Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how disingenuous . PUBLICISED means of course, presented to the public via the media. As in , PUBLICITY. their public service messages and posters, info that is sent around to "educate" the public, etc. The surgeon who wrote the book got into the CDC databases. Shame on you, you should know that. Why do you do research? Oh, i suppose because stuff isn't PUBLICISED so you have to seek/ search it out, duhhhhhhh. I didn't say PUBLISHED, i said, PUBLICISED. of course they had it "published" in their own databases which had to be searched out by the author. And of course, the general public isn't aware of them nor do we know how to access them usually. I would expect a real researcher to be more objective and less biased. you wouldn't want to tamper with or contaminate your data by being prejudiced.
I know what publicized means, and you are the only one showing bias here... you believe ONE person just because they published a book, whereas my information comes from decades of published medical studies, research, statistical data, and numerous legitimate sources. Don't try to inform me on how to conduct proper research, when you apparently think a single conspiracy theorist is a more reliable source than everyone else who's studied the subject. Puulease.
Just because the author has medical credentials, that doesn't mean they have no biases or agendas - nor does it mean their "research" trumps that of basically every other expert in the field. Also, I literally have no personal stake in this game. So why or how would I be biased? I'm a grown adult with a religious (Jewish) background, who would neither gain nor lose anything if my information were incorrect. What kind of bias do you think I have, and what would I gain by spreading misinformation? Do share.
well, factually speaking and according to reasearch at the CDC (not publicised), he was correct. Because:
1) condoms being usually latex or lambskin, the tiny microscopic pores are usually much larger than an HIV virus and they often leak anyway. so fluid and virus can cross that barrier . Even the Planned Parenthood abortion company's own research says that condoms are not effective for a large percent of the time. (as a wife, i can say, this is correct!)
2) HIV virus can and does stay alive for up to 2 weeks in wet body fluids OUTSIDE THE BODY. even in a used condom on the ground, etc. Even on your leg, from someone's genitals touching your inner thigh say, with a bit of semen or vaginal fluid.
so, the kid was correct and so was his teacher. NOT you. lol.
3) ALSO, THE HIV VIRUS WAS FOUND TO STAY VIABLE FOR UP TO A WEEK IN DRIED BODY FLUIDS OUTSIDE THE BODY.
4) AND IT STAYED ALIVE UP TO 4 HOURS IN MICROSCOPIC WATER DROPLETS IN THE AIR (SUCH AS THOSE SNEEZED OUT BY A PERSON WITH THE HIV VIRUS) within a few feet of the source. ETC ETC
this is why so many people with NO sexual or drug / needle experience, have been getting HIV with "unidentified" sources. IT IS MUCH MORE COMMUNICABLE THAN THE GOV HAS BEEN TELLING THE PUBLIC. YET THEY DO KNOW, AS IT IS IN THEIR OWN ARCHIVES AT THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL.
you have been warned.
this info is deduced from research of the CDC itself, and there is at least one published book for the general public, written by an emergency room surgeon (Dr Lorraine Day) about these facts that came from the CDC databases. Which YOU have not been informed about.
Many incorrect notions here. In order to be infected w/HIV it must enter your bloodstream, it cannot be absorbed through the skin. It will not affect you by breathing it, as you allude to in #4, as it is not an airborne virus and not found in saliva. It is transmitted through sharing blood injecting equipment, blood to blood contact, risky sexual contacts that can result in blood exposure, and breast milk of an infected mother.
Condoms are an excellent barrier for HIV, your info is incorrect re' size of virus and pores of the condom. Since you cited Planned Parenthood, I recommend you check this site:http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ut_condoms.pdf
Rather than take one person's word on a subject, it is vital that we look at several sources to make an informed decision/opinion about something.
well, that tells us plenty - since many people apparently do not use them "properly" or at least, as carefully as the "manufacturers" say they should be used. especially the ill fitting ones or the ones with tiny holes in them. i suppose that "voids the warranty" so lets the mfr's off the hook. lol. But of course, suppliers will say what they say to sell to you. And, also anyone with an ounce of objectivity would not ignore their caveat- they would realize that is a very big IF. in effect , they are giving a disclaimer. They KNOW there is a lot of human error which includes more than just "not following the directions".
You never claimed the people who use them are ineffective, you claimed the product itself is only (approx) 50% effective - but the fact remains that condoms ARE 97% effective when used properly, which really doesn't take much effort. Heck, I've been using them for 20+ years and haven't had a problem yet! So if the users screw up, that doesn't mean the condoms aren't capable of preventing pregnancies/STDs. This would be like arguing that a certain diet doesn't work, when you hadn't actually followed the guidelines. "Atkins is BS! I can't understand why I didn't lose weight, when I only added an extra 1000 calories per day."
Many incorrect notions here. In order to be infected w/HIV it must enter your bloodstream, it cannot be absorbed through the skin. It will not affect you by breathing it, as you allude to in #4, as it is not an airborne virus and not found in saliva. It is transmitted through sharing blood injecting equipment, blood to blood contact, risky sexual contacts that can result in blood exposure, and breast milk of an infected mother.
Condoms are an excellent barrier for HIV, your info is incorrect re' size of virus and pores of the condom. Since you cited Planned Parenthood, I recommend you check this site:http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ut_condoms.pdf
Rather than take one person's word on a subject, it is vital that we look at several sources to make an informed decision/opinion about something.
Exactly, and that's basically the point(s) I was trying to make. I'm not an expert on the subject, and haven't done a ton of research on it - but what I do know comes from a variety of sources, and not just one surgeon who published a book with a very "conspiracy theory-ish" title.
Maybe the daughter wasn't interested in either contraception or abstinence because her pregnancy wasn't a mistake? Some teens do want to have children you know- whether its biological urge, a need to cheese her parents and rebel, or whether she just wanted to get her family underway..
We make fun of ignorance & there is rampant ignorance running around with the religious right. I know, it hurts.
Anyone who thinks the left is free of ignorance is living in a dream world. I have an open mind and am fortunate in having the ability to see the good of both sides and the negative of both sides. What I know doesn't hurt. I am not part of either extreme.
Abstinence does remain the best choice for teenagers. You can mock it all you want, but I'd be willing to bet the daughter wishes she had heeded her father's advice.
This post was more about making fun of conservative beliefs, which are totally valid.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, don't we all wish we had heeded our parents, just as we wish our kids would heed us. But, life is experience, and when you are youthful, you want to experience it all. If you do not provide teens w/the correct information about all forms of birth control, those only prepared for abstinence may find themselves is situations where sex is going to happen, but now they are ill prepared to prevent pregnancy or sexual transmitted infections.
I wouldn't mock abstinence, but have been in women's health for many decades, I know abstinence alone teaching has failed our youth, much like "just say no to drugs" never worked, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
