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.
Actually, that would be you... and if you're going to imply somebody is lying (or unintentionally spreading false information), you'd best be ready to back up your statement. So enlighten us, how was that poster's comment incorrect? Do you deny it's more of a "straight disease" in total numbers?
He doesn't even know the difference between AIDS and HIV. He thinks needles can be "AIDS infected"
Just to clarify, that figure of 75% worldwide is transmission by heterosexual sex, not heterosexuals. The other 25% is by sharing needles, mother to fetus, unprotected male/male sex etc
You're right... I "spoke" too quickly, so thanks for clearing up the specifics!
What state do you live in? I think they are allowed to share the test results with the Department of Health, but it's not public record... so any Joe Schmoe in the neighborhood would NOT be privy to that information, unless they happen to work for the DoH or CDC.
That was when I lived in Detroit,Michigan. DOH maybe right, it sounds appropriate. They're sharing the information for a reason, and I'm not sure why. I never bothered getting an STD test after that if my results will be put in a government DB somewhere. I have gone to Mexico a couple times to get checked out when I lived on the border as I no longer can trust US agencies.
There are likely more female prostitutes that have HIV+ status, then there are gay men who do....
Some label it as a "gay disease" ...
Sadly, I personally knew someone in the 80's who was having a free-for-all-sex smorgasboard with many women. He died of AIDS in the late 80's and he was NOT gay.
So, those of you pointing fingers... that it is a gay disease, be careful, because like another poster said, your mailman, your produce clerk and your dentist could all have AIDS/HIV+ and youmay not know it. (and they may NOT know it either).
As much as I will be ridiculed for saying this, I'm very suspicious about the origins of HIV/AIDs.
Man has been having unprotected sex for thousands of years and eating monkeys for just as long (if you believe that story for how HIV was introduced into humans) and all of a sudden, in the 80s, we're slammed with AIDs?
I could believe it was introduced by some government experiment. Stranger things would have happened.
Yeah and its use is a part of a greater concept referred to as eugenics. No coincidence that AZT was used to treat HIV but originally was researched to treat cancer. When AZT became public domain in 2005, new copyrighted drugs were released with an improved efficiency. One must always follow the profit margin & the convenience of those afflicted as this is a brave new technological world...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Whose government do you think introduced AIDS and why do you believe that other than that it would make a good movie plot?
First of all, AIDS was around before the 80s. That's when it was first identified by the CDC. But scientists did ask the same question you did--SIV is about 10,000 years old, so why is HIV only a little more than 100 years old? The theory is that it started to spread at a time when there was a lot of growth and colonization in the area where the disease first began. As a matter of fact, the strain of AIDS that most people are familiar with is not the first one--HIV-1 mostly affects a few thousand people in one small area of Africa and seems to have come from one type of ape, while HIV-2 comes from another type, and there are subgroups of HIV-2 that have only shown up in one or two persons, indicating that they caught it directly from an ape, not a human.
For the past thousands of years, people have NOT been flying all over the planet every day--travel was limited and people didn't carry germs as fast and as far as they do now. HIV could be older and have been experienced before, but as with other diseases, like Ebola, it would have been isolated because the population affected by them was isolated from other populations. Outbreaks happen, they run through a village, and then they fade away for a while, caused by a rat bite or something, but if the disease doesn't get out of the area, it won't spread. HIV spread when it hit a port city, where there are prostitutes and foreigners ready to take it back to their home countries. It spread in the 1960s, the age of the "jet set" when commercial flying really began to become a booming industry.
Look at smallpox for a similar event of spreading disease. The American Indian nations lived here for thousands of years without smallpox and immunity to it, but once it got to North and Central America via Europeans, it spread so fast down through South America that it got to the Incas before Pisarro did and wiped out huge numbers of the indigenous population.
The 20th century gave birth to the bio-weapon as a deliberately manufactured commodity. Fortunes were spent in the West and in the USSR to develop new or improved weaponized bacterium, viral agents and chemical compounds distinctly as a class of 'natural' armament that made mustard gas seem like a fine cologne. Many governments have admitted to building these instruments, including the US, Russia, the UK and there is evidence that they have only admitted a slight amount of what they were up to (Look up Lyme disease and Plum Island, NY and work out the geography as to where that disease was first discovered relative to what was going on @ Plum Island). I cannot even fathom what a pharmaceutical corporation might R&D themselves for whatever reason, with or without government research grants.
Anytime a 'convenient' disease explodes in certain populations with such virulence is a time to question: science has come a long way from dreams of turning regular old lead into shiny gold. And anyone with enough gumption can contrive a plausible history from a word processor and an agenda.
Think humanity could never use such a thing as a disease for murderous purposes? During the Bubonic Plague, infected corpses or those afflicted near death would be piled into a catapult and shot over the besieged city walls of an enemy. People will do anything in fervor for dominion or profit, including the creation of new-fangled virulent diseases and spreading them all over the place if they can control what groups contract it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
That was when I lived in Detroit,Michigan. DOH maybe right, it sounds appropriate. They're sharing the information for a reason, and I'm not sure why. I never bothered getting an STD test after that if my results will be put in a government DB somewhere. I have gone to Mexico a couple times to get checked out when I lived on the border as I no longer can trust US agencies.
Well, part of the ACA does allow for medical records to be accessible to the government at all times. People do not comprehend what this means, privacy gone out the window along with sense.
When I went and got a STD test that tested for HIV way back, I was informed if I tested positive for HIV my information wouldn't remain confidential. I forgot what agency they said would be informed, but it was a not so subtle way of telling me other people would know. So I don't think medical information is as private as we would like to believe.
Probably just a statistic to whomever tracks the spread of the disease, likely the CDC who btw also abortion stats and pregnancies. If you had it, you would just be an increment to their database.
The real question is, why did you feel you needed testing? One can only get this disease via bodily fluid exchange and blood transfusion is highly remote as all donated blood is tested for HIV. Hmmmm
There was a time when folk were all scared that mosquitoes could perhaps transfer HIV. They do of course carry malaria but this myth has been put to bed a long time ago. Likewise, as has already been stated, HIV cannot be transferred by casual contact and even a sneeze or kissing is NOT a transfer medium like other airborne diseases and germs.
Folk should learn that this fallacious argument backfires moreso than it supports a premise. Others are the high divorce rate, teen pregnancies, abortion, porn addiction; apply your ad populum stats. ALL of them are in the majority of those that CHOOSE to discriminate against minorities, like gays and atheists.
It helps to research your "facts" before firing from the hip. But then again, when haters need to hate something so facts are not important.
IF AIDS was a "ghey disease" as many think, the % of gays in a population is relatively consistent and has been so for millennia, why then is HIV rates increasing?
This thread is akin to the Nazis of WWII that made Jews wear a yellow star and gay men a pink triangle on their shirts/jackets. When you haters takes on these silly stances, take a look who else thought/think like you do.
Probably just a statistic to whomever tracks the spread of the disease, likely the CDC who btw also abortion stats and pregnancies. If you had it, you would just be an increment to their database.
The real question is, why did you feel you needed testing? One can only get this disease via bodily fluid exchange and blood transfusion is highly remote as all donated blood is tested for HIV. Hmmmm
Any test for STD's includes HIV, hepatitis etc. It does not include herpes though.
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.
