PDA

View Full Version : 1969: The year AIDS came to the US from Haiti and then infected the world



Steve
30th October 07, 01:29 AM
AIDS virus invaded U.S. from Haiti: study
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The AIDS virus invaded the United States in about 1969 from Haiti, carried most likely by a single infected immigrant who set the stage for it to sweep the world in a tragic epidemic, scientists said on Monday.

Michael Worobey, a University of Arizona evolutionary biologist, said the 1969 U.S. entry date is earlier than some experts had believed.

The timeline laid out in the study led by Worobey indicates that HIV infections were occurring in the United States for roughly 12 years before AIDS was first recognized by scientists as a disease in 1981. Many people had died by that point.

"It is somehow chilling to know it was probably circulating for so long under our noses," Worobey said in a telephone interview.

The researchers conducted a genetic analysis of stored blood samples from early AIDS patients to determine when the human immunodeficiency virus first entered the United States.

They found that HIV was brought to Haiti by an infected person from central Africa in about 1966, which matches earlier estimates, and then came to the United States in about 1969.

The researchers think an unknown single infected Haitian immigrant arrived in a large city like Miami or New York, and the virus circulated for years -- first in the U.S. population and then to other nations.

It can take several years after infection for a person to develop AIDS, a disease that ravages the immune system.

DISEASE MULTIPLIES

"That one infection would have become two, and then it doubles again and the two becomes four," Worobey said. "So you have a period -- probably a fair number of years -- where you're dealing with probably fewer than a hundred people who are infected.

"And then, as with epidemic expansion, at some point the hundred becomes 200, you start getting into thousands, tens of thousands. And then quite rapidly you can be up into the hundreds of thousands of infections that were probably already there before AIDS was recognized in the early 1980s."

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The path the virus traveled as it jumped from nation to nation has long been debated by scientists.

The University of Miami's Dr. Arthur Pitchenik, a co-author of the study, had seen Haitian immigrants in Miami as early as 1979 with a mystery illness that turned out to be AIDS. He knew the government long had stored some of their blood samples.

The researchers analyzed samples from five of these Haitian immigrants dating from 1982 and 1983. They also looked at genetic data from 117 more early AIDS patients from around the world.

This genetic analysis allowed the scientists to calibrate the molecular clock of the strain of HIV that has spread most widely, and calculated when it arrived first in Haiti from Africa and then in the United States.

The researchers virtually ruled out the possibility that HIV had come directly to the United States from Africa, setting a 99.8 percent probability that Haiti was the steppingstone.

"I think that it gives us more clear insight into the history of it (the AIDS epidemic) and what path the virus took -- and hard objective evidence, not just armchair thinking," Pitchenik said in a telephone interview.

Studies suggest the virus first entered the human population in about 1930 in central Africa, probably when people slaughtered infected chimpanzees for meat. AIDS has killed more than 25 million people and about 40 million others are infected with HIV.

-------------------------------

Link. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2954500820071029?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

It seems to me that this study only points out how ignorant we were back in the day.

Perhaps they could have spent the money for this study on something else....

LIKE A CURE.

I hate it when science is put to a pointless task. But I suppose they'll make some money to fund studies for working on a cure; via studies on where it came from.

Nothing like buying more time by letting the masses point their finger for awhile...

Olorin
30th October 07, 02:11 AM
Your title makes it sound like the virus came from Haiti to the US and then to the rest of the world.

Also this is not a wast of money, it is important to understand how the disease spread, and were it came from.

As far as a cure...

http://www.information-condom-source.com/Images/Trojan-Condoms.gif

...prevention costs about 12.50 for a pack.

JohnnyCache
30th October 07, 02:21 AM
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=10262001

Steve
30th October 07, 02:22 AM
Your title makes it sound like the virus came from Haiti to the US and then to the rest of the world.

Yeah, so does the first line of the story:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The AIDS virus invaded the United States in about 1969 from Haiti, carried most likely by a single infected immigrant who set the stage for it to sweep the world in a tragic epidemic, scientists said on Monday.


Also this is not a wast of money, it is important to understand how the disease spread, and were it came from.

Uh, I know you are a historian, but how does studying where AIDS came from help cure what it has become now?

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 02:49 AM
Your title makes it sound like the virus came from Haiti to the US and then to the rest of the world.

Also this is not a wast of money, it is important to understand how the disease spread, and were it came from.

As far as a cure...

W_9I4X0PQRE

...prevention costs about 12.50 for a pack.
fixed.

Steve
30th October 07, 03:19 AM
Olorin's post was much less long winded.

And not posted already.

Olorin
30th October 07, 03:28 AM
Uh, I know you are a historian, but how does studying where AIDS came from help cure what it has become now?

Well it helps me...

Also I have seen 12 monkeys too many times..

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:30 AM
Uh, I know you are a historian, but how does studying where AIDS came from help cure what it has become now?

1. Because AIDS isn't just a biological phenomenon - it has a social and economic dimension.

2. Because finding where it came from might help us identify its strands, and shed light on its mutations.

3. Because its origins might suggest forms of resistance in human or non-human animals.

Toby Christensen
30th October 07, 04:53 AM
1. Because AIDS isn't just a biological phenomenon - it has a social and economic dimension.

2. Because finding where it came from might help us identify its strands, and shed light on its mutations.

3. Because its origins might suggest forms of resistance in human or non-human animals.

Beat me to it.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 05:38 AM
This is one of the few subjects that keeps me from sleeping at night. No other affliction or 20th century phenomenon has affected the world or our lives more significantly. There's a silent killer living in 1,000,000 americans. It's numbers grow by steadily increasing increments every year. Worldwide it grows faster than our population grows.

This little bug really does threaten all of mankind. Finding a cure for it is like trying to make first contact with an alien civilization. It's theoretically possible, and no matter how many advances we make, it becomes increasingly apparent that a cure is currently far out of reach.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 05:54 AM
...and unlike plague, smallpox, influenza and the rest, all it takes is a condom or a clean needle to stop it.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:09 AM
That just isn't entirely true, but it certainly would go a long way. The virus needs to make blood contact, so in some rare circumstances it can still spread even with a condom.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:12 AM
it can also be spread by breast feeding, child birth, and any contact with most bodily fluids, so oral sex is considered lower risk but is still a medium of transfer.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 06:14 AM
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

Steve Bradshaw
Thursday October 9, 2003
The Guardian

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. Story here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html).

DAYoung
30th October 07, 06:15 AM
it can also be spread by breast feeding, child birth, and any contact with most bodily fluids, so oral sex is considered lower risk but is still a medium of transfer.

Sure. But the chief method of transmission is sexual intercourse and drug use.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:15 AM
I'm more optimistic about the treatments. We've identified naturally immune people (many of those in the US have ancestry to this little English village in Derbyshire where the inhabitants were also resistant to the Black Death in the 1700s, all due to a single gene mutation they shared due to generations of intermarriage.)

There are other drugs which whilst being new, expensive and not being total cures, can keep a HIV carrier alive indefinitely by shutting down the disease's progress.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:23 AM
Yeah, the vatican has really been doing a huge disservice to the world community with this shit. They're straining logic and defying morality to enforce their own world view and people wonder what the attraction to atheism is.

Edit: did i say disservice, they're fucking murdering people to cover their beliefs.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:25 AM
Most Africans infected with Aids aren't Catholic. Where does the Vatican come into it ?

DAYoung
30th October 07, 06:26 AM
Most Africans infected with Aids aren't Catholic. Where does the Vatican come into it ?

The Vatican is behind EVERYTHING.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:28 AM
There are other drugs which whilst being new, expensive and not being total cures, can keep a HIV carrier alive indefinitely by shutting down the disease's progress.

A special qualifier needs to be added here, what you should say is that it keeps most strains of HIV from progressing and there's still no gaurantee because the drugs haven't been around long enough to test adequately if they can effectively keep the virus under control forever.

Even then, not everyone's immune system can cope with the illness and despite drugs, even those infected with the most common strains of the disease will still die an early death.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:31 AM
Also, these drugs don't keep the disease from mutating and becoming resistant later. I'm sorry if I paint a bleak picture, but I'm scared to death of HIV.

emboesso
30th October 07, 06:35 AM
Yeah, the vatican has really been doing a huge disservice to the world community with this shit. They're straining logic and defying morality to enforce their own world view and people wonder what the attraction to atheism is.

Edit: did i say disservice, they're fucking murdering people to cover their beliefs.

If people followed the Catholic teachings in their entirety, the number of people getting sick and dying would be minute. If you're standing in an alleyway down by the waterfront in Port Au Prince, selling your mouth and asshole to a few dozen strange men daily, and decide you're going to be a "good Catholic" solely on the condom issue, problems will be quite predictable. Kind of like the horrible results when cheating on the Atkins Diet.

Still, we've come quite a long way. I remember the days when AIDS was "Reagan's fault".

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:52 AM
So we should lie to them like good catholics and tell them not to use protection. Right.

Kiko
30th October 07, 08:37 AM
Pretty scary to think all this coincided with the wonders of the 1960's - the Pill, the sexual revolution, feminism etc.

Still if the human race can put half the resources and effort they do into entertaining themselves and one another into finding a cure, then we must have some hope.

Teh El Macho
30th October 07, 09:00 AM
Be more discriminating with who you screw with, use a condom (and don't share fucking needles if you like to poke it for fun). It does not elminate the probability of spreading HIV, but it reduces that probability immensely and significantly.

Excluding drugs users, the people more at risk are those who live a sexual life that's risky (in particular bisexual hispanic and african american males). A constant influx of multiple partners within a short period of time, bare-backing, swallowing, all that is playing russian roulette. And the worst thing of all is that everybody knows this, and yet, they still do it.

Being sexually liberal does not mean to be reckless or careless, and that's a concept a lot of people, even today fail to grasp.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 09:00 AM
Pretty scary to think all this coincided with the wonders of the 1960's - the Pill, the sexual revolution, feminism etc.

Still if the human race can put half the resources and effort they do into entertaining themselves and one another into finding a cure, then we must have some hope.

It totally evades my mind why more people don't tackle this issue. Seriously, during election years we hear no end of one meaningless wedge issue after another. While the fucking black death of our generation is growing by about 10% in scope every fucking year in MODERN western countries and is already raging across asia and africa like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

part of me thinks it's just ignored because the issue makes people extremely uncomfortable.

Shawarma
30th October 07, 09:03 AM
I would like to ask: In the US, where is HIV and AIDS most prominent. In the gay community, in the junkie community, in jail (buttsecks prison rape lol) or somewhere else? Where do most people get their AIDS from?

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 09:10 AM
Drugs, gay community and jail in that order of likelihood, but it's gaining steam in the hetero community as well.

SpringHeeledJack
30th October 07, 09:16 AM
I would like to ask: In the US, where is HIV and AIDS most prominent. In the gay community, in the junkie community, in jail (buttsecks prison rape lol) or somewhere else? Where do most people get their AIDS from?


America's black and Hispanic communities have been disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS. In 2005, the total number of AIDS cases ever diagnosed in black people overtook the number diagnosed in whites.
During 2005, 49% of all new HIV diagnoses and 50% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people. In recent years the number of HIV diagnoses has remained relatively stable in most ethnic groups. However, the rate of HIV diagnoses among Asians/Pacific Islanders increased by an estimated 61% between 2001 and 2005.
Male-to-male sexual contact probably caused the majority (66%) of infections in white people living with AIDS. An additional 14% of white people were exposed through injection drug use, 11% through high-risk heterosexual contact and 8% through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. Among black people living with AIDS, male-to-male sexual contact, high-risk heterosexual contact and injection drug use each account for around 30% of infections.
AVERT.org has several other USA statistics pages (http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm), as well as a more general discussion of HIV & AIDS in the USA (http://www.avert.org/america.htm).


Edit - My chart didn't work, but but you can find it on the source page


Source: http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm

Knave
30th October 07, 09:29 AM
Greetings.

Maybe in the drug using gay jail buttsecks hetero community lol m i rite??

....................

So are you really scared to death of AIDS? It seriously keeps you up at night? Do you live in a shared prison cell or do you whore yourself out to senators in bathroom stalls or live in some kind of drug commune where some practical jokester goes around sticking people with AIDS needles?

Because if not I just can't understand how it scares you to death and keeps you up at night since I can't imagine many other situations where AIDS would sneak into your bed and rape you, so to speak.

Zendetta
30th October 07, 10:38 AM
Most Africans infected with Aids aren't Catholic. Where does the Vatican come into it ?

Actually, Catholicism is a big cultural institution in Africa. A pro-condom message from the Vatican would save many lives in Africa.

One of the scary things about the African AIDS situation to me is the shocking numbers of babies getting the disease from their mothers - there's about a 60% chance of infection in the womb, and the virus is transmissable thru breastmilk.

Truculent Sheep
30th October 07, 10:52 AM
One of the scary things about the African AIDS situation to me is the shocking numbers of babies getting the disease from their mothers - there's about a 60% chance of infection in the womb, and the virus is transmissable thru breastmilk.

What's more shocking is that with the right drugs, HIV infection rates between mother and child can be much reduced - but little is done about it.

That said, it's easy to fall into moral posturing whenever THE AIDS is discussed. But viruses are neither moral nor immoral - they just spread by the most convenient means and are incapable of telling the difference between, say, a wife who stayed faithful while her husband has secret affairs or a haemophiliac. Rent boy or altar boy: the result is always the same.

That said, this takes the piss:

http://aids.about.com/od/safersexresources/a/barebacking.htm

But there I go, falling into the sermonising that seems to follow HIV like flies follow shit. It's infectious.

Thinkchair
30th October 07, 12:46 PM
Interestingly the virus was probably on American soil long before then. I seem to recall a study done on a sailor who had died in the 40s or 50s. in the 90s they were able to determine the cause was AIDS.

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 01:09 PM
http://www.gng.org/currents/kenya/kenya98_condomad.jpg
???
Buttsekcs on the soccer field?

Cullion
30th October 07, 01:25 PM
Actually, Catholicism is a big cultural institution in Africa. A pro-condom message from the Vatican would save many lives in Africa.

One of the scary things about the African AIDS situation to me is the shocking numbers of babies getting the disease from their mothers - there's about a 60% chance of infection in the womb, and the virus is transmissable thru breastmilk.

The pope also tells people not to have sex outside of marriage. That advice would cut down Aids transmission dramatically too.

You can't blame the Holy Father if people only take the bits of advice they like (uh, I'm not wearing a Condom because the pope said so, but I'm going to ignore the bit about not being gay and not sleeping with anybody except my wife). Sure, Catholicism is based on superstition, but blaming the spread of Aids on it is nonsensical.

Do you really think somebody taking a hooker to a motel, or having a night of forbidden lust with their wife's sister or enjoying some balls-deep bareback anal on a portuguese sailor is thinking 'I better not wear a Condom, that would be a sin in the eyes of the church'.!?!?!

No of course not. This is a retarded attempt to turn a tragic situation into another smug mindless liberal attack on religion.

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 01:40 PM
Speaking for the conservative community, since everything else is just a liberal conspiracy, RUSH LIMBAUGH:


"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."

"take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

"And one of the things that -- that the -- the
AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh,
this is only a matter of time before it spreads to
the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.

And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try
to get people like Reagan to start talking about it
from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't.
It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa,
and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by
-- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that
spreads this, if you want to know the truth.
It's promiscuity.

But it -- it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual
community."

Stick
30th October 07, 01:51 PM
AIDS is not a particularly big deal for me. Yes, it's a horrible disease, but so is the flu and unlike the flu you can completely avoid AIDS.

Oh, emboesso, Reagan had a chance to try and control the spread of AIDS through education early on when it was brought to our attention in the early 80's and the infected population was still relativly small. He and many of his government buddies ignored AIDS on the assumption that it was "that gay plague" and was, in all honesty, punishment from God. AIDS spread rapidly in the 80's largely thanks to that attitude and its accompanying willfull ignorance: CDC education campaigns could've saved a lot lives.

I would never go so far as to say AIDS was anyone's fault, but Reagan's choice to ignore the situation killed a lot of people. Go ahead, defend The Gipper on this, I could use a laugh.

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 01:59 PM
Besides, Cullion, you are again being a total idiot with your "It's the librals!" mantra. The fact is, people don't think about church, the pope, or PREPARATION when growing timber while Sally's parents arn't home and her hand is down their pants. But they do think "The church says that those condoms are evil and actually cause AIDS" while stopping at the convenience store on the way to Sally's house.

It's the lack of preparation that the church is to blame for, as well as their campaign against education, so you can stop it with your poor grasp of reality right there. If the church had their way, there would be no education, and certainly no condoms in Africa or the rest of the world.

Dagon

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 02:10 PM
http://www.jhuccp.org/mmc/db_images/imagebas/KEN149.JPG

http://www.jhuccp.org/mmc/db_images/imagebas/KEN154.JPG

Kenya's version of "Wrap it before you tap it."

http://cw2005.stanford.edu/demo/Stacey/aids/1996-Present%20-%20Africa%202%20-%20Use%20Condoms%203.jpg

I love the little cartoons on the side.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39566000/jpg/_39566525_durex203.jpg

This marketting would never work in the West.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/40/104155360_627ff8bb6d.jpg

"We know better, 'cause we are 11 and don't know what boobies look like. So chill."

Cullion
30th October 07, 02:12 PM
Besides, Cullion, you are again being a total idiot with your "It's the librals!" mantra. The fact is, people don't think about church, the pope, or PREPARATION when growing timber while Sally's parents arn't home and her hand is down their pants. But they do think "The church says that those condoms are evil and actually cause AIDS" while stopping at the convenience store on the way to Sally's house.

It's the lack of preparation that the church is to blame for, as well as their campaign against education, so you can stop it with your poor grasp of reality right there. If the church had their way, there would be no education, and certainly no condoms in Africa or the rest of the world.

Dagon

1) Most Africans aren't Catholic, Protestant denominations which allow condoms to be used are far more common.

2) People about to cheat on their wives or enjoy some anal would not stop at the convience store just because the Pope told them it was OK.

Sorry, blaming the Catholic church is just nonsense here, I don't care how badly you want to believe it.

Toby Christensen
30th October 07, 03:17 PM
Use a condom, or, if you're going into a partnership with someone, get screened.

One of my relatives is gay and the amount of mansecks he has procured is truly astounding- something like between 20-30 men.

Does he have AIDS?
Syphillis?
Gonnorhea?
Herpes?
Crotchrot?
Crabs
A small duplicate head on his pelvis?

NO

BECAUSE HE USES CONDOMS!

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 04:25 PM
So Cullion, you think that education has nothing to do with AIDS? Misinformation and telling people not to use condoms does not help spread sexual transmission? If someone is not a catholic, then it doesn't matter what the catholic church tells them, and it doesn't matter that the catholic church lies to them, and it certainly doesn't matter that the catholic church doesn't want condoms to be available?

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/MA-JesusSlap.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."


http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/MA-JICFJesuIsCoolFoll.gif

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 04:32 PM
P.S. God damn it catholics are retarded. (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0045.html)


Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission.

No, you fucking retarded catholic piece of shit. It means that if you use condoms regularly, over a long period of time, that they're 90% effective. Not that every time you fucking use one you have a 1-in-10-shot anyway, so if you have sex 10 times you'll pretty much get it anyway.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:47 PM
The Catholic Church is right. It's been proven scientifically (more here (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp)).

Steve
30th October 07, 04:58 PM
The Catholic Church is right. It's been proven scientifically (more here (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp)).


Incorporated in 1967 as a not-for-profit organization, the Westboro Baptist Church considers itself an "Old School (or, Primitive)" Baptist Church.

At least they're honest.....?

Cullion
30th October 07, 05:27 PM
Education only works to a point. Look at the dismal failure of increasing amounts of sex education in the UK to stem the teenage single motherhood rates.

If the catholic church is to be held responsible for aids rates in non-catholics (who even if the were catholic would be ignoring the churches teachings about abstinence anyway), I can only surmise the following;-

1) You are suffering from Liberal Mind Aids.

2) Bill Clinton. Is at least as responsible for the African AIDS epidemic as the pope.

3) Thabo Mbeki is in no way responsible at all resposible. No way, Uh-uh

4) Neither do the indigenous beliefs hold any responsibilty, not even the traditions that say it's I) ok to have multiple wives and share them with your brothers (yes, this is practiced in parts of Africa but not by catholics) or ii) The superstition that one cure for AIDS is to rape a virgin I'm not making this shit up.

It's the Pope's fault? Please, grow up.

Zendetta
30th October 07, 05:31 PM
1) Most Africans aren't Catholic.

Can't say the same about Haiti. Besides, many are Catholic, and the problem is bigger than Africa anyway.


The pope also tells people not to have sex outside of marriage. That advice would cut down Aids transmission dramatically too.

LOL. Emboesso already posted that. Ridiculous when he said it too.


This is a retarded attempt to turn a tragic situation into another smug mindless liberal attack on religion.

Bullshit.

THIS is a smug liberal attack:
a bunch of supposedly celibate old men, who actually coddle a culture of pedarasty, should never have been in a position of moralizing about sexuality to anyone, ever.

But unfortunatly they are a voice of moral authority in many places (like Haiti) and they missed a major opportunity to sway long-held, deeply rooted, and very destructive attitudes.

And simply neglecting to teach about how "Jeebus wants you to wear a rubber and not get sick" would be one thing. But the active disinformation to discourage condom use? Unforgiveable.

Sins of omission vs sins of commission, if you will.

Olorin
30th October 07, 05:31 PM
Ronald Reagan gave me AIDS and the Pope held me down while he did it! cries:

Cullion
30th October 07, 05:40 PM
It's contrarian to point out that the Pope isn't responsible for the behaviour of non-catholics?

DAYoung
30th October 07, 05:46 PM
Just because the Catholic Church is reprehensibly stupid doesn't mean it's an efficient cause of AIDS.

Zendetta
30th October 07, 05:46 PM
It's contrarian to point out that the Pope isn't responsible for the behaviour of non-catholics?

I edited that out, but, yes, it may be contrarian to argue that catholic dogma isn't hurting public health issues.

Shawarma
30th October 07, 06:00 PM
You are missing a crucial point: Many people follow their religion to the letter - For as long as it doesn't interfere with them having fun. Hence:

Thou shalt not have sex before marriage = "Fuck this, this is no fun. I will selectively choose to forget about this particular rule"

and

Thou shalt not wear condoms = "Woo, so I don't have to hamper my sexual experience by wearing condoms according to God? Woah, god rules!"

People follow the second rule, forget the first. The second rule is simply fun to follow when the first isn't.

See where I'm going with this? Cullion's point about the "no sex before marriage" rule trumping the "no condoms" rule is invalid.

PS: Think more globally. Think Fillippines and South America. Lotsa poor Catholics there and increasing AIDS problems.

Zendetta
30th October 07, 06:04 PM
All of those years as an Altar Boy has taught Shawarma to kneel before the Correct.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:08 PM
You are missing a crucial point: Many people follow their religion to the letter - For as long as it doesn't interfere with them having fun.

If people pick and choose the bad advice from a religion and ignore the advice that would save them but require more willpower, it's their fault, not the religion's.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:10 PM
I edited that out, but, yes, it may be contrarian to argue that catholic dogma isn't hurting public health issues.

Liberal dogma's hurting public health issues just as much by teaching people that self-restraint is unattainable and not really a matter of personal responsibility.

Shawarma
30th October 07, 06:12 PM
Grasping at straws Cully. They might know in their hearts that condom wearing is healthier for them, but let's face it: Fucking without a condom is simply more pleasurable. In this case, religion actually gives them justification not to wear one, at their own peril.

Religious teachings are respnsible for this, although I fail to see where in scripture God specifically prohibits you from wearing a rubber. Is it a reference to Onan?

Zendetta
30th October 07, 06:17 PM
Liberal dogma's hurting public health issues just as much by teaching people that self-restraint is unattainable and not really a matter of personal responsibility.

With the exception of your wildly unfounded, uncited, unsupported "just as much" comment ....

... I totally agree.

(((But if you have more fun mistaking me for that kind of liberal then carry on.)))

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:18 PM
Grasping at straws Cully. They might know in their hearts that condom wearing is healthier for them, but let's face it: Fucking without a condom is simply more pleasurable. In this case, religion actually gives them justification not to wear one, at their own peril.

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm pointing out that the religion we're talking about doesn't apply to many of the infected Africans and that the religion in question also gives advice which if followed would save many of those people. Of course, sexual self-restraint is an unattainable myth and the Pope's mind control ray knows no denominational boundaries.




Religious teachings are respnsible for this, although I fail to see where in scripture God specifically prohibits you from wearing a rubber. Is it a reference to Onan?

It's a Catholic dogma that doesn't apply to most Christians.

Most protestant demonominations (which is the branch of Christianity most African christians follow) allow use of contraception for family planning within marriage. No branch of Christianity encourages extramartial sex (the most liberal variants of Christianity found in the wealthiest nations basically just have the highest level of tolerance/forgiveness towards it), which of course is the really serious transmission vector here.

Shawarma
30th October 07, 06:26 PM
The point is that sexual restraint is NOT FUN and not wearing condoms IS FUN, people only follow the parts of religion they can easily fit into their lives if it doesn't change their lives dramatically.
JUSTIFICATION is the key word here. Moronic Catholics find JUSTIFICATION for not wearing rubbers through their faith, hence their faith is certainly a contributing factor to Catholics getting AIDS. Note that I'm not talking about Africa, just people who abhor contraceptives for religious reasons.

Anyone got any statistics on how many people get HIV while in Prison in the US?

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:30 PM
The point is that sexual restraint is NOT FUN and not wearing condoms IS FUN, people only follow the parts of religion they can easily fit into their lives if it doesn't change their lives dramatically.
JUSTIFICATION is the key word here.

Wearing rubbers isn't fun either actually.


Moronic Catholics find JUSTIFICATION for not wearing rubbers through their faith, hence their faith is certainly a contributing factor to Catholics getting AIDS. Note that I'm not talking about Africa, just people who abhor contraceptives for religious reasons.

Explain to me why the the African countries with the lowest rates of Aids infection are the ones with the highest proportion of Catholics then?

Check the figures yourself, you can start in the CIA world factbook and critique from there. I'm happy to be corrected on figures, but you seem to be working on Liberal dogma that isn't supported by any statistical evidence. It's just more unquestioned anti-religious vitriol based on some flawed assumptions about human nature.

Shawarma
30th October 07, 06:35 PM
LMAO at you accusing me of spewing "Librul dawgmah" and "anti-religious vitriol" and fuck off with your gay strawman. Nobody said that religion was the prime reason for the spread of HIV or that Catholicism = mad HIV yo!

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:39 PM
Moronic Catholics find JUSTIFICATION for not wearing rubbers through their faith, hence their faith is certainly a contributing factor to Catholics getting AIDS. P.S. I can't really deal with numbers and stuff

OWNED!!

WarPhalange
30th October 07, 06:39 PM
Also this is not a wast of money, it is important to understand how the disease spread, and were it came from.

Yup. It's inevitable that there will be another epidemic in the future. Knowing how they spread is CRUCIAL to saving lives.

Besides, you can dump money all you want, the cure won't come any faster. There are only so many labs and people working on it. Not everybody is qualified to do AIDS research.

Dagon Akujin
30th October 07, 08:16 PM
blah blah blah RUSH LIMBAUGH IS GOD AND SHAWN HANNITY IS HIS PROPHET IN MY VAGINA!!!!!

Goddamnit, Cullion. You've gone so far over the edge that I can't take you seriously. I can't figure out though if you are just trolling, or if you have a few extra-chromozomes. Either way, I don't think I can give any credence to anything you propose anymore, as you have no logic, honesty, integrity, or rationality in your posts.

All you are able to do is shout about how Clinton did it, how Reagan was right, how conservatives are perfect, and how liberals are to blame for everything. You don't even respond to the myriad of posts made against you or your positions. You play the whole Carl Rove ploy, simply ignore it, and then repeat your mantra of howls about how it's the Democrat's fault. Fuck off.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/MA-WSPBWoulSomePlea.gif

Zendetta
30th October 07, 08:40 PM
Nah, thats Emboesso.

emboesso
30th October 07, 09:10 PM
AIDS is not a particularly big deal for me. Yes, it's a horrible disease, but so is the flu and unlike the flu you can completely avoid AIDS.

Oh, emboesso, Reagan had a chance to try and control the spread of AIDS through education early on when it was brought to our attention in the early 80's and the infected population was still relativly small. He and many of his government buddies ignored AIDS on the assumption that it was "that gay plague" and was, in all honesty, punishment from God. AIDS spread rapidly in the 80's largely thanks to that attitude and its accompanying willfull ignorance: CDC education campaigns could've saved a lot lives.

I would never go so far as to say AIDS was anyone's fault, but Reagan's choice to ignore the situation killed a lot of people. Go ahead, defend The Gipper on this, I could use a laugh.

The AIDS hysteria during those years, was ... well, hysterical.

If someone like Reagan didn't address AIDS, the activists screamed, "He's trying to cover it up!"

If other politicians said something like, "This is becoming a serious issue," the reaction from the activists went like, "He's trying to stir up anti-gay hysteria!"

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Oh, and we have education now. Fat lotta good it does when people are having "bareback" parties, and already infected people are having orgies creating new super strains of HIV.

emboesso
30th October 07, 09:16 PM
So we should lie to them like good catholics and tell them not to use protection. Right.

So if I were to secure for you the unfettered sexual access to a bevy of beauties, the proverbial Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders if you will....

.... and provided the supersized Klinton Kondom Krate for protection...

.... and the only catch was that all the girls were HIV+ ....

.... you wouldn't care because you're protected by condoms and you can dip your willy til your hearts' content, correct?

Bullshit, you know damned well you wouldn't.

emboesso
30th October 07, 09:18 PM
Nah, thats Emboesso.

Actually I have a job and can't listen to either of them. I might catch a few minutes of Hannity on the way home in the car, and a bit more of Mark Levin.

Usually, I prefer the IPOD music.

Zendetta
30th October 07, 09:31 PM
What do you think of Hannity?

Stick
30th October 07, 09:54 PM
Ronald Reagan gave me AIDS and the Pope held me down while he did it! cries:

Liar. No one had to hold you down for The Gipper.

Thinkchair
30th October 07, 10:04 PM
Besides, Cullion, you are again being a total idiot with your "It's the librals!" mantra. The fact is, people don't think about church, the pope, or PREPARATION when growing timber while Sally's parents arn't home and her hand is down their pants. But they do think "The church says that those condoms are evil and actually cause AIDS" while stopping at the convenience store on the way to Sally's house.

It's the lack of preparation that the church is to blame for, as well as their campaign against education, so you can stop it with your poor grasp of reality right there. If the church had their way, there would be no education, and certainly no condoms in Africa or the rest of the world.

Dagon

This is an issue where I think both the left and the right are off. The practical solution is to both encourage condom use and discourage casual sex. Both sides can learn from each other a little. I am not saying that being promiscious or unfaithful is sinful, but they do increase your chances of contracting and STD. I also think that the religious are foolish to discourage condom use when they are highly effective against stemming the spread of aids. Of course the left needs to shed more light on the fact that they are not 100% effective, and that they are far more effective against blood diseases like HIV than they are against herpes. I know plenty of people who got herpes using a condom, and I know no one who got AIDS while using a condom.

Thinkchair
30th October 07, 10:05 PM
The AIDS hysteria during those years, was ... well, hysterical.

If someone like Reagan didn't address AIDS, the activists screamed, "He's trying to cover it up!"

If other politicians said something like, "This is becoming a serious issue," the reaction from the activists went like, "He's trying to stir up anti-gay hysteria!"

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Oh, and we have education now. Fat lotta good it does when people are having "bareback" parties, and already infected people are having orgies creating new super strains of HIV.

I dont remember things being this way at all. i recall that the Reagan administration didn't seem to take the disease all that seriously until it people realized it was outside the gay community.

JohnnyCache
30th October 07, 10:33 PM
This is one of the few subjects that keeps me from sleeping at night. No other affliction or 20th century phenomenon has affected the world or our lives more significantly. There's a silent killer living in 1,000,000 americans. It's numbers grow by steadily increasing increments every year. Worldwide it grows faster than our population grows.

This little bug really does threaten all of mankind. Finding a cure for it is like trying to make first contact with an alien civilization. It's theoretically possible, and no matter how many advances we make, it becomes increasingly apparent that a cure is currently far out of reach.


Uhm

doesn't aids kill way less people then cancer, heart disease, etc? Agreed on the need to work to cure it, and that its a technically unique challenge because of the nature of the thing, but it isn't a number one bio-menance, except as a proof of concept for speed adaption.

ironlurker
30th October 07, 10:54 PM
Great thread. A lot of this has to do with culture and lifestyle rather than religion per se- although religion effects exposure to risk factors.

From a very interesting article considering the difference between HIV rates between Muslim and Christian Africans:


Instead of explaining away the difference in HIV rates with a dubious assumption that Muslims are sexually repressed while Christians are not, we should examine two other key factors that distinguish these two religious communities: alcohol and circumcision. Christianity does not advocate excessive drinking of alcohol, but it is not altogether forbidden. By contrast, alcohol usage is forbidden within Islam, which could account for part of the discrepancy in HIV rates because alcohol consumption makes it dramatically more likely that individuals will engage in high-risk sexual behavior. In general, Muslims throughout the world are significantly more likely to adhere to the guidelines set forth about alcohol consumption.9 Without the influence of alcohol, Muslims are more likely to select less risky sexual partners and use protection, thereby decreasing their chance of contracting HIV.
http://www.globalengage.org/media/article.aspx?id=2034

Circumcision helps protect against the development of abscesses from various minor STD's, and the foreskin is especially susceptible to microtears. Obviously, getting stone drunk (a pastime for many of the poor in the developing world and the first world alike) clearly increases the chance of risky sexual behavior.

Here are some interesting stats for the conversation:

Here are the 10 most Christian countries in Africa (according to Operation World) and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:

Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Congo (Dem. Rep.) 95.3 4.9
Equatorial Guinea 95.1 3.4
Angola 94.1 5.5
Congo 91.3 7.2
Burundi 90.1 8.3
Uganda 88.7 5.0
Zambia 85.0 21.5
Swaziland 82.7 33.4
Rwanda 80.8 8.9
Malawi 80.0 15.0

But where the figures get really depressing (for an evangelical Christian) is when you realise that in general the HIV/AIDS rate is highest in those countries where Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians predominate.

Here are the 20 most non-Catholic Christian countries in Africa and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:

Non-Catholic Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Swaziland 78.0 33.4
South Africa 65.2 20.1
Ethiopia 64.4 6.4
Namibia 64.0 22.5
Botswana 63.2 38.8
Zimbabwe 63.0 33.7
Malawi 57.1 15.0
Kenya 56.0 15.0
Ghana 53.2 3.0
Central Af. Rep. 51.7 12.9
Zambia 51.6 21.5
Congo (Dem. Rep.) 50.8 4.9
Uganda 46.7 5.0
Eritrea 43.7 2.8
Cameroon 42.5 11.8
Congo 42.0 7.2
Nigeria 39.2 5.8
Rwanda 38.2 8.9
Mozambique 36.8 13.0
Lesotho 35.8 31.0

If you are not already sufficiently depressed, look at a table for the 10 most Muslim countries in Africa:

Muslims (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)
Somalia 100.0 1.0
Morocco 99.9 0.1
Algeria 96.7 0.1
Libya 96.5 0.2
Senegal 92.1 0.5
Gambia 88.8 1.6
Mali 87.0 1.7
Egypt 86.5 0.1
Sierra Leone 70.0 7.0
Sudan 65.0 2.6

http://www.martinrothonline.com/MRCC11.htm

The figures from the study are quoted by an evangelical, not a papist, who is criticizing the missionary efforts of evangelical denominations. Obviously doesn't say that the Catholic Church is an expert on anything, but that the correlation isn't as strong as you might expect.

Just to throw this out there, I personally would say, based upon historical, anthopological, and primate studies, humans are not meant to be monogamous. Even the "serial monogamy" we have today in most Western countries (one partner at a time) is technically promiscuous.

At the same time, as the incident and effects of such diseases as syph and HIV show, it's obviously unwise to be promiscuous as well. There are STD's you can get even with a condom or non-penetrative sex (genital warts, molluscum contagiosum, etc.)

The "answer" to the dilemma would be to have a closed circle of multiple sexual partners, and it's something I think the first article is unaware of or doesn't want to address- polygamy (whether polygyny -guy with multiple wives- or polygynandry -wife with multiple husbands). Guess what else Muslim Africans (and a surprising amount of non-African Muslims) practice?

The Nigerian Catholic or Protestant long-haul trucker has a wife and fucks a random whore here and there along his route (truck routes are a major line of conveyance for HIV in Africa). The Muslim trader has a wife in each port of call, or a brand-new one back home that keeps him excited enough to wait till he gets back for sex.

No, the extent of modern Muslim polygamy isn't the "Arabian Nights" fantasy of orgies and harems, but it happens a lot more than you might think. I know several guys with a wife in the states and one back home -not PC, not "fair", not "right"- but takes care of the dangers of trolling the red light districts and bringing HIV back home to the Mrs. I know one Somalian gentleman with five wives here in the states. He'd have to be a sex maniac and/or masochist to go after hookers or other women.

Polygynandry (woman with multiple husbands) has been relatively rare, but it has occurred historically as well. Some parts of Tibet and Central Asia as well as certain Native American groups and (on a much smaller scale and not officially recognized) isolated parts of Europe (as in Zola's Germinal).

Remember the "affection groups" of Brave New World and Logan's Run? A pretty wild idea to consider (especially considering the repulsive nature of most avowed "polyamorists" you see), but it's interesting to speculate (read- too much science fiction is bad for ur brain) if there's not something to it as a resolution for a world that frowns upon male polygamy alone while acknowledging the human need for multiple sexual partners.

Thinkchair
31st October 07, 12:05 AM
Uhm

doesn't aids kill way less people then cancer, heart disease, etc? Agreed on the need to work to cure it, and that its a technically unique challenge because of the nature of the thing, but it isn't a number one bio-menance, except as a proof of concept for speed adaption.

cancer and heart disease are not communicable like aids is. It has the potential to devastate the population. just look at what is occuring in Africa.

WarPhalange
31st October 07, 12:07 AM
Oh, and we have education now. Fat lotta good it does when people are having "bareback" parties, and already infected people are having orgies creating new super strains of HIV.

When I read this, the term "HIV mind" came to my mind.

emboesso
31st October 07, 03:34 AM
We could always look at the Philippines, which probably has the strongest Catholic culture in the world, making places like Ireland, Italy, and Spain look absolutely secular and debaucherous in comparison.

Of course, the NY Times is clueless about this phenom.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0CEFDC123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63&fta=y




Low Rate Of AIDS Virus In Philippines Is a Puzzle
By SETH MYDANS

Public health officials say they are stumped by a paradox in the Philippines, where a very low rate of condom use and a very low rate of H.I.V. infection seem to be going hand in hand.

AIDS-prevention efforts often focus on the use of condoms, but they are not widely available here -- and are mostly shunned -- in this conservative Roman Catholic country.

Without that first line of defense, experts can only guess at the reasons for the low infection rate. No more than about 10,000 people are believed to be infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, in a population of 84 million, and the relatively low rate is not thought to be a case of underreporting.

''It's quite perplexing,'' said Zahidul Huque, who heads the United Nations team group on H.I.V./AIDS for the Philippines. ''We've been talking about it a lot and frankly, we don't know why it's low. The potential for an explosion is there.''

This is particularly so because the Philippines is far from being a country with closed borders. About one-tenth of the population works overseas, all of them potential carriers of disease whenever they visit home.

Experts say a lucky combination of factors may for the moment have slowed the arrival of an epidemic, including a low ratio of customers to sex workers, low rates of certain other sexually transmitted diseases and limited intravenous drug use.

''There is no strong, clear-cut factor that will tell us, this is the reason why,'' said Jean-Marc Olivé, the World Health Organization representative for the Philippines. ''I think it's a number of different factors adding up. I think they are lucky, but that's not at all the way to control AIDS.''

As of January, government figures showed that just 1,810 people had tested positive for H.I.V. The United Nations office on AIDS estimates that the actual number may be closer to 9,400 -- still an extraordinarily low rate of about 0.01 percent.

In Vietnam, for example, with almost exactly the same population, and where the epidemic is still thought to be in its early stages, 130,000 people are infected H.I.V., according to the United Nations.

Conversely, Costa Rica has about the same number of people with H.I.V. and AIDS as does the Philippines. But Costa Rica is just one- twentieth the size of the Philippines, with 3.8 million people.

Another risk factor here is that little is being done to hold back a possible epidemic. The word condom is almost taboo in a country where the Roman Catholic church is both conservative and politically powerful.

''Whenever you talk about condoms it's a little bit difficult,'' said Dr. Olive. The government has no AIDS-awareness program of its own and restricts the public campaigns of independent family-planning groups.

One result is that in a country where more than half the population is of reproductive age, only 23 percent of sexually active young men say they have ever used a condom. Only 4 percent say they use condoms regularly. Only two out of five sex workers say they use them regularly.

Like other experts, Dr. Olive said the low number of reported infections was not simply the result of poor record-keeping.

''It's not a reporting issue,'' he said. ''It's a real fact that we don't understand really why AIDS infection is so low here in the Philippines.''

The most frequently cited reason is that commercial sex workers have fewer partners than their counterparts elsewhere. The average is about four per week, according to a new government survey. Other studies suggest that a relatively low proportion of men frequent sex workers.

Experts say other factors may be the small number of intravenous drug users and a low prevalence of ulcerated sexually transmitted diseases -- like syphilis and herpes -- that facilitate transmission of the AIDS virus. Anal sex also appears to be less common.

Also, most men here are circumcised and there has been speculation in the Philippines and elsewhere that this could be a factor in preventing infection.

In the small city of Angeles, where about 1,600 women work in a thriving red-light district, the director of the health center, Dr. Teresita Esguerra, said a mass screening last year found five women to be infected. Because they cannot afford the drugs needed to slow the progress of the disease, she said, the clinic can do little more than offer them information and advice.

''They are advised to still work, because they have the right to work under Philippine law,'' the doctor said. ''They are properly counseled and properly guided, but we do not advise them to stop working.''

She said the women are encouraged to use condoms but complain that their customers often object and that ''because of financial reasons'' the women do not insist.

Steve
31st October 07, 04:00 AM
That's a great news story from 2003, I wish it was relevant now.

emboesso
31st October 07, 04:16 AM
That's a great news story from 2003, I wish it was relevant now.

http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countries/philippines.asp



II. HIV AND AIDS ESTIMATES

Number of people living with HIV 12 000 [7300 – 20 000]

Adults aged 15 to 49 HIV prevalence rate <0.1 [<0.2]%

Adults aged 15 and up living with HIV 12 000 [7200 – 20 000]

Women aged 15 and up living with HIV 3400 [1800 – 6000]

Deaths due to AIDS <1000 [<1000]


The figures are essentially the same. What was irrelevant about the first link?

Dagon Akujin
31st October 07, 12:43 PM
We could always look at the Philippines, which probably has the strongest Catholic culture in the world, making places like Ireland, Italy, and Spain look absolutely secular and debaucherous in comparison.

Of course, the NY Times is clueless about this phenom.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0CEFDC123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63&fta=y


Low Rate Of AIDS Virus In Philippines Is a Puzzle
By SETH MYDANS

Public health officials say they are stumped by a paradox in the Philippines, where a very low rate of condom use and a very low rate of H.I.V. infection seem to be going hand in hand.

AIDS-prevention efforts often focus on the use of condoms, but they are not widely available here -- and are mostly shunned -- in this conservative Roman Catholic country.

Without that first line of defense, experts can only guess at the reasons for the low infection rate. No more than about 10,000 people are believed to be infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, in a population of 84 million, and the relatively low rate is not thought to be a case of underreporting.

''It's quite perplexing,'' said Zahidul Huque, who heads the United Nations team group on H.I.V./AIDS for the Philippines. ''We've been talking about it a lot and frankly, we don't know why it's low. The potential for an explosion is there.''

This is particularly so because the Philippines is far from being a country with closed borders. About one-tenth of the population works overseas, all of them potential carriers of disease whenever they visit home.

Experts say a lucky combination of factors may for the moment have slowed the arrival of an epidemic, including a low ratio of customers to sex workers, low rates of certain other sexually transmitted diseases and limited intravenous drug use.

''There is no strong, clear-cut factor that will tell us, this is the reason why,'' said Jean-Marc Olivé, the World Health Organization representative for the Philippines. ''I think it's a number of different factors adding up. I think they are lucky, but that's not at all the way to control AIDS.''

As of January, government figures showed that just 1,810 people had tested positive for H.I.V. The United Nations office on AIDS estimates that the actual number may be closer to 9,400 -- still an extraordinarily low rate of about 0.01 percent.

In Vietnam, for example, with almost exactly the same population, and where the epidemic is still thought to be in its early stages, 130,000 people are infected H.I.V., according to the United Nations.

Conversely, Costa Rica has about the same number of people with H.I.V. and AIDS as does the Philippines. But Costa Rica is just one- twentieth the size of the Philippines, with 3.8 million people.

Another risk factor here is that little is being done to hold back a possible epidemic. The word condom is almost taboo in a country where the Roman Catholic church is both conservative and politically powerful.

''Whenever you talk about condoms it's a little bit difficult,'' said Dr. Olive. The government has no AIDS-awareness program of its own and restricts the public campaigns of independent family-planning groups.

One result is that in a country where more than half the population is of reproductive age, only 23 percent of sexually active young men say they have ever used a condom. Only 4 percent say they use condoms regularly. Only two out of five sex workers say they use them regularly.

Like other experts, Dr. Olive said the low number of reported infections was not simply the result of poor record-keeping.

''It's not a reporting issue,'' he said. ''It's a real fact that we don't understand really why AIDS infection is so low here in the Philippines.''

The most frequently cited reason is that commercial sex workers have fewer partners than their counterparts elsewhere. The average is about four per week, according to a new government survey. Other studies suggest that a relatively low proportion of men frequent sex workers.

Experts say other factors may be the small number of intravenous drug users and a low prevalence of ulcerated sexually transmitted diseases -- like syphilis and herpes -- that facilitate transmission of the AIDS virus. Anal sex also appears to be less common.

Also, most men here are circumcised and there has been speculation in the Philippines and elsewhere that this could be a factor in preventing infection.

In the small city of Angeles, where about 1,600 women work in a thriving red-light district, the director of the health center, Dr. Teresita Esguerra, said a mass screening last year found five women to be infected. Because they cannot afford the drugs needed to slow the progress of the disease, she said, the clinic can do little more than offer them information and advice.

''They are advised to still work, because they have the right to work under Philippine law,'' the doctor said. ''They are properly counseled and properly guided, but we do not advise them to stop working.''

She said the women are encouraged to use condoms but complain that their customers often object and that ''because of financial reasons'' the women do not insist.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! ROFL!!! cHOEK!!!!

They don't want to say it's because of the really small penises.

ironlurker
31st October 07, 02:12 PM
Experts say other factors may be the small number of intravenous drug users and a low prevalence of ulcerated sexually transmitted diseases -- like syphilis and herpes -- that facilitate transmission of the AIDS virus. Anal sex also appears to be less common.

Also, most men here are circumcised and there has been speculation in the Philippines and elsewhere that this could be a factor in preventing infection.

Yes. In fact, I think the high level of circumcision among American males might even explain some of the homosexual vs. heterosexual lopsided-ness of HIV infection in the US in comparison to many developing countries where circumcision isn't practiced.

Here's another report from the UNDP site wonderfully titled "you and aids" on the Philippines.


Since the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in 1984, 1,515 HIV infections, including 508 AIDS cases and 196 HIV/AIDS related deaths, had been reported by June 2001. The epidemic in the Philippines has been classified as "low level." As of January 2004, the National Epidemiology Center of the Department of Health recorded 1979 cases of people with HIV/AIDS of which 1343 (68%) were asymptomatic and 636 (32%) were AIDS cases at the time of the report. Of the total AIDS cases, 257 (40%) were already dead due to AIDS-related complications. Of the total HIV and AIDS cases, 1145 were men (62 per cent.) The predominant mode of transmission was heterosexual contact (1251), followed by homosexual (356) and bisexual contact (101.) Perinatal transmission accounted for 29, blood/blood products (13) and injecting drug use (6). The Center also revealed 640 (32 %) of the 1979 HIV sero-positive cases were Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) of which 473 (74 %) were men. In the case of overseas workers the figures have risen from 28% in 2002 to 32% in 2004. UNAIDS Update of December 2005 notes that although adult HIV prevalence has stayed low even among at-risk population, but has warned that there were signs that this might change.

Studies have shown that condom use during commercial sex is infrequent (especially among non-brothel based sex workers), prevalence of sexually transmitted infections has been rising, and high rates of non-sterile needle use among drug injectors has been found in some parts. In 2004, Human Rights Watch groups had criticized the Philippine government for its bias against condoms and for refusing to use national funds for condom supplydespite unprecedented shortage. While sustaining the low and slow character of the epidemic is one of the challenges faced by the government, skeptics suspect the figures put out by the government and warn that the Philippines is sitting on a social time bomb fueled by complacency and denial.

Critics are skeptical about the low prevalence figures and wonder if it was not due to conservative religious taboos which prevents people to declaring their status as HIV patients. Even the Philippine National AIDS Council has now described the epidemic as “hidden and growing”. This was primarily because all known routes of HIV transmission exist in the country: low condom use, even among commercial sex workers, high-risk adolescent sexual activity, a large number of overseas workers who are vulnerable to infection while abroad, and rising prevalence of other sexually transmitted diseases and infections. http://www.youandaids.org/Asia%20Pacific%20at%20a%20Glance/Philippines/index.asp

So,
A) 1500 cases seems really, really low.
B) as the reports states, there might be something to be said about cultural/religious prejudice against condoms and transmission. I'm purposefully understating that, because
C) We really just don't know what the figures are when there exists "complacency and denial". China is another country whose stated rates of infection seem ridiculously low.

When it comes to the Catholic Church, it's a huge organization, and many of the stranger comments/approaches are due to tensions along the lines of developing world vs. first world/north vs. south/Europe vs. America within the organization. I remember when the pedophile scandals were at their peak, the archbishop of Costa Rica said that it was a problem with "Americans being obsessed with sex" when Costa Rica is a major hub for child sex tourism. The Pope is European when the vast, vast majority of Catholics do not live in Europe (then again, Saudi Arabia has t3h r34l Islam while Indonesia is the largets Muslim country).

At root, I think it's an issue with modernity. In modern (or post-modern if you will) capitalist-industrialist society, delayed marriage and childbearing = economic and educational success. At the same time, you have changes in diet that have lowered the age of puberty (eight/nine years old in some sectors of the American population for instance). You also have an incredibly mobile population. And finally, at the same time, polygamy and regulated, legitimate prostitution are banned or frowned upon.

Whether it's due to the priest/rabbi/imam, mummy and daddy who want you to "go to a gud school and make smthing of ur life", or whatever cause, the concept of celibacy for a decade + after puberty is ridiculous.

Consider Nevada:

The precise licensing requirements vary from county to county. License fees for brothels range from an annual $100,000 in Storey County to an annual $200 in Lander County. Licensed prostitutes must be at least 21 years old, except in Storey County and Lyon County, where the legal age is 18.

State law requires that registered brothel prostitutes be checked weekly for several sexually transmitted diseases and monthly for HIV; furthermore, condoms are mandatory for all oral sex and sexual intercourse. Brothel owners may be held liable if customers become infected with HIV after a prostitute has tested positive for the virus (NRS 041.1397).

Since 1986, when mandatory testing began, not a single brothel prostitute has ever tested positive for HIV. The mandatory condom law was passed in 1988. A study conducted in 1995 in two brothels found that condom use in the brothels was consistent and sexually transmitted diseases were accordingly absent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

What do you see in all of these countries with raging HIV? Prostitution and sex tourism. What was a major factor in the HIV boom among homosexual men in the US? Promiscuity and prostitution into which closeted-ness and social disapproval played a huge part.

Whenever abortion comes up, people say "keep it safe, keep it legal- it's the woman's right to do what she wants with her body." Why does this not apply to prostitution, especially when we have two decades of data in the US showing the effect of regulated prostitution on HIV and STD transmission? NIMBY and the fact that people aren't as "liberated" and "rational" as they might think.

Thinkchair
31st October 07, 03:28 PM
Yes. In fact, I think the high level of circumcision among American males might even explain some of the homosexual vs. heterosexual lopsided-ness of HIV infection in the US in comparison to many developing countries where circumcision isn't practiced.

Here's another report from the UNDP site wonderfully titled "you and aids" on the Philippines.

http://www.youandaids.org/Asia%20Pacific%20at%20a%20Glance/Philippines/index.asp

So,
A) 1500 cases seems really, really low.
B) as the reports states, there might be something to be said about cultural/religious prejudice against condoms and transmission. I'm purposefully understating that, because
C) We really just don't know what the figures are when there exists "complacency and denial". China is another country whose stated rates of infection seem ridiculously low.

When it comes to the Catholic Church, it's a huge organization, and many of the stranger comments/approaches are due to tensions along the lines of developing world vs. first world/north vs. south/Europe vs. America within the organization. I remember when the pedophile scandals were at their peak, the archbishop of Costa Rica said that it was a problem with "Americans being obsessed with sex" when Costa Rica is a major hub for child sex tourism. The Pope is European when the vast, vast majority of Catholics do not live in Europe (then again, Saudi Arabia has t3h r34l Islam while Indonesia is the largets Muslim country).

At root, I think it's an issue with modernity. In modern (or post-modern if you will) capitalist-industrialist society, delayed marriage and childbearing = economic and educational success. At the same time, you have changes in diet that have lowered the age of puberty (eight/nine years old in some sectors of the American population for instance). You also have an incredibly mobile population. And finally, at the same time, polygamy and regulated, legitimate prostitution are banned or frowned upon.

Whether it's due to the priest/rabbi/imam, mummy and daddy who want you to "go to a gud school and make smthing of ur life", or whatever cause, the concept of celibacy for a decade + after puberty is ridiculous.

Consider Nevada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

What do you see in all of these countries with raging HIV? Prostitution and sex tourism. What was a major factor in the HIV boom among homosexual men in the US? Promiscuity and prostitution into which closeted-ness and social disapproval played a huge part.

Whenever abortion comes up, people say "keep it safe, keep it legal- it's the woman's right to do what she wants with her body." Why does this not apply to prostitution, especially when we have two decades of data in the US showing the effect of regulated prostitution on HIV and STD transmission? NIMBY and the fact that people aren't as "liberated" and "rational" as they might think.

WHile I happen to agree with you that prostitution should be legal, if countries with high HIV rates are also the countries with prostitution and sex tourism (which usually means it is defacto legal and regulated--as in the case of Thailand--how is legalizing it in the US going to help? Mind you, I agree that regulated prostitution is the way to go in the US. But I don't think it is a simple matter of legalizing it and watching aids rates fall. There are a number of pit falls that legalized prostitution presents, which would need to be addressed before hand.

I think a more important factor that all these countries share, is not prostitution, which is everywhere; but poverty, low education, heroin trade, and lack of awareness.

ironlurker
31st October 07, 04:04 PM
WHile I happen to agree with you that prostitution should be legal, if countries with high HIV rates are also the countries with prostitution and sex tourism (which usually means it is defacto legal and regulated--as in the case of Thailand--how is legalizing it in the US going to help? Mind you, I agree that regulated prostitution is the way to go in the US. But I don't think it is a simple matter of legalizing it and watching aids rates fall. There are a number of pit falls that legalized prostitution presents, which would need to be addressed before hand.

I think a more important factor that all these countries share, is not prostitution, which is everywhere; but poverty, low education, heroin trade, and lack of awareness.
a) it would help us here in the States
b) it would discourage sex tourism, if only by the cost of a plane ticket. Yes, someone can go to Nevada for much less money than travelling to Thailand, but safer to say that social/cultural pressure due to the general illegitimacy here at home encourages further travel
c) defacto legal and regulated is somewhat of an oxymoron


Protitution has been technically illegal in Thailand since 1960, when a law was passed under pressure from the United Nations. However, the prohibition is seldom enforced. Instead, the government has instituted a system of monitoring sex workers in order to prevent their mistreatment and to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.[2]

The "Entertainment Places Act of 1966", still in effect today, makes it possible for Thais to render "special services". This is done, for example, by establishing such places as massage parlors where men come and look at women, who are sitting separated by a glass wall, and may choose whom they want. The women go to a room where they bathe and massage the customers, but in reality may do much more than that. It is left for the customer to decide what kind of special service he really wants, and because of this such establishments are able to avoid being designated as (illegal) brothels.

This act was designed to pave the way for brothels to be legalized under the guise of massage parlours, bars, night-clubs, and tea-houses. It was enacted at a time when the Thai Government sought to increase state revenue from the "rest and recreation" activities of the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in both Thailand and Vietnam.

The "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996" outlawed the hiring of prostitutes under the age of 18, as well as people associating in prostitution establishments; this provision does not appear to be well enforced.

Possible legalization

In 2003, the Ministry of Justice considered legalizing prostitution and held a public discussion on the topic. Legalization and regulation was proposed as a means to increase tax revenue, reduce corruption, and improve the situation of the workers.[1] However, nothing further was done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand

^This last paragraph is what I'm talking about. An "in-between" situation is the worst of both worlds IMHO. The Netherlands (as it is in the last decade) is a much better example , ie.


Government figures from 2004 showed that people driven into high-risk prostitution by drug addiction - a phenomenon common among EU prostitutes - made up only about 10% of all prostitutes in the Netherlands. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6178793.stm


In the Netherlands, where sex work is legal and regulated and where drug use is largely approached from a public health rather than a criminal point of view, both non-IV-drug-using female sex workers and their male clients were found to have an extremely low incidence of HIV, and that was concentrated among sex workers who had recently come from AIDS-endemic countries. In a similar study to that mentioned above, non-IV-drug-using female sex workers in Amsterdam reported not only no HIV infection but consistent condom use. http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art14140.html

This study: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/33
discusses HIV spread among sex workers in Bangladesh

Similar to many countries in the region, although harm reduction services are not legal, NSEP is still active. This lack of legality makes it dangerous for the service providers as well as the beneficiaries hampering access to clean needles/syringes, condoms and other services.
You're right with your comments about IV drugs and how they intertwine with prostitution and HIV in a chicken-and-egg-esque phenomena. That last study concludes that the lack of needle/syringe exchange programs (NSEP) is a huge factor in the ongoing epedemic in many Asian countries. The problem in both cases of HIV transmission is denial.

Zendetta
31st October 07, 04:09 PM
This is an issue where I think both the left and the right are off. The practical solution is to both encourage condom use and discourage casual sex. Both sides can learn from each other a little.

Deconstruct the False Dialectic FTW!!!

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 12:05 AM
a) it would help us here in the States
b) it would discourage sex tourism, if only by the cost of a plane ticket. Yes, someone can go to Nevada for much less money than travelling to Thailand, but safer to say that social/cultural pressure due to the general illegitimacy here at home encourages further travel
c) defacto legal and regulated is somewhat of an oxymoron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand

^This last paragraph is what I'm talking about. An "in-between" situation is the worst of both worlds IMHO. The Netherlands (as it is in the last decade) is a much better example , ie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6178793.stm

http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art14140.html

This study: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/33
discusses HIV spread among sex workers in Bangladesh

You're right with your comments about IV drugs and how they intertwine with prostitution and HIV in a chicken-and-egg-esque phenomena. That last study concludes that the lack of needle/syringe exchange programs (NSEP) is a huge factor in the ongoing epedemic in many Asian countries. The problem in both cases of HIV transmission is denial.

Defacto legal and regulated might be an oxymoron, but that is how it is done in thailand. The brothels are regulated and conduct HIV testing. Of course it falls short of legalized prostitution that is effectively regulated almost 100%, and the sex industry there has a more sinister undercurrent than in the states. I am just observing that wholesale legalization (while i support it) is not going to magically reduce aids rates, and if done poorly could increase them. I think the later scenario is unlikely in the states if it happens, but we shouldn't walk into it blindly. Also, a regulated sex industry gives people a false sense of security about being protected from STDS. Just look at the porn industry. They have done a good job of protecting actors and actresses from the spread of aids (though it is not 100%), but it is well known by people inside the business that most porn stars have herpes because it is difficult to detect (the blood test is not very reliable and other testing usually needs to be done at the time of an outbreak). Herpes is also spread by skin contact, so condoms are far less effective in stemming its spread. Most have also had numerous other kinds of STDS. So even if you have a regulated industry, people are going to still acquire diseases. I have seen the claims that legalized prostitution in NEvada has been 100% effective in this respect and I find that difficult to believe. JUst because few people come forward about getting an STD froma sex worker doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Posting quotes from various online sources is fine, but it gets a little annoying to be frank. We are not having an academic debate here, and I suspec you are googling things as you go. I seem to recall we had a protracted argument previously where you did this. I am basing my statements on accumulated knowledge and my experiences living in south east asia. Not on some articels I happen to google while debating someone online. If you want to read some interesting texts on the sex industry in thailand read "Guns,, Girls, and Ganja" and "The Traffic of Women".

ironlurker
1st November 07, 02:47 AM
Defacto legal and regulated might be an oxymoron, but that is how it is done in thailand. The brothels are regulated and conduct HIV testing. Of course it falls short of legalized prostitution that is effectively regulated almost 100%, and the sex industry there has a more sinister undercurrent than in the states.
I'm emphasizing the difference between "regulated/falling short" and "effectively regulated". Establishments that fall between the cracks and get winked at are a big issue.


The 100% condom program is still officially in place, although it does not seem to be followed as thoroughly as it once was. Sex work has become increasingly common, with a 50% increase in the total number of establishments offering sex services recorded between 1998 and 2003. The majority of these establishments are not brothels, and are therefore not reached by the 100% condom program. Women who solicit sex in ‘unofficial’ venues, such as bars and restaurants, are not thought to use condoms regularly, and it is difficult for authorities to monitor how they are being affected by the epidemic due to the hidden nature of their work. 52 http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm
^Avert is one of the leading international organizations working for AIDs prevention. Take a look at the Global Warming thread for why someone would quote something like this: it's a legitimate, widely-known and recognized source. If someone says the moon landing never happened, you don't have to be Pollishillusion to challenge the claim. I cite something like this for the reason that one cites things- because it's not yours. Annoying? Better than pretending (aka plagiarism/misrepresentation) that it's your own work/immediate knowledge. Look at the discussion of the source Cuillon cited in the Neo-Con and Tehran thread- "Is it acceptable? Relevant? Trustworthy? Shitty?"- that's up for grabs on any occaision.


I am just observing that wholesale legalization (while i support it) is not going to magically reduce aids rates, and if done poorly could increase them. I think the later scenario is unlikely in the states if it happens, but we shouldn't walk into it blindly. Never said it would "magically" reduce them, just that there exists strong data that it does lower the incidence. In fact, the successes Thailand has acheived shows that even with many loopholes and fucked up factors (aka organized crime, sex tourism as a cultural phenomenon, and the sinister side to which you referred) it still helps. Also never said "we shouid walk into it blindly". My point was that some major discrepancies and contradictions exist in our views of bodily control, individuality, and sex that aggravate the situation.


Also, a regulated sex industry gives people a false sense of security about being protected from STDS. Just look at the porn industry. They have done a good job of protecting actors and actresses from the spread of aids (though it is not 100%), but it is well known by people inside the business that most porn stars have herpes because it is difficult to detect (the blood test is not very reliable and other testing usually needs to be done at the time of an outbreak). Herpes is also spread by skin contact, so condoms are far less effective in stemming its spread. Most have also had numerous other kinds of STDS. So even if you have a regulated industry, people are going to still acquire diseases. I have seen the claims that legalized prostitution in NEvada has been 100% effective in this respect and I find that difficult to believe. JUst because few people come forward about getting an STD froma sex worker doesn't mean it isn't happening. On the effectiveness of condoms, see my earlier post about genital warts, molluscum contagiosum, etc. My point there was that there are many STD's you can get with the use of condoms, and the issue was that unrestrained promiscuity is more or less inherently dangerous.

The porn industry inthe US is self-regulated, with the exceptions of age limits, beast, and scat being the most successfully adressed issues due to external restraints. Condoms are not required in porn. Aspiring porn actresses often run into a brick wall if they demand to consistently use condoms in their work. The studies in Nevada rely on the workers themselves.

Incidentally, the fact that a working guy gets cuffed if he buys a bj but a rich frat boy with a web site doesn't as long as he videos it and has a consent form exposes the hypocrisy I was talking about earlier.


Posting quotes from various online sources is fine, but it gets a little annoying to be frank. We are not having an academic debate here, and I suspec you are googling things as you go. I seem to recall we had a protracted argument previously where you did this. I am basing my statements on accumulated knowledge and my experiences living in south east asia. Not on some articels I happen to google while debating someone online.
Everyone has their own standards, and I tried to explain mine (meaning for myself) above. And I recall that you make assumptions about people and what they do or don't know.

The fact that I responded to your earlier post


You're right and yet you still see a flapping red cape targetted at you says a lot. Eg. You say "argument", you "really hate me", want me to "fuck off and die" (last two from Islam threads which display my lack of whatever)? No idea what the issue is, and once again, I won't speculate, again, my own own standards.

DAYoung
1st November 07, 03:30 AM
Posting quotes from various online sources is fine, but it gets a little annoying to be frank. We are not having an academic debate here, and I suspec you are googling things as you go. I seem to recall we had a protracted argument previously where you did this. I am basing my statements on accumulated knowledge and my experiences living in south east asia. Not on some articels I happen to google while debating someone online. If you want to read some interesting texts on the sex industry in thailand read "Guns,, Girls, and Ganja" and "The Traffic of Women".

I would've thought that complementing one-sided experiences with other data and interpretations would be one of the chief reasons for posting on a forum.

Otherwise it degenerates into a farce of narrow dogma, backed up my blind appeal to selectively-recalled memory (which is itself biased, vague and/or selective).

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 10:27 AM
I'm emphasizing the difference between "regulated/falling short" and "effectively regulated". Establishments that fall between the cracks and get winked at are a big issue.

http://www.avert.org/aidsthai.htm
^Avert is one of the leading international organizations working for AIDs prevention. Take a look at the Global Warming thread for why someone would quote something like this: it's a legitimate, widely-known and recognized source. If someone says the moon landing never happened, you don't have to be Pollishillusion to challenge the claim. I cite something like this for the reason that one cites things- because it's not yours. Annoying? Better than pretending (aka plagiarism/misrepresentation) that it's your own work/immediate knowledge. Look at the discussion of the source Cuillon cited in the Neo-Con and Tehran thread- "Is it acceptable? Relevant? Trustworthy? Shitty?"- that's up for grabs on any occaision.

Never said it would "magically" reduce them, just that there exists strong data that it does lower the incidence. In fact, the successes Thailand has acheived shows that even with many loopholes and fucked up factors (aka organized crime, sex tourism as a cultural phenomenon, and the sinister side to which you referred) it still helps. Also never said "we shouid walk into it blindly". My point was that some major discrepancies and contradictions exist in our views of bodily control, individuality, and sex that aggravate the situation.

On the effectiveness of condoms, see my earlier post about genital warts, molluscum contagiosum, etc. My point there was that there are many STD's you can get with the use of condoms, and the issue was that unrestrained promiscuity is more or less inherently dangerous.

The porn industry inthe US is self-regulated, with the exceptions of age limits, beast, and scat being the most successfully adressed issues due to external restraints. Condoms are not required in porn. Aspiring porn actresses often run into a brick wall if they demand to consistently use condoms in their work. The studies in Nevada rely on the workers themselves.

Incidentally, the fact that a working guy gets cuffed if he buys a bj but a rich frat boy with a web site doesn't as long as he videos it and has a consent form exposes the hypocrisy I was talking about earlier.


Everyone has their own standards, and I tried to explain mine (meaning for myself) above. And I recall that you make assumptions about people and what they do or don't know.

The fact that I responded to your earlier post
and yet you still see a flapping red cape targetted at you says a lot. Eg. You say "argument", you "really hate me", want me to "fuck off and die" (last two from Islam threads which display my lack of whatever)? No idea what the issue is, and once again, I won't speculate, again, my own own standards.

Yes the porn industry is self regulated and does not enforce condom use. My point was more about the effectiveness of STD testing within the porn industry.

But I was not making any claim that needed a source to refute. I agreed with you. I was just observing that Thailand is regulated and has defacto legal prostitution. Never said that situation was better than legal and fully regulated. Of course the later is better.

Again we almost completely agree about legalizing and regulating prostitution. I am only adding a footnote of caution.

I agree with you about the problem of promiscuity.

I am not disputing the sources you site. Nor am I challenging your data. I am merely observing that it is annoying to plaster your posts with information acquired recently on the web. If you really must post as if you are writing a college paper, at least place the information directly within quotes so it is more seemless and less clunky. I feel like I am having a conversation with a grad student who wants to impress me.

I stand by my earlier attacks on you from the thread on Islam.

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 10:35 AM
I would've thought that complementing one-sided experiences with other data and interpretations would be one of the chief reasons for posting on a forum.

Otherwise it degenerates into a farce of narrow dogma, backed up my blind appeal to selectively-recalled memory (which is itself biased, vague and/or selective).

In instances where people are actually disagreeing this might be helpful. However I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing to personal experience, especially if a person has lived in the place in question. My criticism has more to do with the volume of citations he makes. I also think there is a distinction between citation from material one is familiar with and information one gains by making a last minute google search. In the later instance there is more room for error or misinterpretation of the data. If he had previously read a great deal on the issue and then decided to cite his sources, I would have less of a problem, but it is obvious from his posts that he googles as he is writing.

Sun Wukong
1st November 07, 11:03 AM
i have a totally unrelated question, how in the hell did thinkchair get like a millionty neg reps?

Thinkchair
1st November 07, 11:49 AM
i have a totally unrelated question, how in the hell did thinkchair get like a millionty neg reps?

Because I am not well liked here. I have made some charged statements, and have developed a somewhat hostile attitude toward a few of the posters here. Ironlurker doesn't like me because I feel it is actually possible to infiltrate mosques and get useful information in the US. Of course he posted a bunch of studies he found on google, but I actually speak arabic, and have contacts in the muslim community,

Shawarma
1st November 07, 12:19 PM
Thinkchair is a victim of the REP JIHAD! ALLAHU REPBAR!

WarPhalange
1st November 07, 12:22 PM
Of course he posted a bunch of studies he found on google, but I actually speak arabic, and have contacts in the muslim community,

Dude, it's ok. I have a friend who's black.

ironlurker
1st November 07, 12:47 PM
Because I am not well liked here. I have made some charged statements, and have developed a somewhat hostile attitude toward a few of the posters here. Ironlurker doesn't like me (wtf? never said I hated you and wanted you to die)because I feel it is actually possible to infiltrate mosques and get useful information in the US. Of course he posted a bunch of studies he found on google, but I actually speak arabic, and have contacts in the muslim community (putting those two on my "to-do" list, actually I'm not, and not because I don't care, but because . . )
:hijackp:

Plz report to CTC

Kiko
2nd November 07, 09:17 AM
Mostly because I like a good curveball....


Report linking Haitians to U.S. AIDS epidemic angers local Haitians (http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007710310356)

News of a research study that says the AIDS virus was spread to the United States by Haitian immigrants has angered the local Haitian community.

The analysis, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports the notion that Haiti was a steppingstone for HIV, which hopped directly from the Caribbean nation to the U.S. The study shows that just one strain of the virus came to the U.S., leading to all the infections that occurred in this country.

The findings were based on a genetic analysis of blood samples taken in the early 1980s from Haitians who had recently come to Miami and were among the first people diagnosed with AIDS. Researchers compared the samples to more than 100 others from different countries.

Haitians have long fought rumors and speculation about their link to the virus that causes AIDS.

In the early 1990s, Haitians in Rockland banded together and created the Parade of Unity, an annual cultural display to foster pride for youth of Haitian ancestry who felt stigmatized by the rumors.

Spring Valley is home to the highest concentration of Haitians in the county. The 2000 census estimated that about 11,000 Haitians lived in Rockland, but community activists have said that far underrepresents reality.

Bert Jean-Louis, a Spring Valley resident who was born in Haiti, was outraged when he heard about the study that was released Monday.

"Wow. They're coming back with this nonsense again?" Jean-Louis said yesterday. "This is too insulting. I thought this thing was taken care of years ago, and they're going to bring this stupid story back up again?"

On April 20, 1990, an estimated 100,000 Haitians marched in Brooklyn to protest a federal government decision barring Haitians from donating blood because of the perceived heightened HIV risk. The ban was lifted.

The Haitian-American Cultural and Social Organization and Konbit Neg Lakay, both community service nonprofits based in Spring Valley, will address the issue in a public forum Monday, leaders of both organizations said yesterday.

"This is plain, plain discrimination," Rose Leandre, executive director of HACSO, said of the report.

Leandre said this and other theories linking Haitians to HIV ignored the accusation that U.S. companies could have been responsible for creating the virus, possibly as a consequence of experimental drug testing.

Previous research suggests that the earliest human version of the virus first infected people in the African nation of Cameroon in the 1930s, crossing over into humans from chimpanzees, said Michael Worobey, the chief author of the study and an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Worobey surmised that Haitians first contracted the virus when workers went to the Democratic Republic of Congo, now Zaire, after that country gained its independence.

Haiti, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, has the highest rate of HIV infection outside of Africa.

Konbit Neg Lakay was one of the planning organizations for the 1990 march, and will again organize to oppose this research, Executive Director Renold Julien said.

Julien said he believed it formed part of a strategy to discredit Haiti for its achievement as the first black republic.

"The same way in 1990 we fought to stop those racists ... in 2007, we the Haitians, we will do the same thing again to shut them up," Julien said.

He said it was impossible to believe that one Haitian could have infected so many in the U.S.

Julien urged the entire black community to back the local Haitian community's effort.

"Every day we are talking about black unity," he said. "I think this is an opportunity for all black people in America to show what we really stand for."

*******************************
Once again, effort put anywhere but towards a cure and some compassion for fellow human beings.

Dagon Akujin
2nd November 07, 09:58 AM
People are mad about science?

Science == racism and discrimination?

Oh wait... maybe they're right (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48473). :P LoL.

Dagon

Kiko
2nd November 07, 10:07 AM
They're mad because some ignorant folks may blame them for the whole thing. Science does tend to make people get irrational when they try to attach emotional meaning to the data.

nihilist
6th November 07, 04:00 AM
Scientists say mankind came from monkeys and now Aids came from monkeys but every good Christian knows that man and AIDS was created by God.

Cullion
6th November 07, 07:54 AM
Goddamnit, Cullion. You've gone so far over the edge that I can't take you seriously. I can't figure out though if you are just trolling, or if you have a few extra-chromozomes. Either way, I don't think I can give any credence to anything you propose anymore, as you have no logic, honesty, integrity, or rationality in your posts.

All you are able to do is shout about how Clinton did it, how Reagan was right, how conservatives are perfect, and how liberals are to blame for everything. You don't even respond to the myriad of posts made against you or your positions. You play the whole Carl Rove ploy, simply ignore it, and then repeat your mantra of howls about how it's the Democrat's fault. Fuck off.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/MA-WSPBWoulSomePlea.gif

Er no, I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to blame the catholic church for AIDs in non-Catholics and when catholic countries have lower Aids rates. You don't really have a cogent argument here. This isn't trolling.

nihilist
6th November 07, 09:09 AM
Catholics should have no AIDS at all since they are supposed to save themselves for marriage.

Cullion
6th November 07, 09:12 AM
It can go wrong when a Catholic marries a non-Catholic though. Catholics certainly shouldn't marry liberals, unless they want to catch AIDs.

nihilist
6th November 07, 09:23 AM
The overall quality of your trolling has improved significantly.

Cullion
6th November 07, 09:26 AM
I've got God on my side.

Sun Wukong
6th November 07, 09:57 AM
too depressing; can't read anymore.

Cullion
6th November 07, 10:05 AM
It's OK Chris, under my presidency you wouldn't be prevented from handing out condoms in Africa. Just don't blame the pope when non-catholics refuse to use them.

NoMan
12th November 07, 02:30 AM
1) Most Africans aren't Catholic, Protestant denominations which allow condoms to be used are far more common.

2) People about to cheat on their wives or enjoy some anal would not stop at the convience store just because the Pope told them it was OK.

Sorry, blaming the Catholic church is just nonsense here, I don't care how badly you want to believe it.

The Catholic Church didn't help at all with preventing it in India. It was a group of twelve women that did. They started talking with madams and prostitutes, and taught them how to make their clients use condoms. Low and behold, the rate of infection dropped dramatically in India. The same program has been used with success in Brazil, Thailand, and parts of Africa. Score one for twelve women that wanted to figure out how to cure a problem rather than moralizing about it.

More interestingly, current Catholic charity organizations do teach people in India to use condoms to help prevent the spread of HIV. You should know well from economics, trust the man on the ground, not the person in the ivory tower. That's how I view all of the Pope or any religious organizations advice. About as useful as any communist advice. (And Jesus was an all-time commie, feeding the poor, telling people to give away their wealth to follow him, the rich had as much a chance of entering heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, sharing bread at the house, etc.)

Cullion
13th November 07, 01:58 PM
The Catholic Church didn't help at all with preventing it in India. It was a group of twelve women that did. They started talking with madams and prostitutes, and taught them how to make their clients use condoms. Low and behold, the rate of infection dropped dramatically in India. The same program has been used with success in Brazil, Thailand, and parts of Africa. Score one for twelve women that wanted to figure out how to cure a problem rather than moralizing about it.

Stats plz.