposition. Racial Collectivism is a philosophy.

Who do you live off now then?

I don't live off anyone. Are you still living off your husband?

Leif

02-07-2006, 08:05 PM

I don't doubt this happened to some extent but given that there are millions of indigenous and mixed-indigenous peoples still alive on the American continents, I think it's overstated.

The specific numbers don't matter so much as the idea that three boatloads of men from another continent can start an epidemic that wipes out entire cities. That was what I wanted to point out. Should we try to fix everyones problems? No, but we should definitely offer aid, as their problems might someday affect us more directly.

Note: I realize the difficulty in giving aid to poor countries with corrupt governments and making sure the aid doesn't get sold to fund dictators and wars.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 08:10 PM

No, I am actually a scholar doing graduate level work in international relations at a major American university. What are you doing, that is, aside from periodic childish outbursts on the internet?

So you're a student. Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware that you were a student even though you've been a student for many, many years.

I help rape the environment for energy resources.

il ragno

02-07-2006, 08:12 PM

People, including little kids, have been dying from cancer and leukemia and heart disease for centuries. Nobody ever laid down in the middle of the street, disrupting traffic and creating a public spectacle, on behalf of a 'cure' for any of them. Nobody has ever strongarmed society and the govt via the media to ensure free care and free drug treatment for people dying from these other conditions.

Moreover, as shrill as the fag activists were on this topic for years - up to and including predictions of 1/4 of the earth's poppulation dead of AIDS by 2000 - they were just as shrill that the bathhouses remain open throughout the 'epidemic'....as though glory-hole action, and penetration of hairy assholes, were listed right at the top of the Bill of Rights. The unspoken coda to "we have to find a cure.." is "...that allows us to continue to butt-slam a half-dozen total strangers nightly, to a throbbing disco beat, while dressed like Elliot Gould auditioning for the Village People."

I find it humorous, how gays vacillate between taking a page from the Nigger Handbook of Social Problems ("tha CIA invented AIDS right after they finished inventing crack, to keep people of color down") and the standard soccer-mom press release ("Western governments should drop everything they're doing to fluff my pillow, ask me how I feel today, and cure AIDS"). Anything but draw a correlation between bloody shit smeared on your wang and suddenly not feeling so hot.

After we cure the real diseases - like cancer and cystic fibrosis and Lou Gehrig's disease and rheumatoid arthritis and disfiguring birth defects - then, if there's anything left in the petty cash drawer, we take a whack at AIDS. Not before.

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 08:13 PM

No, but we should definitely offer aid, as their problems might someday affect us more directly.

And there we go. Is anybody here an epidiemologist? Diseases show a remarkable ability to change to affect their prey. That is, us.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 08:13 PM

I agree. I think the age of consent should be reduced, after all. However, the "permissiveness and license for me and not for thee" schtick from Fade is over the top.

My personal life has no logical relevance to the substance of my arguments. I can understand though how this might be confusing to you when irrationality is such an integral aspect of your worldview.

Jimbo Gomez

02-07-2006, 08:14 PM

Kym, do you have anything else to add to this forum than flaming one of the admins?

Eddy

02-07-2006, 08:14 PM

I agree that things like cancer should be top priority. I've just heard that someone I knew came down with bone cancer right after he had a kid. Very nasty situation.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 08:16 PM

Kym, do you have anything else to add to this forum than flaming one of the admins?

Do you have anything to add to the forum besides one-liners?

I was called a troll when I was engaging in civil discussion on politics. I only entered this thread because I was mentioned out of the blue. Don't play victim when fire is returned.

Kodos

02-07-2006, 08:19 PM

Do you have anything to add to the forum besides one-liners?

I was called a troll when I was engaging in civil discussion on politics. I only entered this thread because I was mentioned out of the blue. Don't play victim when fire is returned.

Edana I like you and would prefer you not get banned, remember "this is more like a dictatorship of a decadent aristocracy"... gotta be polite for a while...

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 08:21 PM

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 08:22 PM

Do you have anything to add to the forum besides one-liners?

Yeah. He pays for it.

O'Zebedee

02-07-2006, 08:23 PM

I don't see that it should get funding over and above other diseases, but it's still not something we can ignore.

Jimbo Gomez

02-07-2006, 08:24 PM

Jonathan

02-07-2006, 08:28 PM

And racial communitarian isn't a different phrase for white nationalism.
Not necessarily.

Eddy

02-07-2006, 08:29 PM

The question of the thread is ''Should a cure for AIDS be sought?" not ''Should a cure for AIDS be made the primary objective of the entire world medical industry''.

The crappy answer is ''If it's profitable''. That's what'll happen, I bet. If a cure for AIDS, or an HIV vaccine, or whatever, is profitable, it'll occur. If not, it won't. The vast majority of medical companies are private corporations... As a result, they don't allocate research based on what is good and right, but based on what profits.

There are always private charitable organizations as well. I would hope people interested in the issue spend more money donating than lobbying.

If the question is just "should a cure be sought", I say yes for sure. I would hope there are researchers and scientists constantly seeking cures and treatments for everything. But yes, if we're talking tax money, I think things like cancer would be a better focus.

Jonathan

02-07-2006, 08:32 PM

For all and sundry, can we calm it down?

OVERWATCH

02-07-2006, 08:51 PM

Stay On Topic!

Intrepid

02-07-2006, 09:05 PM

Yes, most certainly. I'd fund it on an monetarily equal par with such current civilization threatening diseases as hangnail, scurvy and gout.

Jimbo Gomez

02-07-2006, 09:10 PM

Eddy, on account of your flaming and trolling, which forced 88mmFlaK with very good reason to delete a bunch of your worst posts, and your admission that you are only here to raise trouble, you have been banned from the Phora.

Have a nice day.

il ragno

02-07-2006, 09:29 PM

Waitaminnit.

Eddy's banned, but Oberon gets to run wild and free? What's wrong with this picture?

Jimbo Gomez

02-07-2006, 09:31 PM

You're a grown man, you should know what sort of people get traffic tickets and what sort gets off with a warning.

Leif

02-07-2006, 09:45 PM

How so? The human species isn't a collective. It is just a taxonomic classification.

Communitarian politics does not mean one can ignore the entire planet except your own people. To do so would be tremendous folly.

Our neighbors and coworker are part of our community.

We have more dependency on people hundreds of miles away than most within our own cities. Why pretend they don't exist? Why ignore them?

Not really. What goes on in Guinea or the Central African Republic has little affect on our lives.

What goes on in Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America, China, and some isolated countries in other places have direct effects upon us. We can not afford to ignore them.

Couldn't this very example prove the opposite: that the lack of New World diseases proves that Europeans should be unconcerned about Indians?

Native Americans are analogous to anyone who is oblivious to the rest of the world. They were too isolated- and paid the price.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 09:49 PM

Communitarian politics does not mean one can ignore the entire planet except your own people. To do so would be tremendous folly.

Communitarianism isn't Kantian humanism.

We have more dependency on people hundreds of miles away than most within our own cities. Why pretend they don't exist? Why ignore them?

I am not ignoring them. What I am disputing is the notion that the human species is a community.

What goes on in Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America, China, and some isolated countries in other places have direct effects upon us. We can not afford to ignore them.

How does starving Africans affect us? Africans dying of HIV/AIDS? I am not saying this is a desirable thing. I am just pointing out that it is an irrelevancy to the functioning of our society.

Native Americans are analogous to anyone who is oblivious to the rest of the world. They were too isolated- and paid the price.

Isn't it true that Amerindians were laid waste because they were so genetically homogeneous?

Leif

02-07-2006, 09:59 PM

am not ignoring them. What I am disputing is the notion that the human species is a community.

What is a community? Today there is more of a global community than ever.

How many of your car parts were made in Mexico?
How many of your computer parts were made in Japan?
Was your television made in China? Your radio-clock? Your stapler? Your CD player?

How does starving Africans affect us? Africans dying of HIV/AIDS? I am not saying this is a desirable thing. I am just pointing out that it is an irrelevancy to the functioning of our society.

Diseases tend to spread, Fade. That's why its our concern.

Isn't it true that Amerindians were laid waste because they were so genetically homogeneous?

Yes, and they were genetically homogenous due to their isolation from the rest of the world. That is my entire point.

Fade the Butcher

02-07-2006, 10:05 PM

What is a community? Today there is more of a global community than ever.

I addressed this matter in one of Ix's previous threads.

How many of your car parts were made in Mexico? How many of your computer parts were made in Japan? Was your television made in China? Your radio-clock? Your stapler? Your CD player?

I am not a fan of globalization.

Diseases tend to spread, Fade. That's why its our concern.

Are you trying to say that our interaction with Africans spreads disease? If so, then I entirely agree. That is one reason we should try to avoid them.

Yes, and they were genetically homogenous due to their isolation from the rest of the world. That is my entire point.

They were genetically homogeneous because they are descended from such a small founding population. This is besides the point though. Europeans were not struck down by Native American epidemics. Does it follow that Europeans not need concern themselves with black Africans? The diseases that plague that continent the most are malaria and yellow fever. These are similarly not much of a problem for us.

Helios Panoptes

02-07-2006, 11:20 PM

Sinclair

02-07-2006, 11:53 PM

Sinclair really loves his hypothetical situations. "What happens if you post your picture in the 'post your picture' thread and a bunch of homosexual jews recognize you on the street, proceed to jump you, then urinate on you for the purpose of disgracing you and there is blood in their urine, which gets into your cuts giving you HIV? What then?" The fact of the matter is that the risk of getting AIDS if one doesn't share needles or have unsafe sex, particularly of the homosexual variety, is virtually nil. There are much better causes to spend our money and best minds on.

As for African disease spreading, I have the solution...no more African immigration allowed.

1. Although, if we're not building straw men, the number of AIDS cases (CDC stats, say AIDS, they're not for HIV) in the ''Other'' category is, yes, only 2.22% or so of the total 1981-2004. [i]This also most likely doesn't include cases of rape[i]. Yeah, yeah, only 1/50 people with AIDS, etc etc. Doubt it's much of a consolation to one of these ''Others".

2. Not gonna happen. Again, we're not living in ''If I ran things...'' land, we're living in the real world. Where African immigration isn't going to be banned.

Sulla the Dictator

02-08-2006, 12:09 AM

Who is to say the philosopher is better than the pimp?

LOL I think thats a very good question. More often than not I find the pimp more productive. :D

Sulla the Dictator

02-08-2006, 12:11 AM

Would you care to present an argument or have you decided to revive this thread solely to litter it with your emotional outbursts? We're shedding tears now, man. :(

Shhhh, precious.

Basil Fawlty

02-08-2006, 12:14 AM

LOL I think thats a very good question. More often than not I find the pimp more productive. :DYou would. :222:

Helios Panoptes

02-08-2006, 12:16 AM

1. Although, if we're not building straw men, the number of AIDS cases (CDC stats, say AIDS, they're not for HIV) in the ''Other'' category is, yes, only 2.22% or so of the total 1981-2004. [i]This also most likely doesn't include cases of rape[i]. Yeah, yeah, only 1/50 people with AIDS, etc etc. Doubt it's much of a consolation to one of these ''Others".

That wasn't a strawman. A strawman is when one refutes an argument that doesn't exist, usually by altering the opponent's position to make it easy to defeat. I, on the other hand, was mocking your employment of unlikely scenarios and what I consider to be your general limp-wristed attitude.

I am not mealy-mouthed; it's just tough for the tiny minority of AIDS sufferers who contracted it by means not of their doing. I am concerned with taking the most efficient actions to better society, not twisting myself in knots to pander to every last man, woman, and heroin addict. The most efficient use of resources is not finding a cure for HIV.

Can I see the stats? I'd like to have a look.

2. Not gonna happen. Again, we're not living in ''If I ran things...'' land, we're living in the real world. Where African immigration isn't going to be banned.

So what? That is the nature of this topic. I highly doubt they will stop wasting money on AIDS, either, yet here we are discussing it.

Helios Panoptes

02-08-2006, 12:18 AM

Shhhh, precious.

I see you've answered my question. Very well then. Whine the fuck more, why don't you?

Sulla the Dictator

02-08-2006, 12:19 AM

The poll simply asks: should a cure for AIDS be sought? It does not imply that the members of this forum would have any input in process of finding or not finding a cure. It simply asks them for their opinion.

Regardless, as we can see if the decision was up to them, there wouldn't be research into the field. Millions of people will die for what are, in essence, ideological reasons.

I have no love for homosexuality, whores, or drug users. They're usually bottom feeders. But civilized societies don't let them rot in the gutter from plague.

LOL The idea of IGNORING a lethal virus so that the people you dislike will die is not only dangerous for everyone you DO like (Due to the tendancy of disease to mutate), its contrary to the nature of medicine.

Medical science should search for the cures to EVERY disease.

I am one of those voters. The resources of society are limited. We have better things to spend our resources on than a cure for a disease whose victims are primarily irresponsible drug addicts, homosexuals, and blacks.

Thankfully that decision isn't up to you. The notion that someone having sex before they're married should carry a death sentance is ridiculous.

Why should it stop at AIDS? Why should medical science cure someone of a snake's venom if they were 'irresponsible' enough to go camping in shorts in the desert?

SteamshipTime

02-08-2006, 12:33 AM

But civilized societies don't let them rot in the gutter from plague.

A civilized society should provide them hospice care, but there is no justification to spend money on a lifestyle disease that only affects a tiny segment of the population. Notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out about rape victims or nurses getting jabbed w/ hypodermic needles, I doubt such claims would w/stand serious scrutiny. HIV/AIDS affects people whose circumstances alone are sufficient to fatally suppress their immune systems, so I frankly have my doubts about it being a communicable disease.

Sulla the Dictator

02-08-2006, 12:37 AM

A civilized society should provide them hospice care, but there is no justification to spend money on a lifestyle disease that only affects a tiny segment of the population. Notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out about rape victims or nurses getting jabbed w/ hypodermic needles, I doubt such claims would w/stand serious scrutiny. HIV/AIDS affects people whose circumstances alone are sufficient to fatally suppress their immune systems, so I frankly have my doubts about it being a communicable disease.

Well, lets make sure we understand what we're talking about. You're not DENYING that people who are not promiscuious, not drug abusers, and not homosexuals can and do contract this disease, are you?

Faustian Dreams

02-08-2006, 12:38 AM

Why should medical science cure someone of a snake's venom if they were 'irresponsible' enough to go camping in shorts in the desert?

Here is the test: if the person either foresaw the danger that lay ahead and brought the antidote in his knapsack, or if the person should happen to carry a wealth of knowledge which includes a taxonomy of indigenous plants with medicinal value, then they will have saved themselves, and the question is exhausted.

If the person failed to consider that their life could be endangered due to an unfortunate turn of events, then they have denied responsibility for themselves and their fate is rightfully earned.

In modern society, people have contented themselves with the notion that they can relegate personal responsibility to the failures of their community as a whole. Likewise, they have become despicably reliant on the provisions which would otherwise require some form of effort and concentration--a sense of duty, practical knowledge, and work ethic, in short.

Thus, unless the course is changed, humanity will fail--utterly. :(

Sulla the Dictator

02-08-2006, 12:40 AM

Faustian Dreams

02-08-2006, 12:46 AM

That does seem to be the natural conclusion of the proposition made by 19 people on this board.

Precisely! And what appeals to nature appeals to logic as well. If not, then the fundamental laws of science would be baseless!

SteamshipTime

02-08-2006, 01:19 AM

Well, lets make sure we understand what we're talking about. You're not DENYING that people who are not promiscuious, not drug abusers, and not homosexuals can and do contract this disease, are you?

Recipients of high volume blood transfusions, an event which can also suppress the immune system, have been known to die of AIDS. Arthur Ashe is a prominent example.

AIDS is not a disease. It is a collection of symptoms. Specifically, it is diagnosed when the patient exhibits purported HIV antibodies in conjunction with certain illnesses, including but not limited to TB, pneumonia and various cancers. Supposedly, the patient's immune system is suppressed by the HIV infection. Alternatively, the patient's immune system could be suppressed by drug use and/or anal intercourse (exposing lesions in the lower intestine to fecal matter.) HIV could simply be an opportunistic virus.

Leif

02-08-2006, 02:00 AM

Here is the test: if the person either foresaw the danger that lay ahead and brought the antidote in his knapsack, or if the person should happen to carry a wealth of knowledge which includes a taxonomy of indigenous plants with medicinal value, then they will have saved themselves, and the question is exhausted.

If the person failed to consider that their life could be endangered due to an unfortunate turn of events, then they have denied responsibility for themselves and their fate is rightfully earned.

That's absurd. One can't plan for every single occurrance. Are all citizens supposed to be medical experts, master mechanics, and everything else necessary for a completely individually-run lifestyle? That would be impossible.

In modern society, people have contented themselves with the notion that they can relegate personal responsibility to the failures of their community as a whole. Likewise, they have become despicably reliant on the provisions which would otherwise require some form of effort and concentration--a sense of duty, practical knowledge, and work ethic, in short.

I agree with this, although maybe not to the extreme sense you might intend.

Faustian Dreams

02-08-2006, 04:08 AM

That's absurd. One can't plan for every single occurrance. Are all citizens supposed to be medical experts, master mechanics, and everything else necessary for a completely individually-run lifestyle? That would be impossible.

A socialist would sure think so. :D

When time suggested otherwise:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=37576#post37576

tempus fugit

02-08-2006, 04:14 AM

I guess the economist in me thinks that our marginal or incremental collective (tax) dollars should be spent based on (a) the number and value of the lives we would be saving, and (b) our estimated proximity to a cure or alleviation of symptoms.

Morally, I think we should look at the virtue of the person contracting the disease. Some heroin addict who gets AIDS isn't as important as the innocent child or adult who contracts some disease without engaging in dangerous behavior.

Thus, to me, I think we should focus on cancer and heart disease, since they take us out most frequently, and they aren't easily avoidable.

Pablo Escobar

02-08-2006, 05:16 AM

Thus, to me, I think we should focus on cancer and heart disease, since they take us out most frequently, and they aren't easily avoidable.

Nice one! How would you intend to force pharmaceutical corporations to relocate their resources?

Would you also force virologists to convert to cardio-surgeons?

il ragno

02-08-2006, 06:01 AM

How would you intend to force pharmaceutical corporations to relocate their resources?

That one's easy.

There are few financial barriers to getting care for H.I.V. and AIDS, however. Through an elaborate network of programs financed by the city, the state and the federal government, help is available and drug treatments for even the poorest patients are fully subsidized.

End the subsidies. You won't have to 'force' Big Pharma to do a thing: they'll go where the money is, without any road-map. Like Willie Sutton used to.

tempus fugit

02-08-2006, 06:33 AM

Nice one! How would you intend to force pharmaceutical corporations to relocate their resources?

Would you also force virologists to convert to cardio-surgeons?

No, I would funnel more tax dollars into cancer and heart disease research and funnel less into virology particularly focused on HIV.

Pharmaceutical corporations can invest in whatever they want. I just want my money allocated rationally and based on real mortality and morbidity stats, not political Sally Struthers rhetoric.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 11:45 AM

LOL I think thats a very good question. More often than not I find the pimp more productive. :D

That one is going on your report card.

cerberus

02-08-2006, 12:04 PM

Yes , it will be expensive , it will be difficult ,the research work may well benefit other areas but I see no reason why a cure should not be sought.
Money has been wasted on worse causes.

Arthur Daley

02-08-2006, 12:08 PM

A cure for aids should be sought as this scourge goes beyond the circle of the cuplable & the irresponsible...

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 12:08 PM

Regardless, as we can see if the decision was up to them, there wouldn't be research into the field.

Several very good reasons have been given for that.

Millions of people will die for what are, in essence, ideological reasons.

This presupposes that a cure for HIV can be found. There is no evidence to that effect. And suppose a cure for HIV was found and all those who suffered from it were cured. What return is the collective supposed to get from such an investment??

I have no love for homosexuality, whores, or drug users. They're usually bottom feeders. But civilized societies don't let them rot in the gutter from plague.

Civilization has nothing to do with this. You should rephrase your statement: liberal societies don't let them rot in the gutter from plague because liberals are attached to an irrational pseudoreligion called humanism. I don't advocate a liberal society. I consider myself something of a progressive. A progressive society doesn't pull down the strong to uplift the weak.

LOL The idea of IGNORING a lethal virus so that the people you dislike will die is not only dangerous for everyone you DO like (Due to the tendancy of disease to mutate), its contrary to the nature of medicine.

It is not my fault that people contract HIV/AIDS and die from it. I don't disapprove of HIV/AIDS research either because I want people I dislike to die. If it cost nothing to cure HIV/AIDS, then I would have no objection to it. Perhaps you can address the reasons I have actually given in your next post. What concerns me is whether or not spending billions upon billions of dollars is a net plus or a net minus for the collective.

Medical science should search for the cures to EVERY disease.

Medical science must prioritize in order to allocate its limited resources towards ends that most advance the well being of the collective. Thus the question arises: does HIV/AIDS research fit this description? The answer is no. There are far more pressing medical problems that need to be dealt with in our own communities.

Thankfully that decision isn't up to you.

Yes. The decision has been made to flush billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet to fight a disease on another continent that could have went to fight diseases that actually plague afflict decent Americans. What a fucking waste if you ask me.

The notion that someone having sex before they're married should carry a death sentance is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to spend billions of dollars on fighting AIDS in Africa when that money could be spent to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Diabetes and so on in America.

Why should it stop at AIDS? Why should medical science cure someone of a snake's venom if they were 'irresponsible' enough to go camping in shorts in the desert?

See above.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 12:11 PM

Money has been wasted on worse causes.

Sulla would know all about that. What happened to all those WMDs in Iraq?

cerberus

02-08-2006, 12:28 PM

Yes. The decision has been made to flush billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet to fight a disease on another continent that could have went to fight diseases that actually plague afflict decent Americans. What a fucking waste if you ask me.
It is ridiculous to spend billions of dollars on fighting AIDS in Africa when that money could be spent to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Diabetes and so on in America.

Fade , "decent Americans" ?
Why don't you think that decent Americans don't catch AIDS ?
That is quite a judgement call.
AIDS is not just in Africa , its a world wide disease , unlike you the virus does not discriminate nor does it pass judgement, it will kill the decent as well , it does and it will continue to do so.

Cancer , Alzheimer's - absolutely , all deserve equal merit as far as research funding goes.

Cancer and Alzheimer's , like AIDS they don't have any baggage , they will attack your body just as quick as it will the black man or the yellow man who lives down the road.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 12:39 PM

Fade , "decent Americans" ? Why don't you think that decent Americans don't catch AIDS ? That is quite a judgement call.

I am sure there are isolated cases, but HIV/AIDS isn't much of a problem as far as I am concerned. You must admit that there are far more pressing diseases that warrant our concern.

AIDS is not just in Africa , its a world wide disease , unlike you the virus does not discriminate nor does it pass judgement, it will kill the decent as well , it does and it will continue to do so.

The virus does discriminate. This can be seen in the huge disparities in infection rates. The idea that HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity destroyer is false. The SARS virus is another recent example.

Cancer , Alzheimer's - absolutely , all deserve equal merit as far as research funding goes.

Equal merit? You can't be serious. Tell me. Should we devote an equal amount of resources to fighting the common cold than we should to fighting cancer?

Cancer and Alzheimer's , like AIDS they don't have any baggage , they will attack your body just as quick as it will the black man or the yellow man who lives down the road.

You honestly believe that HIV/AIDS afflicts all human populations equally?

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 12:43 PM

The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: A Nine-Year Retrospective of Fear and (Mostly) Loathing

November 2, 1998
Copyright 1998 Michael Fumento

Author’s note: This article was originally solicited by a magazine called POZ, which is edited by and written for homosexuals. I couldn’t believe they were that gutsy. "Don’t pull any punches," they told me. "We want to hear what you have to say." Well, I didn’t but they didn’t – have the guts, that is. For well over a year they kept saying they were putting it off one issue. Finally, it became apparent they did NOT have the guts. Maybe they never did and in the words of Bob Dylan, they "just kind of wasted my precious time." The article appears here in July 2000 for the first time. Please note that all data were current to late 1998.

Nine years ago, January 1990, my book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (http://www.fumento.com/myth.html) came out. The Advocate said it "will undoubtedly become the most important nonfiction book on AIDS since Shilts’s And the Band Played On (http://www.fumento.com/shilts.html) and Paul Monette’s Borrowed Time," while the Journal of the American Medical Association called it "thoroughly researched, poignantly written, and a must-read for anyone interested in learning the dynamics of the HIV epidemic."

Michelangelo Signorile: Professional Spoiled Brat

Michelangelo Signorile, conversely, labeled its author a "HATE-FILLED, UNTALENTED, LYING LOSER" (Emphasis his) and called upon gays to send threatening and nasty messages to a Newsday editor who had dared run a book review of mine. But call the author what you will, assign to him whatever motives your imagination can conjure up, yet grant this: On the subject of how the AIDS epidemic would play out, Myth and its author were right. Which is to say the pundits, almost everyone in the media, and all of our highest-ranking public officials were wrong. Here’s why..

Early Warning Signals

Nineteen-ninety was a marker year for many AIDS predictions, all of which proved grossly exaggerated. By 1990, Oprah Winfrey had claimed three years earlier, one-fifth of all heterosexuals would be dead of AIDS; by 1990, Gene Antonio wrote in his 1985 bestseller The AIDS Cover-UP? 64 million Americans would be dead or dying of AIDS. Antonio missed the mark by a little over 63 million and Oprah by approximately one-fifth of the heterosexual population. At a time when AIDS cases are dropping, death rates are plummeting, and people speak in muted voices of the possibility that the disease may no longer be inevitably fatal due to new drug therapies, those numbers seem ridiculous. But as silly as they may seem now, back then they had many people terrified.

Oprah, before she was selling diet books that she herself couldn’t stick to, she made herself an expert in epidemiology. To be sure, Oprah is just a talk show host – albeit an incredibly influential one. As to Antonio, he was the sort of person even a raving alarmist and homophobe would label a raving alarmist and homophobe. Yet even reputed authorities spewed vastly overblown predictions. In 1989, the U.S. General Accounting Office projected from 300,000 to 480,000 cases of AIDS in the country by the end of 1991, which the media naturally converted to "as many as 480,000 cases." Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who coined the term "heterosexual AIDS explosion," quickly embraced the figures. In fact, even by the end of the next year, 1992, the country was nowhere near the bottom of the GAO’s range for 1991. It’s not just that the GAO happened to be wrong, but that there was never the slightest possibility it could be right. As I noted in Myth, "For the GAO projections to be accurate, the trend of cases coming in at ever slower rates would have to suddenly reverse itself and there would have to be an explosion of new cases," adding that nothing in the GAO report argued that any such thing could happen.

No crystal ball was needed to see the epidemic was grossly hyped.

But how did I know this? Not by an special genius or insight. I didn’t consult a crystal ball, an Oracle, or stick my hand into the entrails of a freshly-killed chicken and feel around. Rather, I applied a rule that anyone who knows the least bit about infectious disease epidemiology knows. New disease outbreaks inevitably follow a curve. When they begin, they go up at a rapid rate. As new cases are harder and harder to cause, the epidemic rate slows to a point where the curve finally peaks. Then cases begin to decline. Sometimes the disease goes away entirely; other times it flattens off at what’s called an "endemic" level. Sometimes the epidemic curve has a fairly neat bell shape; other times it has a long "tail" or conversely drops off like a cliff. But the ascent, the plateau, and the decline occur with all infectious disease epidemics.

One of the last books published in 1990 on AIDS had the ominous title, The AIDS Disaster (http://www.fumento.com/grmek.html). It called for massive, no-holds barred spending on AIDS at a level the authors admitted would guarantee a great deal of waste. This, they said, was vital to contain an epidemic growing by leaps and bounds. Yet the growth in the epidemic had already slowed tremendously from just a few years before. There was already evidence that many of the early projections were already proving, well, disastrously wrong.

U.S. News & World Report, in 1987, ran its first cover story on AIDS, featuring a photograph of a man and a woman, both white and dressed in white-collar business attire. (The man is a dead ringer for Dan Quayle). While perhaps not quite so sensational as Life magazine’s 1985 cover blazoned with the large red letters "NOW NO ONE IS SAFE FROM AIDS," U.S. News’s "AIDS: At the Dawn of Fear" declared, "The disease of them suddenly is the disease of us. . . . a plague of the mainstream, finding fertile growth among heterosexuals."

By 1991, it said, "according to the most conservative estimates, 270,000 people will have been stricken (this was the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate, later bumped up to 295,000), 179,000 will have died – and new cases involving heterosexuals will have multiplied 10-fold to 23,000. Almost 4,000 babies will have contracted the disease by being exposed to the virus while in their mothers’ wombs. The [CDC] estimates that 1.5 million Americans now carry the virus but display no symptoms. Others think that number may be as high as four million."

Actually, the CDC had presented a range of 1 to 1.5 million and the magazine never identified the "others" whose predictions were darker still. As to numbers for which we had real figures, by the end of 1991, total AIDS cases stood at 206,400, deaths at 133,000, the "heterosexual contact" category stood at 12,000, and the number of babies diagnosed with AIDS who contracted it through their mothers was under 3,000.
Donna Shalala: the nation’s top health official– and deceiver about AIDS.

Even though the epidemic was clearly peaking, the fearsome rhetoric did not abate. Indeed, in some sectors it even increased, perhaps for the same reason guerrillas will turn away from attacking armies and towards anti-civilian terrorism when they realize they cannot win on the battlefield. In any case, the better things looked, the shriller the warnings became. Thus the nation’s top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, told Congress in February 1993 that without massive intervention, "There may be no one left."

In 1995 she announced a massive television and radio AIDS campaign aimed at young people – primarily heterosexual ones, of course. Shalala claimed, "What we have is a generation in jeopardy." Yet the latest AIDS data then available showed cases declining among young people, with fewer than 3,500 persons aged 13-24 diagnosed in the previous 12 months – less than a third the number in that age range killed in motor vehicle accidents that year. It’s therefore difficult to say why AIDS was putting the "generation in jeopardy." Joseph Sonnabend, M.D.

"One of the things about this epidemic is that those who make pronouncements that are proven to be untrue simply move on," says Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, who has been treating AIDS patients since 1979 and been a caustic observer and commentator on the epidemic almost as long. He told me, "They can be wrong a second, third, and fourth time and still go on."

The Non-Hetero Holocaust

Still, the rule of epidemic curves could hardly tell us whether AIDS would become the heterosexual threat that we were repeatedly told it would be or, indeed, already was. "AIDS is breaking out," claimed sex therapists William Masters, Virginia Johnson, and Robert Kolodny in a much-publicized 1988 book that horrified even the worst of AIDS alarmists like Dr. Mathilda Krim, then the chairwoman of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR). "The AIDS virus is now running rampant in the heterosexual community," the authors claimed.

But once again, there was hardly a need to go about that nasty business of feeling chicken entrails to see that the disease would never make significant inroads into that part of the heterosexual population with little or no contact with intravenous drug abusers. This time it was just a matter of applying a simple rule: For any epidemic to spread, 100 cases must lead to at least 101 more. If they lead to only 99, the epidemic starts to fall back on itself. Again, this applies to all infectious diseases and has been known for over a century. Suddenly it somehow was forgotten.

So the pertinent question was, [I]are[/I] 100 cases leading to at least 101? Simple observation very early on told health authorities that it wasn’t. Almost invariably, non-drug abusing heterosexuals were being infected by drug-abusing ones. Yet this distinction of who was infecting heterosexuals was simply ignored not only by the media but by many public health departments. In 1987 I called such departments in many major cities and they didn’t even know what I was talking about. The question had simply never come up.

New York City carefully tracked its alleged heterosexual male AIDS cases – and found it had virtually none. The major exception was New York, where officials knew this was indeed the most crucial question regarding how far the epidemic would spread. As a result, they made it a policy to carefully interview all men who claimed to have been infected by a woman. They found that practically nobody fell into this category. Indeed, one of the few men they were convinced truly had no risk factors other than vaginal intercourse proved to have been a minor actor in gay pornography!

Thus while other health departments were reporting female-to-male transmissions left and right (and do so to this day) simply because whenever a man said he got HIV from sex with a woman they took his word for it, New York was screening these people out with careful interviews. Later it scaled back and then essentially ceased the interviewing process, inevitably leading to New York male "heterosexual transmission" cases going through the roof.

"I was appalled," said Sonnabend, who had worked for the Department of Health in the 1970s. "A number that was about 18 suddenly became 400 or 500, just because they stopped interviewing."

Still, if you looked at the handful of female-to-male transmission cases in New York while interviewing was still going on, and knew that New York had more AIDS cases than any other city in the country, it was clear that if such transmission were so rare there it would be rare everywhere. Case closed. You didn’t even need to know how efficiently men infected women. The lack of infection going back the other way essentially constituted a disease "firebreak."

But as time went on, which is to say after I published my first AIDS article saying all this in 1987, the statistical evidence did come in supporting that simple observation. This came from partner studies, in which sexually-active couples were observed (no, not literally) to see how often the infected person transmitted the virus to his or her partner. In the great majority of these, the originally infected person was a man. These found that about 20 percent of the time per [I]relationship[/I], the virus was transmitted from man to woman.

In the largest of these studies, by Nancy Padian of the University of California, Berkeley, this came out to about one infection per 1,000 acts of intercourse. To be fair, some of these couples were using condoms. On the other hand, others were engaging in anal sex, well-established as a more efficient transmitter of HIV than vaginal intercourse. Padian’s latest and probably final study came out in 1997 and showed 19 percent of female partners were ultimately infected over 10-year period. Nushawn Williams became a media cause celebre precisely because he was the exception to the rule.

This indicates clearly that from man to woman, HIV nowhere approaches the level of infectiousness needed for spread. It tells us that heterosexual transmission was, is, and always will be essentially transmission from somebody in a high-risk group (generally an intravenous drug abuser, though the media is wont to blame bisexuals) to somebody without those high risks. Then it rarely goes further. And that’s the more efficient direction; man to woman.

What about woman to man? The first such partner study was again conducted by Padian. It found that of 41 originally uninfected men, over a period of years only one became positive and that relationship involved "over 100 episodes of vaginal and penile bleeding." Her 1997 final report found two of 82 male partners had become infected, for a transmission rate of 2.4 percent over 10 years.

Padian’s final report put female-to-male trans-mission efficiency at about one-eighth the rate for going in the opposite direction. Other studies have since confirmed this. Again, when it takes 100 people to infect at least 101 for an epidemic to spread, one infected man per 42 who were regularly exposed to the virus is not going to do the trick.

Yes, there will be exceptions to these transmission patterns, such as Nushawn Williams, who in 1997 was found to have infected about a dozen teenage girls in New York state. And you will hear about them, for the same reason you always hear about U.S. airliners that crash and never hear of the ones that land safely. Don’t look for headlines reading "HIV-positive Man Has Sex with Hundreds of Women, Infects None." And yet we know there must be such cases.

Magic Johnson – one man makes an epidemic.

But the media, the government, and the AIDS alarmists in general wanted to hear none of this. The media used every trick in the book – and some that weren’t – to create the appearance of a growing heterosexual epidemic. If they couldn’t get an epidemiologist or even a medical doctor to say something they wanted, they would instead get a juicy quote from an AIDS victim, who somehow by virtue of having the disease was an automatic expert in all areas relating to it.

Since the numbers weren’t on their side, the media tried time and again to build an entire epidemic around a single heterosexual, such as the late Alison Gertz. Ms. Gertz, who claimed to have gotten the disease through a single tryst with a bisexual, was among other things, profiled in The New York Times, on the cover of People magazine, and had a TV movie made about her. It was so delicious: Jane Everywoman had AIDS. Nobody seemed bothered by the inherent contradiction that if she were truly one among many, she wouldn’t have gotten any attention at all, much less the massive amount she did get.

Likewise, Magic Johnson (http://www.fumento.com/specmagic.html) was used to represent an entire heterosexual epidemic, notwithstanding that we really don’t know how he contracted the virus and that long before he announced he had HIV he was widely rumored to have been bisexual.

In one instance, [I]USA Today[/I] proclaimed in a headline, "Women Are 12 Times More Likely to Get AIDS." Its source? A Yale [I]psychologist[/I]. It didn’t say 12 times more likely than what, but no comparison could make the assertion valid. That’s why it needed somebody speaking outside their field. If you’re looking for somebody to assert the Jamaican bobsled team is going to win the gold medal in the next Winter Olympics, you don’t go to a bobsledding expert. Instead, you go to somebody who’s completely ignorant in the field – a football coach, perhaps. Better yet, a bus driver or a mathematics professor.

If he’s willing to say the "right" things, make him an AIDS expert.
"Who can protect the public but the journalists and they’ve been an incredible disappointment," says Sonnabend. "Instead of digging and doing investigative research, they just take press kits and have Rolodexes filled with celebrity names."

Sex, Lies, and Florida’s Faux Heterosexuals

Yet then, as now, while even the CDC’s statistics didn’t show the epidemic the alarmists repeatedly claimed they did, the data nevertheless suffered a huge flaw which the agency has clearly acknowledged – and even proved – internally but never acknowledged outwardly. Its definition of "heterosexual transmission" actually means nothing more than that’s how the person claimed to have gotten the disease. If a man diagnosed with AIDS has had anal sex with 1,000 men and shared needles on 500 occasions, and he tells his local health department he had no risk factors other than sex with a woman, he would go straight into the heterosexual transmission category. Again, it hardly takes the proverbial rocket scientist to know that a lot of men are going to be embarrassed to admit to homosexual activity or worried about admitting to illegal drug usage and would simply deny these risk factors.

The CDC knows this from common sense and from history. At the turn of the century, it was common to blame contracting syphilis on touching doorknobs, using public toilets, or drinking from cups left at public fountains. The CDC also knows it from the New York City experience back when its health department still conducted individual interviews with men, and it knows it from its own research.

Florida’s heterosexual AIDS epidemic proved groundless.

It was the CDC itself that sent epidemiologists to Florida to find out why that state contributed so many cases to the heterosexual transmission category. Their study, published in the [I]American Journal of Public Health[/I] in 1993, described how they analyzed the cases categorized as "heterosexual transmission" in two southeastern Florida counties and found, just by going through the patient files, that about a fifth had been misclassified. For example, a diagnosis of anal gonorrhea in a man is a pretty good presumptive indicator of homosexual activity, and many of the male "heterosexual transmission" cases had medical records indicating treatment for this. Although some were unavailable for interview (presumably having died), most were and some of these were also reclassified based on their own admissions. Ultimately, of the non-Haitians, slightly over half of the presumed heterosexual men were reclassified, as were over ten percent of the women. An additional third of the men re-interviewed but not reclassified had evidence of anal disease that may or may not have been caused by sex with another man.

There is no reason to believe that Florida’s recording system is any poorer than that of most states, therefore no reason to believe that if the CDC looked closely at cases categorized as heterosexual transmission in the other 49 it wouldn’t come up with similar findings. This would be more consistent with the evidence from Nancy Padian’s study. There ought to be a big fat asterisk next to the "heterosexual transmission" category in the CDC’s semi-annual HIV/AIDS reports, with the footnote stating: "This is based strictly on the assertions of the diagnosed person and has not been confirmed."

Shooting the Messenger

Despite – or because – of my reliance on statistics and tried-and-true rules of epidemiology, I was accused of "homophobia" so many times I could exhaust the batteries in a calculator trying to add them up. Gays who supported me or my general position were accused of being traitors or suffering self-loathing. Sonnabend, for his part, says he was tossed out of AmFAR, a group he established in his own office, over his refusal to go along with what would later be expressed in the foundation’s famous slogan: "AIDS Is an Equal Opportunity Destroyer."

As for me, try as they might, the accusers never seemed able to go much beyond simply tossing the word "homophobe" around or filling their essays with swear words and frothing invective, as Signorile did. They didn’t challenge the statistics or the theory; they merely went after the writer’s motives. Not only was this illogical, in that prejudices hardly invalidate conclusions, but even here the attackers couldn’t find anything legitimate in a whole book to latch onto.

[COLOR=black]The best they could do was to quote it out of context, such as the constantly repeated claim that Myth claimed gays were "the rats and fleas" of the AIDS epidemic. This is what the expression "quoted out of context" means. The context was a warning to gays that heterosexualizing the epidemic could backfire because [I]they[/I] would be blamed for introducing the disease into the straight population. I wrote, "By asserting that AIDS is not a localized epidemic but one that, while hitting them first, was destined to hit everyone, homosexuals perhaps even [I]increased[/I] their stigma. For now not only were their sexual practices and life styles in general looked upon with suspicion or outright disgust; but, indeed, they were setting themselves up as the rats and fleas of the new plague." This makes me a homophobe? This merits a hard kick in the short ones? [/COLOR]

Tony Brown – the very title of his book shows his disdain for "true" truths.

Not that gay activists were the only mudslingers. I was accused of being anti-Latino because I noted that Hispanics disproportionately contracted AIDS. One woman asked how I could dare do such a thing when I’m Latin myself. (I’m actually half Italian, half Jewish). I was accused of being anti-black for the same reason. Black talk show host Tony Brown accused me of racism in his 1995 book, [I]Black Lies, White Lies: The Truth According to Tony Brown[/I]. He claimed I said that blacks were genetically more inclined to get AIDS than whites. Actually my book stated clearly that at present there was [I]no[/I] evidence of this. Since then, evidence has indicated blacks [I]are[/I] slightly less protected from contracting HIV. It was only fitting, one supposes, that I be blasted for saying something I didn’t say, that even if I did say it it would hardly make me a bigot, and that ultimately proved true.

And by the way, no apologies for pointing out that the epidemic was going in the direction of blacks and Hispanics. In my first writing on the subject, [I]Commentary[/I] magazine of October, 1987 (http://www.fumento.com/comment.html), I warned of the disproportionate attention paid to whites and not to minorities. In Myth I devoted a whole chapter to it: "The Agony of the Underclass." A decade later, here are the startling figures.

[COLOR=black]AIDS Cases, Broken Down by Race and Ethnicity – 1997 [/COLOR]

WHITES
BLACKS
NON-WHITE HISPANICS

Absolute No. / Per Capita
Absolute No. / Per Capita
Absolute No. / Per Capita
All Case Categories
20,134 / .01%
45,686 / .1%
12,356 / .27%
“Hetero Contact”
1,036 / .0005%
4,530 / .015%
1,251 / .01%
Infected by Mother
59 / .000002%
261 / .00087%
104 / .0023%
[COLOR=black]Source: CDC, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, vol. 9, no. 2, 1998; Census Bureau, 1990 figures [/COLOR]

Thus, black AIDS cases outnumber white ones by ten to one, per capita. Non-white Hispanic cases outnumber those of whites 27 to one. With 15 percent of the population, blacks have about two-thirds of the cases in the "heterosexual contact category," while non-white Hispanics have more such cases than whites yet are outnumbered by whites in the U.S. population by 8 to 1. A black mother is almost 30 times more likely to give birth to a baby that develops AIDS and a non-white Hispanic mother over 70 times as likely as a white woman. Are we going to start labeling a virus "racist?" Or are we going to acknowledge that there are major cultural differences that affect how this virus is spread, and that the media has done a dismal job in expressing this by continually focusing on the few white heterosexual cases it’s able to dig up?

So much, though, for the sticks and stones. I was also forced out of one job and fired from another. Large numbers of individual stores refused to carry the book, as did the largest chain in the country. Even distributors for my own publisher refused to have anything to do with it. Finally the publisher, Basic Books, known for keeping titles in print for a decade or longer, yanked mine after only months despite brisk sales in the stores that stocked it and a second print run. It was three years before I could land another publisher for it.

While at least I’m lucky not to live in an age in which heretics are tied to stakes and have hot dogs and s’mores roasted over them, what happened to me should not happen to any writer in a nation that prides itself so highly on freedom of thought and expression. And if you get away with doing it to a middle-class white male heterosexual, then whose speech is truly protected?

The Sham Continues

And still the doomsayers will not let go. In a late 1997 interview with Donna Shalala, the Los Angeles Times acknowledged that "AIDS deaths overall are down," yet falsely added, "But AIDS deaths increased slightly among women and those who had become infected though heterosexual contact." Rather than correct the reporter by pointing out that female deaths had dropped by 10 percent and heterosexual contact case deaths had fallen by 8 percent from the previous year, Shalala went right along saying, "Yes, our concern is the numbers are shifting to our most vulnerable people. We have more kids infected." No, actually pediatric cases had dropped substantially in the last year from 709 to 609 cases, a total of 1.3 percent of the epidemic. Shalala also continues to repeat the AmFAR slogan of AIDS being "an equal opportunity destroyer."
Maybe fabricating scary figures helps sell books.

In the December 1997 issue of[I] POZ[/I], former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders claimed, According to the CDC, 90 percent of the AIDS cases under age 20 are among girls." In fact, the latest CDC AIDS data showed that males under age 20 with AIDS outnumbered females by 5,921 to 4,934. She claimed further that probably most of these females were infected through sex with men. But over three-fifths of them were under the age of five – not likely candidates for having gotten the disease through sexual intercourse.

I even pulled one story off a newspaper computer database that read, "AIDS Infection Rate Up Among Women; Killing Said Work of Jealous Lesbians." As it happens though, it was a mistaken combination of two headlines.

If You Can’t Find It at Home...

Another trick we’re increasingly seeing is a blending of the U.S. AIDS epidemic and the worldwide pandemic. It’s one thing for the U.S. to donate CDC resources to foreign nations with sudden disease outbreaks, as we did a few years ago with Ebola (http://www.fumento.com/suflu.html) or last year with the so called "Hong Kong avian flu." (http://www.fumento.com/suflu.html)" Nor is this to say we shouldn’t care about our brethren in Africa or Thailand or anywhere else. But if that’s our concern, our top worry should be not AIDS but rather diarrhea, respiratory diseases, and malaria – illnesses that kill very few Americans but are the largest killers worldwide and are usually easily and cheaply treatable.

The purpose of focusing on bad news abroad is to distract from good news here. The point was made nicely by the title of a 1996 letter to the editor from CDC’s AIDS director Dr. Helene Gayle: "Let’s Safeguard Everybody from AIDS; Heterosexual Transmission is a Risk Worldwide." The assertion is true, but no truer than saying that malaria is a risk worldwide. That hardly means that a country with only a few hundred malaria cases a year should put itself on par with countries where malaria is a leading cause of death.

As a medical journalist, I can say with authority that the CDC has some of the best, most scrupulous researchers in the country. But those are the career people, not the political appointees. The words of one CDC researcher who isn’t in the AIDS section and declined (most strongly) to be identified, apply to all sectors of our Public Health Service. "If they’re high up in the AIDS part of the organization, they almost have to be one of the bad guys."

Mad Max Essex

Among the very few non-government AIDS doctors left toeing the doomsday line today, none stands out more than Dr. Myron (Max) Essex. Essex has been on the AIDS research gravy train since pretty much the beginning. Indeed, he was instrumental in leading Dr. Robert Gallo’s team down the wrong path in trying to identify the AIDS virus when he claimed to have found the leukemia-causing retrovirus HTLV-I in about 30 percent of AIDS patients or those who had early symptoms of AIDS. We now know HTLV-I is almost never found in AIDS patients.

Essex has been pushing the heterosexual breakout line since at least 1987. When it comes, he warned, "People will start to panic." But the cries of panic didn’t reach the proper crescendo, so he began shouting fire in a crowded theater. He claimed, to any reporter or paperboy who would listen, that he had found a strain of HIV in Africa and Thailand that allegedly spread much more easily through vaginal sex and anal sex, as well. The HTLV-I fiasco was instantly forgotten, as the headlines attested: "Scientists Warn of ‘Super’ AIDS Bug" (London [I]Daily Telegraph[/I]), "New HIV Epidemic May Be on the Horizon" (Sacramento [I]Bee[/I]), "Faster-Spreading Strain of AIDS Is Found Overseas" (Chicago [I]Tribune[/I]), "New AIDS Risk Ahead" (London [I]Guardian[/I]), "Researcher: 50-50 Chance of New HIV Epidemic in U.S." ([I]AIDS Policy and Law[/I]), and "Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic Could Expand in U.S., Europe," ([I]Infectious Disease Weekly[/I]). The first line of an article in one newspaper claimed, "Mutations in the AIDS virus may soon allow it to make a devastating new sweep through the heterosexual populations of the West," adding, "One of the most worrying predictions was provided by Dr. Myron Essex of the Harvard School of Public Health."

The projection becomes just a bit less worrying when you find out that Essex first broadcast his warning in February of 1993, that it wasn’t until two years later that the first subtype E cases were found in the U.S., that all three of the persons had had sex with Third World residents, and that six years later subtype E has yet to begin cutting that great big swath through the U.S. and Great Britain that Essex had warned us about. Logically, a viral strain that spreads more efficiently would easily jump to other countries around the world and once there readily expand its domain. Subtype E simply hasn’t done so.

In the lab, as well, subtype E just hasn’t lived up to its "promise." Back-to-back articles in the October 1997 issue of Virology described two different studies, neither of which could substantiate Essex’s findings. Both essentially came to the conclusion. Stated one, "Our findings do not support the conclusion that subtype E strains have a preference for [penetrating intact cells], suggesting that other explanations for the rapid heterosexual spread of subtype E strains in Asia should be considered." The researchers included some of the heaviest hitters in HIV virology, including David Ho and Robin Weiss. Others, such as AIDS legend Donald Francis and the University of California’s Jay Levy, told me they concurred. But Essex has never retracted his "findings." And he never will.

The Falsehood Fallout

It is the perception among some that heterosexual AIDS is essentially a passé issue. That unfortunately, is not the case now and won’t be for some time, no matter what AIDS case data show. Thus a survey reported in December, 1997 found that AIDS was American parents’ greatest concern for their children. A survey released just weeks earlier found that AIDS was considered one of the nation's top two health problems – this though it was the eighth-largest killer then (since fallen to 14th).

AIDS ranked far higher than drug usage, more than twice as high as smoking, and more than three times as high as alcohol abuse. Obesity was mentioned by less than 1 percent of parents. Yet during the last 12 months, 2,486 youths between 13 and 24 were diagnosed with AIDS, a figure that is less than 1 percent of the population and declining. Meanwhile, obesity in children overall has doubled since the 1960s and almost tripled in some minority subpopulations.

The reason for the misperceptions is the same reason there have always been the misperceptions: the media and the government. Thus, when Reuters reported on the survey indicating AIDS was perceived as one of the two top health problems, it claimed this showed they were "unusually well-informed." What, pray, is the definition of "misinformed?"

Yet proper information is needed to make proper decisions. For parents to believe AIDS is their child’s biggest threat is as wrong and as harmful as a man in a New York bathhouse having sex without a condom thinking his biggest threat is being struck by a meteor.

Cash is the name of the game.

James G. Kahn, a University of California at San Francisco epidemiologist, has created a computer model which, he says, shows that over five years, $1 million spent in a high-risk population averts 150 infections, compared with two or three infections if the money is spent in a low-risk population. Moreover, he argues that reducing infections in high-risk groups would "almost certainly" benefit low-risk groups by reducing the pool of people who could potentially infect others.

Then there’s the aspect of research funding. It was probably always the major motivator of AIDS [I]disinformers[/I] that making the disease appear "an equal opportunity destroyer" would prime the research pump and keep the spigot wide open. Well, there’s no arguing with success. Anytime there’s a sudden release of research funds, be it for defense contracts or medicine, there’s tremendous waste. Or, to put it a bit less delicately, it’s peed down the drain. Without doubt, there was much wasteful spending on AIDS. Yet it’s unlikely that the new medicines which have done so much to lengthen and improve the lives of people with AIDS and HIV would have come as quickly but for the massive spending.

With AIDS on the scene, cancer was no longer part of the discussion.
[COLOR=black]The downside is that the AIDS advocacy began what is now known as "Disease Wars." AIDS spending cut the number of grants to cancer researchers by about half. Then breast cancer activists copied the AIDS activists, right down to the ribbons, leaving even less money and fewer researchers for all other types of cancer. How many straight and gay men will die of cancer because of these, no one will ever know. (Read also Michael Fumento's "The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease," (http://www.fumento.com/amspec.html)[I]The American Spectator[/I], December 1998)

"It’s hard to fault" the everybody’s-at-risk advocates, says one of the earliest critics of heterosexual AIDS doomsaying, Joel Hay, chairman of the Department of Pharmaceutical Economics at the University of Southern California. "It’s been very successful. But from a long-term perspective, they may end up on the other side. Maybe making scientific resource [allocation] decisions through the media helped them this time, but next time they could be on the losing side."

To some, the answer is to simply increase all federal disease research funding. "I think all biomedical research should be increased and I'm not willing to engage in 'Disease Wars,' says Fran Visco, head of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. "The message we give to Congress year after year is the pie has to be bigger."

Indeed, it is being made bigger, but that doesn’t address inherent unfairness in allocations. Objective standards for grant-giving such as numbers of sufferers and mortality rates have been tossed out the window.

"It is a zero sum game," said Dr. Zack Hall, director of the Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health, in a documentary on "Disease Wars." "Any time there's an increase in one area of research that we have, it must go down in other areas." In the same documentary, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) said, "The media pressures and influences depict AIDS as the horrible disease as opposed to being one of many horrible diseases and there is frankly a fear among many members of Congress that they will be depicted as people lacking in compassion if they dare to mention that [these other diseases] afflict far, far more Americans and cost this country far, far more than AIDS does [and therefore] deserve a larger share of the limited money available."

Finally, the credibility of government AIDS officials and the media have been shot through like a piece of Swiss cheese. I cannot say how many people I’ve heard say they cannot accept government pronouncements on obesity (http://www.fumento.com/sufat.html) – and even cigarette smoking (http://www.fumento.com/susmoke.html) – because of the contempt they developed for our health officials over the heterosexual AIDS issue. I recently appeared on a talk show in which the host said that absolutely nothing the government declared about health issues could be trusted because, after all, the government had lied to us about the risk of heterosexual AIDS. As the person most associated with establishing that, indeed, the government had lied about AIDS, I found myself in a very strange position–hoisted not on my own petard, but rather one that I had sought to prevent from being built.

As to the media, both Sonnabend and I are of the opinion that it largely deserves the rotten reputation it earned with its AIDS coverage. "If it’s happening with AIDS," he says of the media disinformation campaign, "it’s happening with everyone else."

Some day – perhaps soon – AIDS will be curable, preventable by a vaccine, or both. But just as the First World War led to the Second World War which in turn led to a half century of Cold War, nobody can begin to guess when the we’ll see the last of the harm from the disinformation campaign that was the myth of heterosexual AIDS. [/COLOR]

Sinclair

02-08-2006, 12:52 PM

Can I see the stats? I'd like to have a look.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

cerberus

02-08-2006, 01:03 PM

I am sure there are isolated cases, but HIV/AIDS isn't much of a problem as far as I am concerned. You must admit that there are far more pressing diseases that warrant our concern.

Fade , I am glad you don't have it. The latter statement is again a value judgement.
All searches for cures of any disease process are worth paying for.
The virus does discriminate. This can be seen in the huge disparities in infection rates. The idea that HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity destroyer is false. The SARS virus is another recent example.

Fade , you are looking silly in case you don't know it.
Equal merit? You can't be serious.
Fade I didn't see "chalk dust" and I definately didn't mention the common cold.
If a cure did arise for it I am sure we would learn alot about how viruses work and replicate.
You honestly believe that HIV/AIDS afflicts all human populations equally?
You are not going to tell me that race issues should influence medical research are you ?
What I am telling you is AIDS is a killer disease and I see no reason why a cure should not be sought.

Sinclair

02-08-2006, 01:05 PM

A vaccine for the common cold would probably save vast amounts of money because fewer hours would be lost due to sickness.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 01:13 PM

Fade , I am glad you don't have it. The latter statement is again a value judgement. All searches for cures of any disease process are worth paying for.

You obviously didn't read the article. I posted it specifically to debunk the HIV/AIDS equal opportunity destroyer sham which was in fact just a big swindle by homosexual activists, the pharmaceutical industry, and feel good "we are all human beings, it could happen to you too" liberals. The latest example of this racket is the hysteria that was created in the media about the impending bird flu pandemic. It was SARS a few years ago. I can't believe you suckers still by into this crap.

Fade , you are looking silly in case you don't know it.

Read the article.

Fade I didn't see "chalk dust" and I definately didn't mention the common cold.If a cure did arise for it I am sure we would learn alot about how viruses work and replicate.

Does it not make sense that we should allocate our resources towards fighting the most pressing medical problems afflicting our population? Should we be more concerned in America about cancer or malaria?

You are not going to tell me that race issues should influence medical research are you ?

Look at HIV transmission rates and tell me race is not a factor in the spread of this disease.

What I am telling you is AIDS is a killer disease and I see no reason why a cure should not be sought.

cerberus,

We are under attack by Martians. Head for the hills while you still can!

cerberus

02-08-2006, 01:55 PM

Read the article.
Fade , you still look silly.
Where was it published ?
Should we be more concerned in America about cancer or malaria?

You are actually talking about AIDS , cancer and malaria are seperate issues.
Malaria can be prevented in caase you don't know.Knowing what you are talking about has some advantages over reading the article.
Look at HIV transmission rates and tell me race is not a factor in the spread of this disease.
Fade let me share something with you , in terms of medical research and finding a cure for AIDS , race as far as I am concerned is not an issue.
This may be an issue to you , but it is not to me.
We are under attack by Martians. Head for the hills while you still can!
Only if I can get a lift with Tom Cruise.:p
Fade , there preventative medications for Malaria , you don't have to run for the hills....chill.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 04:29 PM

Fade , you still look silly.
Where was it published ?

In various magazines.

You are actually talking about AIDS , cancer and malaria are seperate issues.

We are discussing why or why not there should be funding for HIV/AIDS research. I have argued that HIV/AIDS really isn't much of a problem for us compared to other diseases.

Malaria can be prevented in caase you don't know.Knowing what you are talking about has some advantages over reading the article.

That wasn't the point of my analogy.

Fade let me share something with you , in terms of medical research and finding a cure for AIDS , race as far as I am concerned is not an issue.This may be an issue to you , but it is not to me.

Why are you pretending race isn't an issue. It obviously is. Look at the differential infection rates.

Only if I can get a lift with Tom Cruise.Fade , there preventative medications for Malaria , you don't have to run for the hills....chill.

Would you agree that cancer research should be a far more pressing priority for Americans than concern about malaria?

Petr

02-08-2006, 04:59 PM

"Also, the effects of sexually transmitted diseases have become apparent. The STD's respect only one border: monogamy. Pagan sub-Sahara Africa is dying off. Yet an unprecedented Christian revival is taking place: from 9% of the population in 1900 to an estimated 46% today. Part of this percentage growth is the result of the AIDS death rate suffered by the non-Christians."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north189.html

PEtr

cerberus

02-08-2006, 05:56 PM

In various magazines
Which ones Fade , any of them Medical Journals ?
I have argued that HIV/AIDS really isn't much of a problem for us compared to other diseases.

One of your choice of contrasts , very poor.
That wasn't the point of my analogy
I took you at your word , the analogy was not very good.
What are you saying AIDS is a third world disease which has limited impact on your society and even less on your life and as such you think its a low priority as far as research goes ?
Why are you pretending race isn't an issue. It obviously is
What I have said fade is that race is an issue to you , it is not to me.
I don't view AIDS as a disease which infects according to race, its a killer of all races.
I refer you to my question just asked.
Would you agree that cancer research should be a far more pressing priority for Americans than concern about malaria?
Fade , we are talking about AIDS.
AIDS is not malaria , as I have already pointed out to you if you ever feel the urge to travel to sub Saharan Africa you can take steps to ensure you can't get malaria.
Its easy to see the crude point you are driving at.
What you fail to see is that AIDS is killing in America and Europe even as we speak.
What would you have , AIDS research funded by non whites only as " we don't get this disease" , maybe we could extent that to "Gays and non whites" to fund AIDS research only.
Perhaps we should extend that to "Gays , non whites and those who contracted AIDS through infected blood products" , if you are going to discriminate you may as well do it in style.
Not really ethical is it Fade ?

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 06:18 PM

Which ones Fade , any of them Medical Journals ?

Fumento cites numerous such articles in his book. Are you disputing his findings?

One of your choice of contrasts , very poor.

It wasn't a poor contrast. The U.S. is not a tropical country. It thus makes sense to take this into consideration when prioritizing grants for medical research.

I took you at your word , the analogy was not very good.

See above.

What are you saying AIDS is a third world disease which has limited impact on your society

No. I am saying that we must prioritize government spending with respect to research into cures for various diseases. HIV/AIDS is thus nowhere on my radar screen.

and even less on your life and as such you think its a low priority as far as research goes ?

It should be a low priority. Fumento pointed out in the article how spending on cancer research was cut back because of the HIV/AIDS hysteria in the media.

What I have said fade is that race is an issue to you , it is not to me.

If you want to pretend that race and other social factors have nothing to do with this disease, then that is your perogative. The statistics suggest otherwise. HIV/AIDS is not an equal opportunity destroyer.

I don't view AIDS as a disease which infects according to race, its a killer of all races.

HIV/AIDS does not afflict all races in the same way. It doesn't attack heterosexuals in the same way it does homosexuals either.

Fade , we are talking about AIDS.

cerberus, we are discussing whether or not the federal government should be subsidizing HIV/AIDS research.

AIDS is not malaria , as I have already pointed out to you if you ever feel the urge to travel to sub Saharan Africa you can take steps to ensure you can't get malaria.

It doesn't follow that malaria and yellow fever are not a huge problem for Sub-Saharan Africans. Similarly, there are far more pressing matters that need to be addressed than HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

Its easy to see the crude point you are driving at.

I am assuming here this 'crude point' I am making is that our resources should be prioritized and directed towards the medical problems that afflict our own people as opposed to others.

What you fail to see is that AIDS is killing in America and Europe even as we speak.

Who is dying from HIV/AIDS? Who is dying from other diseases?

What would you have , AIDS research funded by non whites only as " we don't get this disease" , maybe we could extent that to "Gays and non whites" to fund AIDS research only.

I don't see why you consider HIV/AIDS to be such a problem. It is not much of a problem at all for heterosexual white Americans who do not abuse drugs. These people do suffer though from all sorts of medical problems that warrant our concern.

Perhaps we should extend that to "Gays , non whites and those who contracted AIDS through infected blood products" , if you are going to discriminate you may as well do it in style.

There are far easier ways to prevent HIV transmission through blood transfusion that developing a vaccine for HIV.

Not really ethical is it Fade ?

Why don't you start a thread in the philosophy forum if you want to discuss morality? You never drop in there.

Anima Eternae

02-08-2006, 06:34 PM

You must admit that there are far more pressing diseases that warrant our concern.

Like Herpes!

cerberus

02-08-2006, 07:48 PM

The U.S. is not a tropical country
AIDS is not classed as a tropical disease.
Are you disputing his findings
I am just asking for a straight answewr , was the article published in any medical journal , was it reviewed in any ?

Fade , do you think research is done without any thought at all ?
HIV/AIDS is thus nowhere on my radar screen
The key word is "my".
Fade did you ever pause to think , no forget it.......

Fade good news for you cancer research is always active , why do you think so much progress has been made in the past 30 years.
HIV/AIDS is not an equal opportunity destroyer.

Contract it and you will find out otherwise.
HIV/AIDS does not afflict all races in the same way. It doesn't attack heterosexuals in the same way it does homosexuals either.
Fade , this disease is a killer.
Some races do have some imunity to diseases which are unique to their region, white people found that out and the American Indian found that out as well.
As far as AIDS goes no race is imune from it and AIDS does not killing gay or straight people in different ways.
As a matter of interest enlighten me as to how it kills a gay person and contrast that to how it kills a straight person ?
we are discussing whether or not the federal government should be subsidizing HIV/AIDS research.
Federal Goverment was not mentioned in the title of the thread.
I am looking purely at the question " Should a cure for AIDS be Sought ?"
Yes is my answer.
Should goverment contribute , yes I feel they should. ( The bastards waste enough money and I speak as a tax payer. I would be surprised if the USA is any different in that respect).
I am making is that our resources should be prioritized and directed towards the medical problems that afflict our own people as opposed to others.
What others are you talking about ?
It is not much of a problem at all for heterosexual white Americans who do not abuse drugs. These people do suffer though from all sorts of medical problems that warrant our concern.

Fade you amaze me you really do , honestly .
Did you ever consider that there might be any hetrosexual non white americans who don't abuse drugs , or do you only work in terms of sterotypes ?

As far as medical problems go let me reflect something to you.
A lday I work with went to the US for 4 weeks last year , travelled widely , had a great holiday.
What she did observe was that almost all the folks she saw were obese or heading that way, if you want to address a serious health problem , try diet and the ill health which it contributes to.
You have name quite a few already , the tropical diseases apart that is , and don't forget AIDS - it has nothing to do with diet.
There are far easier ways to prevent HIV transmission through blood transfusion that developing a vaccine for HIV.
Yes , I know them all.

Fade the Butcher

02-08-2006, 08:05 PM

AIDS is not classed as a tropical disease.

I never said it was.

I am just asking for a straight answewr , was the article published in any medical journal , was it reviewed in any ?

No. Did the author of the article say anything that isn't true?

Fade , do you think research is done without any thought at all ?

You are not answering my question.

The key word is "my". Fade did you ever pause to think , no forget it.......

What precisely is your position on this issue, cerberus?

Fade good news for you cancer research is always active , why do you think so much progress has been made in the past 30 years.

Did you read the article?

Contract it and you will find out otherwise.

There is no evidence that HIV/AIDS is an equal opportunity destroyer. This is reflected in the radical demographic disparities in infection rates.

Fade , this disease is a killer.

I know it kills people. Lots of diseases kill people. The victims of this disease tend to be homosexuals, blacks, and drug users. Are you disputing that?

Some races do have some imunity to diseases which are unique to their region, white people found that out and the American Indian found that out as well.

Why should HIV/AIDS be such an important concern for us?

As far as AIDS goes no race is imune from it and AIDS does not killing gay or straight people in different ways.

This is false.

As a matter of interest enlighten me as to how it kills a gay person and contrast that to how it kills a straight person ?

DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

Federal Goverment was not mentioned in the title of the thread.

How do you suppose a cure for HIV is going to be found?

I am looking purely at the question " Should a cure for AIDS be Sought ?"
Yes is my answer.

Explain.

Should goverment contribute , yes I feel they should. ( The bastards waste enough money and I speak as a tax payer. I would be surprised if the USA is any different in that respect).

In other words, we should take billions of taxpayer dollars and throw it away on HIV/AIDS research in order to cure a disease that afflicts primarily blacks, homosexuals, and drug users; a disease that could easily be avoided through the practice of simple morality. We should take all that money and not spend it on all the areas where it could be put to more productive use.

What others are you talking about ?

We have been discussing Sub-Saharan Africans.

Fade you amaze me you really do , honestly .

What did I say that isn't true?

Did you ever consider that there might be any hetrosexual non white americans who don't abuse drugs , or do you only work in terms of sterotypes ?[/quote]

You forgot the quotation marks around "heterosexual, white, non-drug using HIV infected American."

As far as medical problems go let me reflect something to you.
A lday I work with went to the US for 4 weeks last year , travelled widely , had a great holiday.What she did observe was that almost all the folks she saw were obese or heading that way, if you want to address a serious health problem , try diet and the ill health which it contributes to.

There is separate thread about this issue.

You have name quite a few already , the tropical diseases apart that is , and don't forget AIDS - it has nothing to do with diet.

Doesn't it make more sense to fight these diseases than HIV/AIDS?

Yes , I know them all.

Then why bring up the issue?

cerberus

02-08-2006, 11:44 PM

No.
So its a social rather than a medical article.
For my part if I ant to read anything on AIDS I generally use a medical source for a balanced objective view.
In a way I have Fade , if I want to find out anything about AIDS , research relating to it and figures relating to it I will go to something medical or nursing related.
What precisely is your position on this issue, cerberus
Research should continue to be made on the AIDS virus , Western goverments do and should contribute as they do to other medical research.
Race should not be an issue in any research undertaken.
That is my view.
Did you read the article
No , not in any depth.
I know it kills people. Lots of diseases kill people. The victims of this disease tend to be homosexuals, blacks, and drug users. Are you disputing that?
Fade , why do you group "blacks" along with drug users and homosexuals ?
There are would you believe white people who get AIDS who are not drug users and homosexuals ?
Fade the idea of a "gay plague" died a long time ago.
IV users cetainly do put themselves at risk via sharing needles. The homosexual community do look after themselves better than the hetrosexuals.
This is false

You failed to enlighten me .
How does the AIDS virus work differently in a "Gay" or a "Straight" person ?
Human anotomy does not change with gender and the virus does what it does.
Explain, please ?
Why should HIV/AIDS be such an important concern for us?

Fade , unless i make some radical changes in my sexual orientation and my socail behaviours I won't be catching AIDS in this life time , either that or Hell is going to freeze over, and Dr. Anti- Christ ( Satans little helper) won't be at all pleased if his master's fires are put out.
This aside , I feel that finding a cure for this disease is important and it should be sought.
I can't say more than that , look upon it as doing something for mankind.
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

Quiet Fade , you see that ginger cat beside my post , you will wake him.:p
Yes , I will read your article even though I do not see race as being any reason which should influence AIDS / HIV research and even as i have pointed out I am not in one of the "at risk groups".
How do you suppose a cure for HIV is going to be found?

I do think that at present we may only be able to give those who have the virus time before it becomes active and to give them a better quality of life for the time they have left.
I take it Fade you have not seen this illness in its active state ?
Its a right bastard.
Explain.

Question asked in title , but as you have mentioned race etc I have given you my thoughts on race as an issue in relation to both the disease and research.
In other words, we should take billions of taxpayer dollars and throw it away on HIV/AIDS research in order to cure a disease that afflicts primarily blacks, homosexuals, and drug users; a disease that could easily be avoided through the practice of simple morality. We should take all that money and not spend it on all the areas where it could be put to more productive use.

Again you single out "blacks" , I do take it that the non white section of American society is expected to pay taxes as well and law abiding employed "blacks" do this ?
"simple morality" , Fade don't assume that all people who carry the disease are aware of it.
You have had sex Fade ?
How many times , how many partners, how well did you know them , any one night stands , that moment of passion which just happened ?
Fade - its a high horse to get on to preach "simple morality" .
Regarding the millions of tax dollars I think you missed a "not" , don't worry I do this myself as can be easily seen.:(
Can you tell me what this virus will be like in 50 years time ?
Put research on the back burner ?
I would say the Uk goverment has lost more on benefit fraud than it has pumped into research on AIDS .
What would you spend the money on ?
We have been discussing Sub-Saharan Africans.

Fade that is where the bulk of the AIDs victims in the world are.
There is separate thread about this issue.
I found it after posting this , but nonetheless it has bearing on the issue of research and the cause of illlness , you will find more people dying of smoking , alcohol and the efects of being obese than you will AIDS.
Doesn't it make more sense to fight these diseases than HIV/AIDS?

Fighting them does not involve expensive research , the causative factors are all well known. Education is the key.
Then why bring up the issue?
You did actually .
There are far easier ways to prevent HIV transmission through blood transfusion that developing a vaccine for HIV.
I merely answered it by saying that I was of the issues and steps concerned.
In a previous job I had to apply these guidelines.

Rakhmetov

02-27-2007, 03:07 AM

Yes, there should be a cure. But I think it should explicitly be rejected for homosexuals because their degenerate lifestyle is largely to blame. But youngsters in Russia and elsewhere that contracted the disease through drug use deserve to be saved and rehabilitated. The African people must also be saved.

Dr. Gutberlet

02-27-2007, 03:20 AM

I voted "No" because AIDS is one of the most difficult diseases to get. It weeds out the degenerates of society. Unless you are a hemophiliac from the 1980s, and AIDS baby, or a victim of a cheating scumbag partner, I have no sympathy for AIDS vicitims.