Re: OT Rat Poison is Reason for Recall

Let me paraphrase the thesis of your cited article: 'Africans aren't suffering from AIDS; they are just naturally degenerate.'

BLeeeaccchhhh!

Margo

Michael B wrote:
Oh, I see that you believe one of the most significant lies that
has been perpetrated on the American people, mainly by the CDC.

Well, silly me. I usually give a URL to start as a reference point
for people to do their own research on something I've said. I failed
to do that on this topic, and simply invited others to tell how
much of a risk there was for an unprotected non IV-drug user
female to get HIV from an infected male during vaginal sex. To
correct that error, I'll give you one of MANY such URL's that will
also answer the question I proposed.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cgreappraising.htm

The problem with the truth is that it is mainly uncomfortable and
often dull .
-- H.L. Mencken





On Apr 1, 10:37 pm, "lightlady" <l...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tell your theories to the children in africa

--
lampy

The Sims meets Spinal Taphttp://www.musicworld3d.com

"Michael B" <baugh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1175480292.564603.261540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 1, 9:53 pm, "Paul T. Holland" <pholl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
while it is true the universal precautions -by that name- were
instituted in the '80 re hiv, it would be incorrect to assign the
practice only to that disease, or originating in that time frame...
Yes there was a need, but not the kind of enthusiasm for self-
protection.
it is simply a fact that long before hiv, there was a ned, and a prctice
of precaution to be taken for
* Prion diseases (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)
* Diseases with air-borne transmission (e.g., tuberculosis)
* Diseases with droplet transmission (e.g., mumps, rubella, influenza,
pertussis)
* Transmission by direct or indirect contact with dried skin (e.g.,
colonisation with MRSA) or contaminated surfaces
not to mention hep...
your referencing gay men rather than to the reality of worldwide
infection rates is simply misleading and biased as to the facts of
gender orientation rates. not to mention that it tries to avoid origins
altogether. you write as if you had not moved 'past' the misconceptions
of the 70's and 80's
the homosexual community is the primary reservoir of an acknowledgedly
deadly disease.?
try to tell that to the world community facing this disease
That's gay men and IV drug users. Show me the rest of the
"world community facing this disease"
it did not start within the homosexual community, and it has not spread
'primarily' from that community.
it 'was' identified here in the states within that class, but only
because the 'majority' population is so much more diverse that it
remained hidden in plain sight - the medical commmunity has known for a
generation that it was, and is, in every class of people.
only your provincial, blindered, viewpoint wants it to be otherwise.
i have to say michael, that this thread does not show you in a
reasonable light - there is more than a bit of bigotry showing in the
manner in which you are expressing yourself...
you write
May have started with nonhuman primates, but I don't recall having made
a speculation about that.



actually you were 'implying'
and when you write
But in the spirit of political correctness, I'm not saying anything
bad about men whose sexual preferences have been the cause
of millions of others catching the same thing. For most of the
ones with HIV, it should be their own Darwin Award,
i suspect that you really don't 'see' that what you write 'is' massively
slanted and biased and simply not reasonable
really a shame...
Slanted and biased? Glance at the stance CDC took, in spite of
minimal evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to the
contrary.
They tried to put it out as though everyone was at risk, but were
already seeing that risky behaviour, especially unprotected anal
sex and IV drug use, were prime determinants.
But big numbers meant big money, at a time when they were in
minimal quarters.
See it as you want. But check on the true risk of a non IV-drug using
woman getting HIV from vaginal sex.
Michael B wrote:
Umm, might want to check those "facts".
Well, CB, in spite of you purporting to be having sex with
a teen-age boy, you are obviously still a virgin to the world
of statistics.
So if you expect what you say to be credible, be sure to
know where your "facts" come from.
If a man has had 1000 unprotected homosexual contacts,
and another several hundred IV-drug experiences, if he says
he caught it through heterosexual exposure, or if SHE says
the same thing, it will put him, or her, into the heterosexual
population statistics.
Such statistics are based on respondent reports. Plenty
of amusing reports on that, including a review of studies in
Florida noting things like the man with anal gonorrhea being
very steadfast in the assertion of heterosexual transfer.
The CDC readily acknowledges the GIGO principle (Garbage In,
Garbage Out).
But putting that aside, feel free to give exposure risk
statistics for the likelihood of HIV transfer between an
infected male and a non-IV drug abusing female during
a vaginal-only exposure.
And BTW, be sure to consider how irrelevant "after several hours"
means regarding exposure to infected blood at an accident scene.
Universal Precautions was instituted primarily because of the
prospect of HIV exposure.
On Mar 31, 4:22 pm, "Cheeky ***" <InvalidEm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
2005 facts
44% black vs. 35% white
65% exposed through hetrosexual sex (women)
59% (men MSM)


.