AIDS: The most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics in 30 years!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
AIDS among heterosexual youth is on the rise, as are other STD's, due to misinformation and ignorance.
It might not become an epidemic in the West, nevertheless the decline in attention the media is giving to the topic is unfortunate for the fight against the disease.
 
poor white western wealthy heterosexuals, being all scared by that.

thank goodness, as it was in the beginning, the right people are still getting AIDS.

phew!

and thank goodness that we can now go back to not caring. after all, it was only after it appeared that saintly white heterosexuals might be at risk that the general public extended to AIDS victims something other than scorn and blame for their diagnosis. it only took Ronald Reagan 6 years to even say the word out loud. and George Bush still doesn't talk about gay people. it seems that the reason why AIDS took such deadly root in such traditionally despised communities -- gays, IV drug users, prostitutes, Haitians, sub-Saharan Africans -- is because these groups weren't really worth worrying about any way to begin with! less homos! good for all of us! i guess AIDS really is a gay disease again, and as such, i foresee future funding to fall! yay!
 
:eyebrow: And exactly what new revelation did we learn from this article?


The left and right media have been lying to us for decades on AIDS. The "revelation" is that they have exagerated the threat of AIDS - this coming from a highly respected scientist and not a conspiracy nut that many of the people on FYM would dismiss.
 
The left and right media have been lying to us for decades on AIDS. The "revelation" is that they have exagerated the threat of AIDS - this coming from a highly respected scientist and not a conspiracy nut that many of the people on FYM would dismiss.

And where were the lies? Please show me. How has AIDS been exagerated? They didn't give any examples in the article, maybe you can.
 
The left and right media have been lying to us for decades on AIDS. The "revelation" is that they have exagerated the threat of AIDS - this coming from a highly respected scientist and not a conspiracy nut that many of the people on FYM would dismiss.



if you've ever paid any attention to the science, it's quite clear that you'd know whether or not you were at risk for contracting HIV.

if you are a circumcised heterosexual male in the West and you have no other STDs (especially herpes or chanchroid) and don't sleep with prostitutes, and don't go to prison, it's virtually impossible for you to get HIV. sure, you can get nearly all other STDs, but you're good for HIV.

however, there are many heterosexual communities in the US that are heavily affected by HIV. it's not so much that broad swathes of society (in the West) contract HIV but that certain social networks become afflicted. so if you're an African-American male between the ages of 18-25 and you go to prison and get raped and get HIV, it's quite likely that you'll return to your smaller social network and possibly affect a higher percentage of that community than you would if you were an urban white person. this is why blacks and gays tend to have higher rates of all STDs, and HIV in particular. it's not that black and gays are necessarily more promiscuous, or less likely to use protection (in fact, gays are much more likely to use protection), but that both groups have vastly smaller social/sexual networks and the infection of one member of that community is likely to result in a much higher percentage of other members in that community being infected.

if you are white and heterosexual and not-poor, your social/sexual network is much larger and the prevalence of a disease like HIV is likely to be hugely diluted as much by the size of the pool as by the other physical barriers i mentioned earlier.
 
ANYBODY CAN GET AIDS

It doesn't matter if you're circumsised or not, gay, straight, male, female, black, white or any shade inbetween. Even though the risk is smaller for some it's still a risk. If you're one of the unlucky YOU DIE. It may not be soon but you're quality of life will be severely diminished in the mean time.





hmm, it's not likely that I'll be struck by a car and killed so I'll just wander around with my eyes closed and take that risk.:mad:





when you've lost a family member to the disease maybe you'll think of the risk you're taking :sad:
 
And where were the lies? Please show me. How has AIDS been exagerated? They didn't give any examples in the article, maybe you can.

How has AIDS been exagerated?
Let's start with the fact that we've all been told that it's equally likely that North American Heterosexuals could get AIDS as it is North American Homosexuals or Intervenous drug users. This is simply NOT the truth and for the longest time we were told that AIDS is everyone's concern equally. It's just not. This is not to say we shouldn't be concerned for others but for years people have been hoodwinked by some well meaning and some not-so-well meaning politically correct organizations.
 
How has AIDS been exagerated?
Let's start with the fact that we've all been told that it's equally likely that North American Heterosexuals could get AIDS as it is North American Homosexuals or Intervenous drug users. This is simply NOT the truth and for the longest time we were told that AIDS is everyone's concern equally. It's just not. This is not to say we shouldn't be concerned for others but for years people have been hoodwinked by some well meaning and some not-so-well meaning politically correct organizations.



no one has been told that.

what you have been told is that if you are exposed to the disease, you will catch it just as surely as anyone in any group.

no one is immune is quite different from you're all at equal risk.

if you get raped by someone who is HIV positive, guess what straight man, you're going to get HIV.
 
How has AIDS been exagerated?
Let's start with the fact that we've all been told that it's equally likely that North American Heterosexuals could get AIDS as it is North American Homosexuals or Intervenous drug users. This is simply NOT the truth and for the longest time we were told that AIDS is everyone's concern equally. It's just not. This is not to say we shouldn't be concerned for others but for years people have been hoodwinked by some well meaning and some not-so-well meaning politically correct organizations.

If you have sex with an HIV-positive woman, you can potentially get HIV.
If a woman has sex with an HIV-positive man, she can potentially get HIV.
If you're a slut and have unprotected sex with multiple partners, you are at higher risk for HIV, because of the probability that you have sex with someone with HIV becomes higher.
If you're a slut and your multiple partners are sluts and you all have unprotected sex, you're at an even higher risk for HIV, because that same HIV probability is even higher.

What part of this logic are you having trouble with?
 
If you have sex with an HIV-positive woman, you can potentially get HIV.
If a woman has sex with an HIV-positive man, she can potentially get HIV.
If you're a slut and have unprotected sex with multiple partners, you are at higher risk for HIV, because of the probability that you have sex with someone with HIV becomes higher.
If you're a slut and your multiple partners are sluts and you all have unprotected sex, you're at an even higher risk for HIV, because that same HIV probability is even higher.

What part of this logic are you having trouble with?

ALL TRUE. The part I'm having trouble with is for years we've been lied to. Have we not been lied to??
 
Depends what you mean by lied to. If you're concerned that the bearers of news have limited integrity: welcome to the history of mankind, I hope you enjoy your stay.

If there's an incurable disease for which there are no treatments, which kills not only the initial host generation but also their children, and you aren't sure how easily it spreads, do you 'wait and see' and let science run it's course over 3 decades before talking about it, or do you risk seeming sensationalist and try to get people to be safer rather than victims? It's easy to say that you've been lied to, knowing what we do now, that the threat amongst certain demographics was exaggerated -- but the threat is still there, exaggerated or not. An exaggeration doesn't mean that it can't still happen. AIDS hasn't gone away, and if people are ignorant about it then it will proliferate.

Just because you come from a middle-upper-class white background doesn't mean you have immunity, even if you aren't 'at risk'; conversely, even though you come from a lower-class/empoverished background doesn't mean you're 'at risk' if there's no HIV+ individuals in your locality, but again that doesn't make you immune either. The disease doesn't recognize race/creed/sexuality, it does what its intended function is, it replicates itself at the cost of its host and does so indifferently from all else. That means it is a danger, and until there's a way to eradicate it, it will always be a danger.

Sure, it has been politicized, sure, people make it a partisan issue, sure, people make it an absurd moralistic or religious issue (ie it's a gay disease, it's a disease that affects adulterers), and sure, some others make it a race disease (ie only blacks get it). Really though, it isn't something to be shocked about, and if you think this is the only time it's happened, prepare to experience much more outrage in your life. Everyone has an agenda, and everyone will push that agenda.
 
did anyone stop to think that the only way that AIDS was going to be taken seriously was if the threat to the general population was highlighted?

it's not like straight white western males as a group are all that concerned about a disease that might be eating through the poor, the black, the gay, the addicted. fuck those fuckers, right? serves them right. but when you make the accurate scientific statement that being straight white western and male doesn't make you immune from the disease, then damn, well now we better do something. i mean, we're the people that matter, right?
 
did anyone stop to think that the only way that AIDS was going to be taken seriously was if the threat to the general population was highlighted?

No shit.

Rubbers used to be only used to make sure your girlfriend didn't get knocked up and your sailor friend didn't get the clap. Once the threat of AIDS affected the general population, condoms were advertised on TV fer crissakes.
 
No shit.

Rubbers used to be only used to make sure your girlfriend didn't get knocked up and your sailor friend didn't get the clap. Once the threat of AIDS affected the general population, condoms were advertised on TV fer crissakes.



makes me think of my favorite line from Austin Powers: "Condoms are for sailors, baby!"
 
Back
Top Bottom