posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:29 AM
The problem afaics, is that HIV might just be a cofactor, not the whole deal, and who knows what condoms could be laced with? Remember, reliability
isn't paramount, random infections would be sufficient for the depopulationists, wouldn't they?
Of course, this train of thought opens up a can of worms, doesn't it ?
If you don't understand what i'm getting at, i'll give you an analogy.. i know someone who doesn't drink squat (no alcohol i mean), yet his liver
condition leaves a lot to be desired, and every time a MD takes a look at that datasheet, he/she just smiles (un)knowingly, making (mostly) stupid
remarks wrt drinking less and all. Can't convince them, circular logic at work, they won't believe anyone with liver condition, so there's no
reason to question their stereotypical approach, because every case of bad liver condition was the result of drinking anyway...
If you or i contacted AIDS somehow, out of the blue so to speak, would anyone believe it wasn't drug use /promiscuity or any other stigmatised
activity? of course not and a few years ago, you'd have been labelled a homo, too.