# The threat of a global Aids epidemic is over, say experts



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

*The threat of a global Aids epidemic is over, say experts
*

  By  Fiona Macrae
Daily Mail story
Last updated at 12:02 PM on 09th June 2008
   Excerpt:
The threat of a global Aids epidemic is over, the World Health Organisation's top HIV expert has admitted.
Understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed said Kevin De Cock, who has spent most of his career leading the battle against the disease.

Rather than being a risk to populations anywhere, the threat in developed countries is largely confined to gay men, drug addicts and prostitutes and their clients.


Myth revealed: A 25-year health campaign against AIDS had little relevance outside Africa, the World Health Organisation admitted
The concession comes just months after the United Nations admitted overstating the threat of Aids, slashing estimates of the number of people with HIV worldwide from nearly 40million to 33million. 
Speaking a quarter of a century after the term Aids was coined, Dr De Cock said large-scale heterosexual spread was unlikely to occur anywhere outside sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 11 million children have been orphaned by the disease.
 He said: 'It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.
(((END EXCERPT)))
Why did this myth come to be so widespread? Because the gay lobby didn't want AIDS to be seen as a "Gay Disease".


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

> 'In the US, the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate.
> 
> 'That is in one country.  How do you explain such differences?'


A damn sight fewer prostitutes, johns, IV drug users and homosexuals?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

Peculiarly, while AIDS started as and remained a mostly homosexual phenomena in the U.S.,in Africa it has been primarily transmitted through heterosexual sex. We've also learned a few things in the last 25 years, like men who are circumsised being at a lower risk of infection.

Maybe all the anti-AIDS stuff worked-think about it.

Condom use is up, and that's got to be part of it.Heck, you have to "something" to procure the services of a prostitute, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to utilize their services without using a condom.Ditto any other "risky" sexual behavior.

Junkies probably share needles less, and clean needles are distributed by public health authorities in many places.

Blood donors are screened for HIV......

THough it does beg the question of why HIV infection isn't permitted to be tracked by public health authorities to curtail infection the way other STD's have been....


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

It still exists, there is still no cure, it is still lethal, and we still have no way to stop it, and little way to slow it down. So, no matter what this guy says, it is still an epidemic.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> It still exists, there is still no cure, it is still lethal, and we still have no way to stop it, and little way to slow it down. So, no matter what this guy says, it is still an epidemic.


I'm impressed. I've never seen anyone miss the point so completely before.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

OK, I'll bite. What's the point?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, I'll bite. What's the point?



Gay people are icky and bad, and have foisted AIDS off on the rest of us in an attempt to avoid their responsibility for their sinful, icky ways.

How did I do Don?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Why did this myth come to be so widespread? Because the gay lobby didn't want AIDS to be seen as a "Gay Disease".



Hey, did you ever think that just maybe this became a "myth" due to the widespread and effective health and education campaign against the disease?  That maybe the US would look a lot more like Africa if it wasn't for those AIDS educators you despise so?  Or that the cure for the epidemic in Africa will be the "pro-gay" health education campaigns we have had elsewhere?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Gay people are icky and bad, and have foisted AIDS off on the rest of us in an attempt to avoid their responsibility for their sinful, icky ways.


 
I was going to say something like this, but, I figure he hates me enough. I don't mind people arguing with me, but I don't like it when they hate me. So, thanks for saying it for me!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> A damn sight fewer prostitutes, johns, IV drug users and homosexuals?


 
Funny thing is, Don, the article doesn't actually follow up with that "how do you explain the difference" question. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the difference is explained by a difference in population size, dispersal (DC being much more concentrated of course) and transitory. I realize you're eager to pin AIDS on them damn heathens, but let's not be too hasty, eh?

While I'm at it, I'd like to bring up a few other points:

1) It's been 25 years since the term AIDS was first applied to the disease and, thus, since public awareness of it began. I recall many of the news stories and campaigns, which were fueled by very justified fear of the disease. We know a lot more about it now then we did 25 or even 5 years ago. 

2) If two people have unprotected sex and one of them has HIV, tthere's a high risk of infection, whether they're gay, lesbian, straight, bi, whatever. The virus isn't going to stop on its way to the recipient, realize this is straight sex and therefore condoned by God, and then turn around. Regardless of the disparity among AIDS sufferers, the campaign of everyone needing to be safe and use a condom isn't innacurate.

3) Again, regardless of the distribution of AIDS among straights/gays/drug users/etc., in the last 25 years, we've made progress against the disease. To be honest, I'd thought this thread would be a celebration of the fact that the epidemic we once feared is no longer such a threat. I should have realized the naivette of that hope when I saw that you, Big Don, were the thread starter. Instead, the article writer (and you by posting it) chose to politicize what should be just plain good news. The campaign about AIDS awareness over the last 25 years has prevented an epidemic. No cure yet, and be you gay or straight, protected sex is still a good idea, but much more awareness. Even if some population groups with less of a chance of infection might have heard one more AIDS awareness add then was necessary, I don't see the harm.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 9, 2008)

I suspect that there will be more rises in the AIDS problem, in the future.  

HIV-1 can, and does, undergo mutation at a frightening high rate, thanks to a very error-prone reverse transcriptase that contains its DNA polymerase activity.  With so many errors being generated, the DNA is constantly changing.  

Due to this ever-changing threat, a cure isn't likely to be found, at least in our lifetimes, using conventional drug treatment.  If I am proven wrong on this, then I will happily be eating those words.  

It's not surprising, that various drug-resistant strains of HIV-1 are forming, and as they get more resistant, it falls upon the responsibility of the researchers of this world to come up with better drugs, and for people to educate themselves again.  

In the meantime, though, numbers of AIDS-related deaths will continue to ebb and flow.  

Out of curiousity, though, I do sometimes wonder, whether those falling numbers are due to an actual decrease in the number of infected individuals, or whether better detection methods have gotten rid of many a false positive?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Gay people are icky and bad, and have foisted AIDS off on the rest of us in an attempt to avoid their responsibility for their sinful, icky ways.
> 
> How did I do Don?


Not very well, although it is interesting that you call gay people names.

The fact is, AIDS is not the pandemic calamity we were told it was for a quarter century. In Africa, it is, but, in the civilized world, it is pretty easy to avoid, and those who do catch it, generally have their behaviors to blame.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Not very well, although it is interesting that you call gay people names.
> 
> The fact is, AIDS is not the pandemic calamity we were told it was for a quarter century. In Africa, it is, but, in the civilized world, it is pretty easy to avoid, and those who do catch it, generally have their behaviors to blame.


 
We know this now, a quarter century later.  AFTER twenty-five years of fear and ignorance regarding the disease.  AFTER Tom Hank's portrayal of an AIDS patient in _Philladelphia_.  AFTER the awareness campaign that, overreaching in its target audience though it may arguably have been, is still largely responsible for having kept the AIDS epidemic out of "the civilized world".  

Seriously, I'd like to watch you go to those members of the civilized world who are suffering from the disease and tell them that they only have themselves to blame.  Could you do it, Don?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

Blameing the victim... yah, thats, that's real nice. 

You, I want to what Don's reaction to finding out his brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew, or even kid ended up gay.... and caught AIDS.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Blameing the victim... yah, thats, that's real nice.
> 
> You, I want to what Don's reaction to finding out his brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew, or even kid ended up gay.... and caught AIDS.


Oh, because gay people have no control over their actions?
Gee, that is sad.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

You're blameing the victim Don. That's not my fault. I didn't say that gay people have no self control. You did.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Seriously, I'd like to watch you go to those members of the civilized world who are suffering from the disease and tell them that they only have themselves to blame.  Could you do it, Don?


How exactly does not telling them the truth, that AIDS, in the civilized world, is almost always the result of choices and behavior, help anyone?
Is honesty now "bad"?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> You're blameing the victim Don. That's not my fault. I didn't say that gay people have no self control. You did.


No, I said 





> The fact is, AIDS is not the pandemic calamity we were told it was for a quarter century. In Africa, it is, but, in the civilized world, it is pretty easy to avoid, and those who do catch it, generally have their behaviors to blame.


That is pretty much the exact opposite of saying they have no self-control. What that says is each person is responsible, and will bear the consequences of his/her own actions.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Oh, because gay people have no control over their actions?
> Gee, that is sad.


 
You said that gays have no self control, not me. And you are still blaming the victim.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

Oh, by the way, when you know actions A, B and C, can lead to an incurable deadly disease and you still participate in them, you are to blame, you are not a poor little innocent victim, like those who have been exposed to AIDS by transfusions, rape, etc, you are a person who threw the dice, knowing what could happen and now wants to be a "victim" rather than own up to your poor choices. What the hell happened to personal responsibility?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Oh, because gay people have no control over their actions?
> Gee, that is sad.




You know, you said this in another thread, and I still don't know what you mean-control their actions, how, exactly?

Oh, and as a BTW, I largely agree with you that most of the people who contract HIV do so through their own risky behavior. I'm not sure how that's pertinent, except that maybe we're seeing a reduction in risky behavior?

When you've contracted a disease, regardless of the vector, you're a "victim" of the disease. That's not political speak, it's _medical_ speak. Having known several _victims_ of the disease, I can say that they were certainly aware of how their own actions led to their becoming victims-kind of like cigarette smokers who get cancer.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

it died when alcohol was invented.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 9, 2008)

Of course, there will be the unfortunate individual who contracts the disease due to bad screening, etc.  The US tennis legend, Arthur Ashe, was a notable example, where he received the AIDS virus from a blood transfusion received during open heart surgery.  

Aside from those examples, though, it comes down to anyone, gay or not, being tested, to make sure that he / she is AIDS-free, especially in this day and age, where testing is readily obtainable.  Even taking time to donate a pint of blood can get you the answer.    

If someone has unprotected sex with multiple partners (gay or straight; it doesn't matter), and doesn't tell them about the promiscuous nature of their lifes, then that is a behavioral issue that could have been prevented, had someone been more responsible.  In fact, I would dare say, that the infected person who wantonly spread around the disease is criminally responsible if he / she knew about it.  

If gay people want to have sex, then that's their choice, much like how it is the choice of straight people.  With that sexual activity comes the responsibility to make sure that both partners are protected.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> ...although it is interesting that you call gay people names.



I refuse to believe that you are this stupid.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> You said that gays have no self control, not me. And you are still blaming the victim.


 
And you are still using the phrase "blaming the victim" incorrectly. It refers to an situation, such as rape, in which one attempts to shift the blame from the assailant to the victim due to the behavior of the victim (i.e., she shouldn't have worn that short skirt). Whatever the variables, the assailant made the decision to commit the assault.  In this case, there is no blaming the victim because there was no assailant. 

Don is simply pointing out that certain behaviors have higher risks attached to them. What you are doing is negating the whole concept of cause and effect - _because_ something bad happened, therefore the person it happened to is blameless.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> If someone has unprotected sex with multiple partners (gay or straight; it doesn't matter), and doesn't tell them about the promiscuous nature of their lifes, then that is a behavioral issue that could have been prevented, had someone been more responsible.


 
Even if you have protected sex. Condoms do break you know.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I refuse to believe that you are this stupid.


I'm sad that I can't believe the same of you. But, that too, is your choice.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Don is simply pointing out that certain behaviors have higher risks attached to them. What you are doing is negating the whole concept of cause and effect - _because_ something bad happened, therefore the person it happened to is blameless.


 
That's not what I'm saying, and that doesn't like what he is saying. It sounds to me that he is saying that if you're gay and have AIDS, it is completely your own fault. It is not the fault of your partner who didn't know he/she had AIDS. It's not the fault of the partner who knew he/she had AIDS but insisted on 'riding bare back'. It is completely 100% the persons fault that they caught an incurable desease.

I'm saying that if you catch a desease like AIDS, yah you did something to put yourself at risk, but it's not 100% your fault. People do stupid things, espcially when alcohol is involved. Never gotten drunk and woke up next to someone you don't know? It does happen. Besides alot of people don't get tested for deadly deseases until it is too late, because they simply don't believe it could happen to them. That's why so many people get diagnosed with Cancer when they're almost dead. They simply don't believe it could happen to them. Yah, then they'll call up everyone they've 'been with' and let them know, but like I said, people sometimes do stupid things, and condoms do break. 

It sounds like (to me) Don is basicly saying anyone who 'gets around' and gets AIDS should blame themselves completely, and not even think about the who they got it from. That's why I said 'blaming the victim', he is basicly saying that because they did something stupid, or just got unlucky, they should blame no one but themselves for catching AIDS.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm saying that if you catch a desease like AIDS, yah you did something to put yourself at risk, but it's not 100% your fault.


 That is called willful ignorance. You understand, at some level that it is their fault, and yet, have to place a percentage of the blame elsewhere. If their actions aren't 100% their fault, whose fault are they? Is it my fault you misspelled a few words there? Or, should we blame the keyboard, the software, or the engineers who built either one?





> It sounds like (to me) Don is basicly saying anyone who 'gets around' and gets AIDS should blame themselves completely, and not even think about the who they got it from.


 That isn't basically what I am saying, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. People make choices, some good, some bad, some deadly, but, *those who make the choices are the only ones to blame for them.* No one else is responsible for your actions, that is what being an adult means. 





> That's why I said 'blaming the victim', he is basicly saying that because they did something stupid, or just got unlucky, they should blame no one but themselves for catching AIDS.


There was a story, on line this weekend, about a guy who jumped out of a plane with no parachute and died, in your world, he is a victim. In the real world, he died of his actions, that were not smart.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

I'm not saying that either. If he jumped out with no parachute, duh it's fault! If he jumped out with a parachute backpack (or what ever the proper term would be) that didn't have a parachute in it, and he didn't know that (cause it had something in it that wieghed the same, and had qualities similar enough to be mistaken for a parachute), then it's partly his fault (I'm sure you can check those things) and it's partly the fault of the person who handed him the chute.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

Man jumps from plane with no parachute, dies
AP Story, Too Short To Excerpt:
1 day ago

DUANESBURG, N.Y. (AP) &#8212; A 29-year-old man leaped out of a plane at 10,000 feet with a camera but no parachute Saturday. His body was found next to a house with a damaged roof, police said.

Sloan Carafello of Schenectady, who was observing on the flight, followed an instructor, student and videographer out the door, wearing no skydiving gear, officials said.

Police said they did not suspect foul play but would not elaborate.

Robert Rawlins, pilot and owner of the Duanesburg Skydiving Club, said he was flying the single-engine plane and had begun to close the door when Carafello jumped.

His body was found next to a house west of Albany.
(((END STORY)))
He just jumped. No one's fault but, his.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

Did I _not _just say "if he jumped with no parachute it is completewly his fault...." or am I talkin to myself here?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

Personal responsibility is apparently as dead as last week's fish. We have people who bought more house than they could afford, with terms they couldn't afford, but, it isn't their fault, it's the lenders'. We have people who have risky sex, do IV drugs and whore around, but, it isn't their fault, it is the fault of who ever infected them. 
Being an adult used to mean being of an age and maturity where YOU took responsibility for your actions. If your actions were good, you reaped the rewards, were your actions bad, you paid the price. Somehow, sadly, that is less and less the case these days.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Did I _not _just say "if he jumped with no parachute it is completewly his fault...." or am I talkin to myself here?


So why is that  completewly (sic)his fault, but, someone who contracts AIDS, through risky behaviors is a "victim" in your eyes?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 9, 2008)

I give up. You just have fun telling your relative who has AIDS that it is there fault.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I give up. You just have fun telling your relative who has AIDS that it is there fault.


 
Don may be overly blunt, but he does have a point.  

There are many people who will contract AIDS unknowingly, and there was nothing that they could do about it, such as getting bad blood, being raped, or their infected partners entered their lives under a convincing deception.  Maybe their partners showed them fabricated tests showing that they were clean, and duped them into thinking that they were OK.  

In those cases, it would be virtually impossible to point the finger of blame at them.  

However, in the cases of people knowingly having promiscuous, unprotected sex with questionable partners, don't you think that they could have made a better decision, when it came to partner selection or practices?  

Or don't you think that they could have put their partners through a litmus test (or more precisely, a STD test) before engaging in sexual activity?  If two people truly love each other, then I would think this wouldn't get in the way.  Then again, people call me the "37 year old geezer" for saying this...

In this day and age, I know that the answer will be "yes, but..." and I can't disagree, since some people let their raging chemicals make that decision for them, and don't stop to think about the consequences.  

It still can come down to a matter of personal responsibility to do what is right.  Bad people will still do bad things, such as knowingly spread the virus, but at least the good folks can take precautions to stop the pipeline.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I give up. You just have fun telling your relative who has AIDS that it is there fault.


Unless they were raped, or were transfused with contaminated blood, then it WAS their fault. Not everything is nice and neat. Bad things happen to nice people. Adults take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2008)

pretty much the entire WORLD's blood supply is tested now, multiple times, so there should be no more Authur Ashe's.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 9, 2008)

I really don't see the point of getting wrapped up in who is to blame.  Is it any comfort to an AIDS patient to know that he is only responsible for 43.5% of the blame?  Will he lay on his deathbed thinking, "well, at least I did my part"?

The point is that there are behaviors that lead to higher risk, and there are precautions one can take to lower these risks.  It is an individual's choice to decide what balance of risk/pleasure to seek.  But having made the choice, it's rather moot to say "but I was only partly to blame."  Maybe, but ya don't partly get AIDS.  

Reminds me of a friend who was riding a motorcycle and ran into a car turning left.  I asked him why he didn't stop.  "Because I had the right of way!  Why should I stop?"  Well, you got hit, didn't you?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Unless they were raped, or were transfused with contaminated blood, then it WAS their fault. Not everything is nice and neat. Bad things happen to nice people. Adults take responsibility for their actions.


 
A few of the facts that we've learned in the last 25 years make this somewhat disingenuous, Don. The HIV virus can lay dormant in a person's body for 10 years or more-anyone could wind up having unprotected sex with someone who has tested negative, and they've been monogamous and using condoms with for part of that time, and contract HIV-not likely, not often, but it is possible. Ditto HIV contracted from blood treatments, rapes, etc. 

One could utilize a modicum of caution, common sense and all the protective measures, and still contract HIV. There also documented rare cases of infection from sources other than mainstream-a pair of brothers who shared a razor, for one example, but a few transmissions from infected children where there was no sexual activity or blood exchange as well-these are not the norm, of course, but they have ocurred.Bone marrow tranplants and bone transplants from cadavers have also transmitted HIV.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> pretty much the entire WORLD's blood supply is tested now, multiple times, so there should be no more Authur Ashe's.


 

Or haemophiliacs......


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

Missed in all this discussion I believe is the focus that if you oversell the risk of casual infection to the population at large (which Is what I believe was done, based on other articles as well), then you can more easily get funding for assistance.  Right or wrong, I believe that's the case.


----------



## thardey (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Missed in all this discussion I believe is the focus that if you oversell the risk of casual infection to the population at large (which Is what I believe was done, based on other articles as well), then you can more easily get funding for assistance.  Right or wrong, I believe that's the case.



Indeed, the more extreme the story, the more you can get people's attention, and in the media, attention is $$$$!

Has anybody else noticed how few "middle of the road" authors there are out there? Or how often the "boring" studies get posted?

It's an old tactic: scare the people who actually care, and they will give you money, that scares the people who disagree with the finding, and they give money to people who will disagree. Media gets the $$$, and meanwhile, the poor scientists who are trying to actually figure out what to do get nothing.


----------



## donna (Jun 9, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> I suspect that there will be more rises in the AIDS problem, in the future.
> 
> HIV-1 can, and does, undergo mutation at a frightening high rate, thanks to a very error-prone reverse transcriptase that contains its DNA polymerase activity.  With so many errors being generated, the DNA is constantly changing.
> 
> ...



I agree, It is dangerous, and irresponsible,  for "Experts" to come out with statements like this, when a lot of young people are ignoring the original warnings and, in combination with binge drinking, are taking more risks with unprotected sex. Now that some "Expert" has said this they will worry even less about protecting themselves. There may even be a surge in the number of detected cases as result


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 9, 2008)

I dont know if I buy the "lets terrorize the population so maybey they will be responsible" approach. All too often we see these media hyped "epidemic" stories. Now when some other scientist says the epidemic is over we have the "now people are going to go out and behaive irresponsibly" crowd. Only in America will a disease be able to grant a segment of society political clout.

Sometimes we all have to answer for our decisions.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 9, 2008)

Experts Schmexperts.  Experts told me my son would never talk. If only they had been right.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

A short time ago there was a story about how the studies showing 1 in4 teens have an STF was false and manipulated. Today on the Drudge Report homepage, is a story claiming 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes. I'm gonna be miles ahead of the curve and call shenanigans on that one now.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> A short time ago there was a story about how the studies showing 1 in4 teens have an STF was false and manipulated. Today on the Drudge Report homepage, is a story claiming 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes. I'm gonna be miles ahead of the curve and call shenanigans on that one now.


 
Might not be that far of a stretch:



> More than one in five Americans-45 million people-are infected with genital herpes (Fleming, 1997).


 
From  The CDC webpage 

and, from  WCBSTV  in New York:



> Now might be the time for New Yorkers to take advantage of the free condom campaign the city promotes. A new study by the city's Health Department found more than a quarter of adult residents are infected with the herpes virus.
> 
> According to the study, 26 percent of city residents have the virus that causes genital herpes, an incurable sexually-transmitted infection that can cause painful genital sores and can double a person's risk for HIV


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2008)

uh, my DOCTOR told me that over 75% of his STD patients were teenagers, and that is NOT counting HPV. he was just counting the clap, syph, herpes, and HIV


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 10, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Not very well, although it is interesting that you call gay people names.
> 
> The fact is, AIDS is not the pandemic calamity we were told it was for a quarter century. In Africa, it is, but, in the civilized world, it is pretty easy to avoid, and those who do catch it, generally have their behaviors to blame.


Did I mistakenly take the bus back to the late 19th/early 20th century?  While Africa is largely 3rd World, it doesn't make them "uncivilized."


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

The cluelessness here amazes me.
Don, I get your message. "Aids is a choice". That's right there with your ignorant claims that being gay is a choice.

If I have unprotected sex, while choosing to not use reliable protection, and something bad happens, it is my fault.

I will give you that much.

If I am raped by an infected person who did not wear protection, that's not my choice.
If I'm a health professional who is treating someone, and I am stuck by a needle, that wasn't a choice.
If I am a pro athlete or non-pro for that matter, and blood is spilled as it is on occation, and I contact it, did I choose to become infected?

It doesn't matter if its aid. Hep is just as much out there.

A statistic I found at http://www.blurtit.com/q600291.html


> The percentage of US population infected with HIV/AIDS is 0.7 per cent. *There are approximately more than a million people in the United States suffering from the disease.* Studies and research has shown that the reasons behind infection in the United States are primarily same sex male couples, heterosexual sex and the intravenous use of drugs by sharing between users. Of these three a major chunk of infections originates from sex between gay men. It is believed that nearly thirty five to forty thousand people get infected in America every year. Another discrepancy seen is that the major chunks of infected people are of African Americans descent. There is an advantage that people in western countries enjoy over those in the third world in relation to AIDS and that is access to medicine and medical facilities.



Now I'll move on to another ignorance riddled thread here while the African aspect is played with some more by the closet bigots here.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

Bester said:


> If I am raped by an infected person who did not wear protection, that's not my choice.
> If I'm a health professional who is treating someone, and I am stuck by a needle, that wasn't a choice.
> If I am a pro athlete or non-pro for that matter, and blood is spilled as it is on occation, and I contact it, did I choose to become infected?



I think the point Bester, is the the scenarios you just outlined? they are the vast overwhelming MINORITY of HIV infections

the majority of HIV infections, at least in America are from people doing dumb things that they ought to know better than to do.

JKS,
I would say that now, with the colonial powers gone, africa is the exact same as it was 200 years ago, but with guns instead of spears. Tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, all the old evils are back, with a vengence.


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

My point is, they still happen, and still count. If I get infected through accidental contact, then later infect someone else, again accidentally, it's still 3 infected people.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

everyone that engages in internet debate needs to remember the "great unspoken rule":

"There is no ALL, it is a given, therefore I will NOT feel obligated to add "some", "many", or "most" since no matter what i say, you ought to know I dont mean ALL"


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Did I mistakenly take the bus back to the late 19th/early 20th century?  While Africa is largely 3rd World, it doesn't make them "uncivilized."


To the bigots here, it does.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> JKS,
> I would say that now, with the colonial powers gone, africa is the exact same as it was 200 years ago, but with guns instead of spears. Tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, all the old evils are back, with a vengence.



If that's your measure... Civilization is a mighty rare thing, I suppose, since those same evils happen pretty much everywhere except Antarctica.  And, yes, I am including the USA in that.  We're a little nicer about it -- but there's plenty of tribal warfare, and folks who'd advocate or turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing here, too.  Fortunately, the majority of us and our government do a reasonably good job of protecting us from that sort of thing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Bester said:


> To the bigots here, it does.



hold the phone

i call africa uncivilized. ALL THE TIME

it aint cuz of color either

look at thier BEHAVIOR

SORRY
off tangeant, back on track, dang, that BuSh sure is evil isnt he?

:wink2:


----------



## Bester (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hold the phone
> 
> i call africa uncivilized. ALL THE TIME
> 
> ...


Ever been to Africa? 
Last I looked, they had phones, and trains, and tv, and internet. Sounds civilised to me.
Of course, they also have poverty, gang warfare, civil warfare, piracy corruption, a ****ed up infastructure, and those wonderful Nigerian Lotteries. 

Wait, which side of this argument am I on again? I'm so confused.
:lol:


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

African atrocities and the "Rest of the World".


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Actually Bester, i HAVE been to Africa

have YOU?



Bester said:


> Ever been to Africa?
> Last I looked, they had phones, and trains, and tv, and internet. Sounds civilised to me.
> Of course, they also have poverty, gang warfare, civil warfare, piracy corruption, a ****ed up infastructure, and those wonderful Nigerian Lotteries.
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 11, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I give up. You just have fun telling your relative who has AIDS that it is there fault.


 
I did.  And he agreed with me.  What is your point?


----------

