Kathy29 #fundie

Kathy29 #fundie freeconservatives.com

Is the rampant promiscuity in Africa hidden news somehow? Is the fact that rape is unbeliveably common not well known? Is it not widely known that African men believe that having sex with infants under one year is a cure for AIDS.

IF there was divine wrath, it seems like African AIDS despite being almost exclusively heterosexual, would make Africa an ideal target for that divine wrath.

25 comments

old comment by Questioning

If Sex really does transmit HIV as it's been stated, then Africans are
promiscious beyond belief. Check the 1997 Padian Study involving over 442 Heterosexual Couples where one spouse was HIV+ and the other HIV-. the study extended the sex histories of both partners back to 1976. Not a single one of these couples experienced a case of the HIV- Spouse undergoing seroconversion,even though quite a few(a consistent 25%) had sex without condoms,or indeed, any sort of protective prophylactic. Unfortunately, She(Padian) located Heterosexual couples who were both HIV+ before the study proper commenced.Interestingly, she did NOT take a detailed medical history of said couples, choosing instead to assume that one spouse had infected another.This presumption lead to the widely quoted estimate that the risk of Male to Female contact was 0.0009. or one in every thousand acts of sexual intercourse. This figure was used by the Lancet in a 2001 study of Uganda to "Explain" why 30% of all pregnant women were HIV+ Padian's is not the only study. The largest HIV+ Haemophiliac study in the U.S. discovered that none of HIV+ Haemophiliacs passed the virus on to their wives. Vaginal and oral sex consistently is ruled out as a viable Method of HIV transmission, at least in epidemic proportions.Even anal sex, for which there is some direct evidence of HIV transmission, does so very rarely in Gay men who do not engage in debillitating behaviors such as drug use,improper hygiene and malnourishment. If unprotected vaginal,oral, and anal sex were truly conductive to an HIV epidemic, then the Western world would've been swallowed into a black hole of HIV+ statistics years ago.We have more than 30 to 50 million cases of VD every year in this country, a rate far greater than during the 80's yet HIV+ rates are still the same as 10-15 years ago, about half a million.Cases of AIDS rose rapidly in the late 80's and early 90's, to roughly a total of 500,000 then plummeted to less than 50,000 total.Yet the rate of HIV+ people has not change an iota. There are not more, or less people infected with HIV today than there were 10-15 years ago in the U.S. -My two bits.

old comment by David D.G.

Questioning, would you please clarify the following portion of your post?
"Cases of AIDS rose rapidly in the late 80's and early 90's, to roughly a total of 500,000 then plummeted to less than 50,000 total.Yet the rate of HIV+ people has not change an iota." I don't follow. You indicate not one, but two enormous changes in numbers of HIV+ cases, then say that the "rate of HIV+ people has not change [sic] an iota." Isn't that contradictory? Besides the seeming contradiction here, how can you have a "rate" of people? I don't follow this at all; I expect that you may have simply left out a couple of words somewhere, but it seems that I will need to have them supplied in order for me to follow this point. ~David D.G.

old comment by Questioning

To David D.G....
"HIV" is a retrovirus."AIDS" is an "Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome" being HIV+ is NOT the same as having AIDS.Currently, in order to have Clinically defined AIDS you must also test positive for HIV. Currently, the Medical Academe defines "AIDS" as one of two or both criteria depending on where you live in the western world.In the U.S. the C.D.C. definition of AIDS is the presence of white T-cell counts below 200 particles per litre and a definitive diagnosis of HIV+ (note, not a single HIV test is backed by any reputable governmental organization, including the FDA, all have disclaimers) Elsewhere in most of the western world, Canada for example, T-cell counts don't mean a fig.You are considered progressed into AIDS if you become asypmtomatic of anyone of the 30 "classic" diseases that in and of themselves are present outside of AIDS (i.e. tuberculosis, kaposi sarcoma etc.) but are considered "AIDS" if you are determined to be HIV+. In short, the Rate of HIV+ people diagnosed and estimated is exactly the same now, as it was 10-20 years ago, when records began to be kept. The Rate of AIDS cases has crashed since the early 1990's. to Papabear... I don't doubt that "AIDS" illnesses are very high in Africa, yet every single one of these Diseases were already present long before HIV=AIDS was introduced as the reasoning for them. African AIDS Link http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/africa.htm To Julian.... Don't EVER confuse me with a fundie "Live by the Bible, but never read it" bluffer little man, I will eat you alive after I've buried your disrespectful,breeze through the post, ig'nant ass in links and references. My Two Bits

old comment by David D.G.

Questioning, thanks for the clarification concerning AIDS vs. HIV+. My bad for not noticing that distinction; I'm afraid I had gotten used to thinking of them as synonymous, but you are quite correct to point out that they are not.
However, you still are not making sense regarding the use of the term "rate," as here: << In short, the Rate of HIV+ people diagnosed and estimated is exactly the same now, as it was 10-20 years ago, when records began to be kept. The Rate of AIDS cases has crashed since the early 1990's. >> "Rate" involves changes over time, such as increase or decrease of emerging cases; all you keep mentioning involving this is static existence of HIV+ or AIDS cases. "Rate" is not synonymous with "number." You cannot have a "rate" of people or a "rate" of AIDS cases, but only a rate of some kind of change in something over time. Please clarify. ~David D.G.

Kathy29 #fundie freeconservatives.com

25 comments

Confused?