It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Rare Sexually Transmitted Disease Strikes 2 in N.Y.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
How do you get (and avoid getting) HIV?



HIV is transmitted during sex, through significant and direct contact with infected blood, and from mother to baby.


The body fluids containing HIV include:


blood (including menstrual blood)

semen and possibly pre-seminal fluid ("pre-cum")

vaginal secretions

breast milk


In order for HIV to be transmitted:


HIV must be present

HIV must get inside the body


The sexual behaviors that can transmit HIV are:


vaginal sex (penis in the vagina)

anal sex (penis in the anus), involving either men or women

oral sex (mouth on the penis or vagina)

www.whatudo.org...


According to UNAIDS (The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) at the end of 2003, an estimated 2.5 million children worldwide under age 15 were living with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 500,000 children under 15 had died from the virus or associated causes in that year alone. As HIV infection rates rise in the general population, new infections are increasingly concentrating in younger age groups.

2.5 million gay kids under 15? Dont be so silly.

www.niaid.nih.gov...




May 2004

HIV Infection in Women
OVERVIEW
The number of women with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) has been increasing steadily worldwide. By the end of 2003, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), 19.2 million women were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, accounting for approximately 50 percent of the 40 million adults living with HIV/AIDS.
By the end of 2002, 159,271 adolescent and adult women in the United States were reported as having AIDS. Based on cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through December 2002, more than 57,376 women have been infected with HIV. Among adolescent and adult women, the proportion of AIDS cases more than tripled from 7 percent in 1985 to 26 percent in 2002. Nonetheless, AIDS cases in adolescent and adult women have declined by 17 percent and have plateaued in the past 4 years, reflecting the success of antiretroviral therapies in preventing the development of AIDS.

Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. Women are particularly vulnerable to heterosexual transmission of HIV due to substantial mucosal exposure to seminal fluids. This biological fact amplifies the risk of HIV transmission when coupled with the high prevalence of non-consensual sex, sex without condom use, and the unknown and/or high-risk behaviors of their partners
How in the world did all these women become gay?

www.niaid.nih.gov...

Heterosexual Transmission
Ranking of AIDS as a Cause of Death


HIV is transmitted through sexual contact, through direct blood-to-blood contact such as sharing needles or syringes, or perinatally from mother to child before, or during birth or through breastfeeding. HIV has been transmitted through transfusions of infected blood or blood-clotting factors, but that rarely happens now because of improved donor screening. ("Facts About The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Its Transmission [Facts About HIV]," HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC, July 1997).
HIV enters the body through open cuts or sores or breaks in the skin, through mucous membranes or through direct injection. Epidemiologic evidence implicates only blood, semen, vaginal secretions and breast milk as means of transmission ("Facts About HIV," HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC, July 1997).
HIV is not transmitted by donating blood or from animals, food, inanimate objects, insects, urine, feces or water ("Facts About HIV," HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC, July 1997).

www.ncsl.org...

Now tell me it only in gays.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SpittinCobra]




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
well one piece of evidence can be found HERE

this is just one of several pieces of evidence i have collected....and don't tell me that this is a lie because i believe a world leader has more knowledge than anyone here.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yeticha
well one piece of evidence can be found HERE

this is just one of several pieces of evidence i have collected....and don't tell me that this is a lie because i believe a world leader has more knowledge than anyone here.



Be sure to read everything I have posted for you.


This web-site is nothing.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
i have read all your propaganda so many times in the past that it is like a broken record...the only fact is that gay sex, giving a gay person hiv tainted blood, or sharing a needle infected with hiv with a gay person causes hiv/aids.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yeticha
i have read all your propaganda so many times in the past that it is like a broken record...the only fact is that gay sex, giving a gay person hiv tainted blood, or sharing a needle infected with hiv with a gay person causes hiv/aids.


K, you refuse to see the truth in front of you. I am done, good day to you.

I can only hope you catch HIV, to prove you dont have to be gay.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yeticha
i have published scores of reports about this gay disease and you wouldn't believe the positive responses i've got....and by positive i don't mean gay....if people are believing geneticists from illinois i do not know what the world has come to... you people that spread the lie that hiv/aids strikes heterosexuals sound like you have a doctorate from the University of Goebbels.


"If people are believing geneticists... I don't know what the world has come to." Oh right, I forgot. What would a geneticist know about little transient pieces of genetic code called viruses? Obviously AIDS is devine retribution on homosexuals, so what we need here is a good shaman to ask the spirits about this matter. Damnedest thing though... the police arrested the nearest "shaman" in my neighborhood not long ago because of some of the herbs he was using, so I'm forced to rely on scientists instead.


You claim to have evidence, but you've showed us none. You claim you've published reports which have recieved some acclaim, but you have not offered them for review. There's a saying where I come from which is used primarily when somebody is so full of crap that they need a boot up their backside to compact it: Put up or shut up.

[ indignant rant ]
Show us what you've got and spare us the melodramatic "oppressed intellectual" act. I'm sick and tired of having teenagers make outrageous claims and then call me a nazi for not being in full agreement. Why the hell have I gotta have a Nazi degree? Couldn't you have said something ever so slightly less cliche? Perhaps you could have suggested that I was educated at a clown college. Back in my day (June 27th 2001 to be exact, and yes that really was my day, the one and only) but back in my day the one of us who made irrational claims to support his bigotry would be the one we branded as a nazi.
[ /indignant rant ]

Last but not least, there are no "debunkers of you". You are quite obviously not a hoax. Despite several failed attempts at a voodoo doll on my behalf, you are here and nobody is out to debunk that.
The "debunking" (or you could see it as education if you prefer) is aimed at some foolish ideas which could one day lead to your death as a victim of AIDS.
Hey, don't let me hold you back though. I bet if you checked around online you could find some really attractive women who have been starved for sex as a result of having HIV. Go get 'em tiger! What's the worst that could happen?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
From Yeticha's article:


Speaking through a translator, Gadhafi drew some laughter with his reference to AIDS as an illness only affecting homosexuals.


Apparently he got the same reaction you are.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta says that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is spread by an infected person through heterosexual or homosexual sexual contact, the sharing of needles or syringes and, less commonly, through transfusions of contaminated blood or blood clotting factors.


That's not a very good source to support your claims.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
i have tried to get hiv/aids several times to no avail....i've had sex with many gay men and women with it and i never contract it...i have video proof of me trying this experiment.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I just joined this site and have read many great posts but reading some of these makes me kind of ill. Are there really people out there that think you can only get HIV if you’re gay? Please tell me i'm reading some of these wrong. HIV is a virus that is transmitted through blood, semen, Breast milk (few cases reported) and vaginal fluid. Anyone can get HIV. I don’t know the numbers but thousands of heterosexuals in Africa are dieing of the disease right now. Maybe someone can be more specific as to how many.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
the heterosexuals in africa have other diseases and the medical community just slaps the hiv/aids label on them in order for more money and aid to continue flowing into africa....any pre-schooler nowadays knows hiv/aids is only caught by gay people......i thought the myth that non-gays can catch hiv/aids was over??



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by baw333
I just joined this site and have read many great posts but reading some of these makes me kind of ill. Are there really people out there that think you can only get HIV if you’re gay? Please tell me i'm reading some of these wrong.


Well, it seems that some people live in a fantasy world I would say and yes, it seems they do believe that nonsense. Can you believe it?

"Heterosexual contact is the leading risk exposure category for all women (38%), and 29% of those are due to sex with an injection drug user (IDU). Injection drug use accounts for 32% of all cases. The majority of women who have sex with women (WSW) acquired HIV via drug use or sex with a man, although a few women have been identified as being infected via same-sex contact."

www.aidspartnership.org...

So if he was correct, why is heterosexual contact the leading risk category? If it can only be contracted by those with a "gay gene" then why do IDU users get the disease as well? And how can a women get it from being with a man? Because they both have the "gay gene"? Give me a break...

Time to wake up people. I personally know many people that work in the Bio Tech industry, specifically with this disease. It DOES NOT discriminate. It kills everyone equally. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hey, guess what I found in wikipedia's AIDS article...
There actually is a fringe group of scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. One of them publically injected himself with blood from an HIV patient.
He was dead within a year, but I'm not 100% sure if he actually developed AIDS or if he died of unrelated stupidity.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Well, given the level that some people are adamant that AIDS targets the "gay" gene :shk: we seem to have a volueteer in this thread.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
The responses from the self-congratulatory DENY IGNORNANCE crowd have truly been the most entertaining.

Self-congratulatory? What's wrong Joe, are you one of those people who thinks research and rational presentation of a factual arguement is somehow pretentious? If I could live a day longer for each time somebody gave me flak for bothering them with the facts, then I sht you not I'd be the one to bury Cain and the Wandering Jew. (I sure hope somebody gets that or I'm gonna feel really alone here.)

You didn't make it to the DI self-congrad list!

Vaga your posts make sense (but who am I to judge?)


As always (from what I remember) your posts point out differences and offer (proffer?) reason.

The DI list doesn't make that step. But, that isn't my point. I personally believe HIV/AIDs and a few others are poison pills for virtually everyone. However, like Anthrax and a few other mass killers some seemed to have been immune.

I wonder what the break down in HIV/AIDs cases is regarding blood types?

Are B and A as susceptiple as C?

Is there something (genetic as all is) that makes a person more or less susceptible?

I recollect reading somewhere that when the great plagues swept Eurasia hundreds of years past some groups were barely affected while other groups were devastated.

Was this genetic? Was it cultural? - - - As advanced as we are we still don't know a lot of things.
    Can lifestyle alter genes?
    Are some genetic traits more susceptible than others?
    Can lifestyle make a group more or less susceptible?
    Can one disease protect from another?


There are a lot of unknowns out there.
.




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
You didn't make it to the DI self-congrad list!


Well thanks I guess. I suppose I just had a guilty conscience. lol.
I'm not real quick to accept any glory though because I have a lot of respect for some of the other people around here who share my point of view. Not everybody always invests a lot of time in composition, but I know from other threads that there are well grounded members who know what they are talking about even when they don't outline it by the numbers.




The DI list doesn't make that step. But, that isn't my point. I personally believe HIV/AIDs and a few others are poison pills for virtually everyone. However, like Anthrax and a few other mass killers some seemed to have been immune.


Funny you mention that. Something like 10% of Europeans have a gene that is resistant somehow, but it's only homozygous in 1%. I'm not a geneticist so I'm really just regurgitating this with only a partial understanding, but what it basically means is that something like 1% of Europeans have a strong (but not perfect) resistance to HIV-1.


I recollect reading somewhere that when the great plagues swept Eurasia hundreds of years past some groups were barely affected while other groups were devastated.


A virus is a random strain of genetic code formed basically by good fortune and complex chemistry. It penetrates a cell and inserts itself into your DNA. It's been a long time since biology class, but if I remember correctly certain nucleotides only go with certain others, so if your DNA isn't compatible the virus will not be able to use your cells to reproduce itself. The immunity is probably a genetic thing. Also, if a plague was related to other illnesses to which certain populations had been exposed, then some populations would have the antibodies to fight off the illness, like the way milk maids were immune to smallpox after being exposed to cowpox.

Now somebody who actually paid attention in bio class bail me out on my awful genetic explanation?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Funny you mention that. Something like 10% of Europeans have a gene that is resistant somehow, but it's only homozygous in 1%. I'm not a geneticist so I'm really just regurgitating this with only a partial understanding, but what it basically means is that something like 1% of Europeans have a strong (but not perfect) resistance to HIV-1.

Things like this always perplex me. i remember a few years back when DNA and genes were 'new.' Seemed like all other science related to humans went into the closet at the time.

Seems logical (I don't like logic btw) to me that blood types and other attributes of human differences exist for a purpose. Survival is the ultimate purpose of nature (I believe).

Hair, skin, size, body build, eye color, selective muscle development- all have the same characteristics as blood type. Some humans can survive and flourish in environments that others die in.

.

.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Things like this always perplex me. i remember a few years back when DNA and genes were 'new.' Seemed like all other science related to humans went into the closet at the time.


I dont think anything went into the closet, it just wasn't as new, exciting, or exact as the new DNA. Bloodtype was imperfect for court cases for example, DNA seems to be perfect.



Seems logical (I don't like logic btw) to me that blood types and other attributes of human differences exist for a purpose. Survival is the ultimate purpose of nature (I believe).
Hair, skin, size, body build, eye color, selective muscle development- all have the same characteristics as blood type. Some humans can survive and flourish in environments that others die in.


I think 10 different people would give you 10 different answers. If we evolved then this could reflect mutations or the broad range of climates humans have adapted to.
If we were created it could be a safeguard against extinction designed into us.
God knows what other theories could arise- spontaneous mutation? Subconcious self-actualization? Natural counter-forces to every danger?

I personally believe that human beings were created. I can't prove it, but that's what I have chosen to believe. I believe we were created not from one man and one woman but from several distinct lines which gave us a great deal of versatility so that we could inhabit the entire earth and be safe from extinction.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
LOL...gosh, that is runny, I mean funny. Wasnt it just chlamidia and warts that mostly affected gay people down there? Or was it AIDS, cant remember. I went into Life Mangament Skills in 9th grade and had some of this crap brought up to me. But ive never heard of anything like this. I've seen some discusting pictures, probably why I dont eat coliflower anymore.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by creamsoda
LOL...gosh, that is runny, I mean funny. Wasnt it just chlamidia and warts that mostly affected gay people down there? Or was it AIDS, cant remember. I went into Life Mangament Skills in 9th grade and had some of this crap brought up to me. But ive never heard of anything like this. I've seen some discusting pictures, probably why I dont eat coliflower anymore.


The bad part is you cant even read the "good post", becaue the poster is on global ignore. I can only assume, for his wild ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join