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.

 

GOP lawmaker: Virtually impossible to get AIDS through heterosexual sex

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Facts are this.

AIDS has been linked to non-human primates.
There was a male flight attendant who is suspected as being the carrier. This was in the late 1970's. This was widely reported at the time. The reports at that time stated he contracted it from apes/monkeys.

Gaëtan Dugas (French: [ɡaetɑ̃ dyˈɡa]; February 20, 1953 – March 30, 1984) was a French Canadian who worked for Air Canada as a flight attendant.[1] Dugas became notorious as the alleged patient zero for AIDS, though he is now more accurately regarded as one of many highly sexually active men who spread HIV widely before the disease was identified.

It is virtually impossible for a male to be infected with HIV by having heterosexual sex with a woman.

Where was the state senator wrong?

Agree: aids is a blood borne disease: transmitted through contact with blood;
Anal sex( friction against a mucous membrane) easily exposes blood as would vaginal penetration(more mucous membranecontact);

So women and male "receivers (as I saw it put earlier) are more in danger of receiving the virus through sheer surface area of exposed blood capillaries than the penetrating male receiving it through the urethra. or closed skin contact. Prattle on about" dark ages thinking" but there's some logic behind it.

As a monogamous hetero male; I have more to fear from used hypodermic needles in some third world clinic if I get injured while traveling abroad.Than getting it sexually.
edit on 24-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


This is mainstream view. Just a copy and paste from AboutDOTcom


AIDS and HIV
Understanding what it means to be HIV positive is relatively simple -- either you are infected with the virus or you aren't -- but how do you understand AIDS? AIDS, which stands for "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" is a way of describing a whole group of symptoms and diseases associated with the damage HIV does to the immune system. As an HIV infection progresses, there is ongoing damage to immune defense cells and the body becomes increasingly less able to fight off infection. This means that individuals with advanced HIV disease are susceptible to infections that don't show up in people with healthy immune systems. They are called opportunistic infections because they take advantage of the weakened ability of an HIV positive individual to fight off disease. The difference between AIDS and HIV is that a person is said to have AIDS, as opposed to simply being HIV positive, when either the numbers of specific types of cells in their immune system drop below a certain level or when they develop one of a specific group of opportunistic infections.


Mind the bold parts. An interesting observation is that the criteria can change, has changed before and likely will continue to. This means overnight the amount of people diagnosed with AIDS can potentially dramatically increase.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Reading further made me wonder the difference between syndrome and disease; as medicine is not my field of study:

A syndrome is a set of symptoms that all appear together. A disease is an illness where you have a line on the cause of it: genetic, toxicological, bacterial, viral, etc.

A syndrome can indicate a disease, but not necessarily. It may be that you have several diseases, or several different diseases can all cause the same syndrome.

The two terms are not applied rigorously. AIDS is still called a "syndrome" even though we now have a good line on the cause, the HIV virus. It acquired the name "syndrome" before the cause was known, and it has stuck. Others would say that the HIV infection is the disease, and that AIDS is the syndrome (set of symptoms) caused by it, because you can have the HIV infection without having AIDS. The two terms overlap substantially and sometimes you can only tell what a particular person (even a medical person) means from context.

It seems semantics can be pretty loose an varied depending on whom you talk too.

Sorry OP to have diverged a bit from the main topic. A lot of comments politicians seem to make are either a foot in the mouth by letting their true beliefs come out at the horror of their speech writers, or from trying to pander to a particular audience to whom they are speaking.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well in the context you're speaking of it would only be semantics if HIV absolutely was the cause of AIDS. It's the popular theory but it hasn't be proven concretely and imo there is enough opposition out there to warrant a few raised eyebrows!

Remember the criteria has changed for AIDS. One of which is HIV. It's easy to show stats for HIV leading to AIDS when you change the criteria of being diagnosed with AIDS as having to have HIV. Makes sense right?
AIDS is a whole list of diseases and symptoms. If your immune system is at the specified state and you have said disease, all things equal, it won't be considered AIDS now unless you also have the HIV virus.

I don't want to get off topic but I encourage you and anyone else to look into the opposition to HIV theory. It's very interesting if nothing else.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

Hiv - Heterosexual Male Hiv + Female 0.05%

Monogamous HIV- relationships whether homosexual or heterosexual is virtually non existent.
The lowest risk group from what I understand it is lesbians.


It is actually .05%-.01% or something. I posted the correct odds. Your odds you list are 1:2000, so you need to have sex with an HIV+ woman 2000 times on average to be infected. The real range is 1:2000-1:8000 or something like that. You more or less agree with my argument.

Lesbians would contract HIV through contaminated toys, no idea what those odds are.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
I think I see what the rep did... I read thru a lot of the comments (not all), and it seems he did his job. (just like the last one that "shoved his foot in his mouth") He created division through his supposed idiot ramblings. Dont believe me? Read thru the replies. I cannot help but wonder who this fool is catering to.


So tell me what I have posted that is not factual. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

My belief is he meant 98% of all MALE AIDS diagnoses were gay or drug users. If that is not what he meant he would be wrong.


Even if that is what he meant...

75% of all male AIDS diagnoses were homosexual/bisexual men. So 25% were heterosexual. Do the math... 98% of ALL male AIDS were gay?


Do I seriously need to keep saying the same thing. Are you purposefully being difficult? Please look at my quote, the part I highlighted. Thanks. Not sure where you learned math. So we have 75% homo/bi. 23% drug users. 2% other. My math seems just fine. Or is HIV not spread through IV drug use? Your math seems to suggest it's not.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Just fyi, every single figure you quoted above is FACTUALLY incorrect.

I'll let you do a 5min google search so you can figure that out for yourself instead of reading pseudo-scientific books lie the one of Mr Fumento.




How about you do a google search and let us know what the odds are of a man getting HIV through heterosexual transmission.


Too lazy to educate yourself?


The only lazy one is you, I already posted the odds with links. Thanks though for admitting you wont back up anything you say.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Unless we are talking about homosexual women having homosexual sex with men, women are not relevant to the OP topic. Just in case you missed it, you can't have homosexual sex between a man and a woman, that is considered heterosexual. The rest of the context of the comment in the OP is all about men, he talks about homosexual men, not homosexual women. Here is the "omission" you speak of.


lol!

the OP's topic is about this statement - made by Senator Stacey Campbell - from the Great State of Tennessee :
Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact.

You want to focus on men - and so in some way make the Senator's statement work out - well, go ahead and try

The rest of us can read

And Occams, women are incredibly relevant to the OP - maybe just not as important to Sen. Campfield or all the posters in this thread


I am telling you what I believe he meant, and I showed you statistics. Let's indulge you though. Woman A has HIV, and has sex with her husband Man A. Man A will not contract HIV, and will not pass it along to other sexual partners. Man A has HIV, and has sex with woman A. Woman A will get HIV, and then will not pass it along to other men. Man A has HIV and has sex with Man B. Man B has HIV and now man B will also spread it to all his other sexual partners. If you do not see the difference between Hetero and Homo sexual behavior as it related to HIV I don't know what to say. Heterosexual intercourse was not responsible for the spread of HIV. Nor was homosexual woman on woman sex. Homosexual intercourse was directly responsible, and then IV drug use.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
The politicians comment is especially interesting if you know this fact: Some people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection. Remember, that old conspiracy that HIV was created to do ethnic cleansing?

Sources:
www.wired.com...

There was a recent news special; covering the virtually unknown epidemic of HIV among African Americans:

www.itlmedia.org...

Full PBS video: www.pbs.org...


Many ethnic groups have resistance. There is a potent one that is found in European and Asian ethnicities, but it is something like 1% of a specific group of people. Very rare.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by sandmannc40
 


I doubt a liberal would say something so stupid and backwards. Only because liberals tend to be educated about social issues thats one of their biggest selling points. If you can find me an example of a liberal saying something so dumb I will glady admit I am wrong. It would not be swept under any carpet faux news would jump on it at once.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.
Obama foreign policy adviser Richard Danzig

I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health
New York city councilman Charles Barron

In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.
Joe Biden

Isn't it a little racist to call it Black Friday
Joy Behar

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
John Kerry

My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize
Hank Johnson

Now, what was actually wrong about what this guy said? Because, he's actually right.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




If you do not see the difference between Hetero and Homo sexual behavior as it related to HIV I don't know what to say.


Oh, I understand what you're trying to say

If you can't see that I understand what you're trying to say, well then - I don't know what to say

Our friend Sen. Stacey Campfield has a message he'd like to share - and statistics about women don't figure into all that

Close enough?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Why would statistics about women have anything to do with a conversation about men? Should we talk about statistics of Latinos when discussing Asians? I don't know the guy, I have no feelings positive or negative towards him. What he said is factually correct and despite the numerous posts of people saying his thinking is backwards, I have yet to see any actual facts, statistics, that contradict his assertion that men simply almost never get HIV from heterosexual relationships.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Why would statistics about women have anything to do with a conversation about men? Should we talk about statistics of Latinos when discussing Asians? I don't know the guy, I have no feelings positive or negative towards him. What he said is factually correct and despite the numerous posts of people saying his thinking is backwards, I have yet to see any actual facts, statistics, that contradict his assertion that men simply almost never get HIV from heterosexual relationships.


The next logical thing to ask of you is to explain why you suppose that men do not get
HIV from Hetero relations?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


What he said is factually correct and despite the numerous posts of people saying his thinking is backwards, I have yet to see any actual facts, statistics, that contradict his assertion that men simply almost never get HIV from heterosexual relationships.


He didn't say it's virtually impossible for men to contract it. His statement is not accurate - and I'm not just being picky :-)


“My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.”


According to the the Center for Disease Control, male-to-male sexual contact has been the most common way to transmit AIDS, followed by injection drug use and heterosexual sex.

from the same source - and the OP: www.rawstory.com...


HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths

According to 2009 HIV surveillance data, women represented 24% of all diagnoses of HIV infection among United States (US) adults and adolescents in 40 states with long-established, confidential name-based reporting. In 2008, an estimated 25% of adults and adolescents living with HIV infection were female.

* At some point in her lifetime, 1 in 139 women will be diagnosed with HIV infection. Black and Hispanic/Latina women are at increased risk of being diagnosed with HIV infection (1 in 32 black women and 1 in 106 Hispanic/Latina women will be diagnosed with HIV, compared with 1 in 182 Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander women; 1 in 217 American Indian/Alaska Native women; and 1 in 526 for both white and Asian women).

* From 2006 through 2009, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection among women decreased from 10,851 to 9,973. It is unknown whether this decrease is due to an actual decrease in new HIV infections (incidence) or whether the decrease reflects HIV testing trends.

* Women accounted for more than 25% of the estimated 34,247 AIDS diagnoses in 2009 and represent nearly 20% of cumulative AIDS diagnoses (including children) in the United States to date. There were 8,647 AIDS diagnoses among women in 2009 compared with 9,639 AIDS diagnoses among women in 2006.

* For women living with a diagnosis of HIV infection, the most common methods of transmission were high-risk heterosexual contact and injection drug use.

* In 2008, 4,796 (28%) of the estimated 17,374 persons with a diagnosis of HIV infection who died in the 40 states and 5 US dependent areas were women. Deaths attributed to HIV among women of color are disproportionately high: from 2000–2007, HIV infection was among the top 10 leading causes of death for black females aged 10–54 and Hispanic/Latina females aged 15–54.
www.cdc.gov...

This conversation isn't just about men - it's kinda funny that you just can't see that :-)

Or, do you consider the amount of women that get HIV unimportant?

Women's deaths don't seem to count - because they won't help the Senator make his point

What is his point OccamsRazor04?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Your conversation is not just about men, what does what you want to talk about have to do with what he said? Context is important to understanding meaning, not just words. Without context meaning can not be ascertained. I do not know why you are having difficulty understanding.

As I said in a previous post, if his comments were meant to include women he is wrong, as women can get HIV from men. All of his comments deal with men, there is no mention of women in his comments. So specifically talking about men, he is correct, it is virtually impossible for a man to contract HIV from heterosexual contact.

Can we end this? No idea why you want to keep going around in circles.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





Can we end this? No idea why you want to keep going around in circles.


:-)

absolutely

later OccamsRazor



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Trying to present facts to the brain dead liberals and one article experts has reached the point of ludicrous. We would have a better chance of convincing a born again Christian about the fallacy of the virgin birth. Give up people once the Obamabots have been given their gospel there is no use presenting facts.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by billyjack
 




Give up people once the Obamabots have been given their gospel there is no use presenting facts.


what are those facts? :-)

look anything like this:

High-Risk Heterosexuals Should Take HIV Prevention Pill, Too

The CDC announcement comes on the heels of recent research that revealed that 27 percent of new HIV cases in the United States in 2009 involved heterosexuals who were not injection-drug users.
www.nlm.nih.gov...

dated this past August

facts is facts billyjack - no matter where they come from :-)

(guess I wasn't really done)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by billyjack
 




Give up people once the Obamabots have been given their gospel there is no use presenting facts.


what are those facts? :-)

look anything like this:

High-Risk Heterosexuals Should Take HIV Prevention Pill, Too

The CDC announcement comes on the heels of recent research that revealed that 27 percent of new HIV cases in the United States in 2009 involved heterosexuals who were not injection-drug users.
www.nlm.nih.gov...

dated this past August

facts is facts billyjack - no matter where they come from :-)

(guess I wasn't really done)


www.cdc.gov...
New Infections.
CDC estimates that MSM ... accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009.
Heterosexuals accounted for 27% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009.
Women accounted for 23% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009.
Injection drug users represented 9% of new HIV infections in 2009.

I'm not sure what the range of error is for these statistics, but once you take out MSM, Women, and IV drug users, there is basically only a few % left (4% or less). HIV is an STI, but like all STI there are other possible methods for infection.

So can you tell me why the facts you presented negate my position? Can you tell me what the odds are for a man getting HIV from a woman from heterosexual relations? If your position is women get it, you are right, I never denied that, and from the context of what the OP posted I do not believe that has any bearing on the statement.

Women get HIV. Women are very important. Women getting HIV are equally as tragic as a man getting HIV. Women have no bearing on this discussion. There is a discussion that does involve women, and it's an important one, it just has nothing to do with what the discussion in the OP is.
edit on 5-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join