Children, Gays and HIV epidemic(US)

[dk]

APRIL 18, 1982, THE AIDS EPIDEMIC; THE SEARCH FOR A CURE
THE DEATH TOLL to date—489—
first reported in the homosexual communities of NYC, LA, SF and Miami
gay men estimated to account for 72 percent of cases, AIDS seems to be moving into the population at large.
AIDS is creeping out of well-defined epidemiological confines, moving into the population at large
gay men account for 72 percent of cases
intravenous drug users of both sexes next
Haitian immigrants, Haiti is a popular holiday spot for American homosexuals
Experts from Center for Disease Control, National Institution of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease all concur. -Source MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/581520.asp?0sp=w1b2)
dk: The epidemiological timeline for HIV/AIDs
AIDS (GRID) surfaced in 1981.
1985 HIV test
1987 AZT treatment
1992 Combination Therapy
1994 AZT prenatal
1994-95 AIDs deaths peaked, and began a rapid decline
1995 Protease Inhibitors
1996 HAART
2000 An estimate 300,000 HIV+ undiagnosed.
2003 An estimate 300,000 HIV+ undiagnosed
2003 An estimate 40,000 new HIV infections per year
2003 An estimate 900,000 people living with HIV/AIDs
By 2001 over 438,000 people had died from HIV/AIDs, 85% male. Over 50% HIV+ people live in NYC, SF, LA and Miami metropolitans where the disease first surfaced. It is estimated 1/3 of people living with HIV+ are undiagnosed. First, it is unconscionable that 300,000 with HIV go undiagnosed, for 3 primary reasons.
undiagnosed HIV+ individuals unwittingly infect partners spreading the disease.
effective treatments are available
health officials can’t possibly respond effectively to an epidemic absent surveillance data

In retrospect, the health officials, doctors and epidemiological scientists in 1982 performed magnificently taking the pulse of the evolving HIV/AIDS epidemic in the USA. Though limited by “end stage” diagnostic tools and absent anything resembling treatment their prognosis hit the bull’s-eye. First they identified the at risk groups with deft accuracy, rank and candor. Second they identified the high risk behaviors that exposed the groups. By 1987 when Randy Shilts’ bestseller And the Band Played On hit the shelves it was probably too late to curtail the carnage. We are left to wonder, if in 1985 when the HIV/AIDS test came available, if the US Health Officials had targeted at risk communities with mandatory testing… Then… Could the US have stopped HIV/AIDS epidemic cold. Lets do a stare and compare between those who have died of HIV/AIDs and those that now Live with HIV/AIDS. [data taken from HASR volume 12, end of year, Number 2 Table 5 and Death tallies from -The HIV/AIDS Epidemic: 20 Years in the U.S.]
Women, what we know
15%( 65,700) women have died of AIDS verses 17%(130,104) Women living with HIV/AIDS
Men, what we know
85%(372,300) . men have died of AIDS verses 83%(631,501) . Men living with HIV/AIDs
And 30% of serotonin + people remain undiagnosed, untreated and a danger to themselves & the community. Say it ain’t so Joe!!!

Obviously the Male verses Female demographics have changed very little (only a 3% swing), and considering HIV takes 3 to 10 years to kill someone that’s astounding. Lets examine the exposure of women more closely (HASR 2000 End of Year, Table 5)…
41%(52,991), IDU
16%(20,610), sex with IDU partner
_3%( 3,561), sex w/ bisexual partner
_3%( 3,806), blood products
20%(27,332), sex w/ partner of unknown risk
16%(20,504), risk not reported
============================.
99%(128,803) Total 130,104 women living with HIV/AIDs
37%( 47,836) Women living with HIV/AIDS exposure unknown

This posits, for me, two primary concerns.

First: How in the world can we be 20+ years and $trillions into an epidemic that has killed over 1/2 million people in the USA, then find 37% of women living with HIV have an unknown pathology.
Second: There is no other disease tracked by the MEDICAL SCIENCE, CDC, NIH, or any US public health department that calls a 13 year old kid an adult. Why do we call HIV+ 13 year adults?

Can anyone address my two primary concerns. My explanation is not kind to the Gay Rights Movement, but alas I can find no other rational explanation. In the 1980s the Gay Rights Movement became the poster child for the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US, and subsequently the rest of the civilized world. The Gay Rights Movement has leveraged their new found celebrity under the guise of an imaginary social backlash. Unconscionably they have used their seat at the table of public opinion as leverage (in the courts) to normalize, legitimize and promulgate anonymous anal sex (MSM) through education and media. In fact they are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or protégés through the public schools system as we speak, obtaining intimate access to children with gay marriage. What say those who support the Gay Rights Movement.

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by dk
Unconscionably they have used their seat at the table of public opinion as leverage (in the courts) to normalize, legitimize and promulgate anonymous anal sex (MSM) through education and media. In fact they are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or protégés through the public schools system as we speak, obtaining intimate access to children with gay marriage. What say those who support the Gay Rights Movement.

Not again... :rolleyes:

1) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and HIV
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality
3) the issue of gay marriage has no necessary connection to adoption
4) there is no necessary connection between homosexuality and pedophilia or paraphilia

The irrelevancy of this nonsense has been quite effectively demonstrated in the last couple (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54138&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) of threads (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49589) on this issue. Why do you keep seem so intent on beating whatever skin may still be left on the bones of this long-dead horse?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[Dr Rick]

Can anyone address my two primary concerns. My explanation is not kind to bigots, but alas I can find no other rational explanation. Gays have long been the target of bigots operating under all sorts of guises, from Chrisitianity to Nazism to "family values". The religious right has leveraged a tragic disease that afflicts far more heterosexuals than anyother group under the guise of an imaginary social backlash. Unconscionably, they have used their seat at the table of public opinion to normalize, legitimize and promulgate hatred through education and media. In fact, they are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or protégés with this evil through the churches and the public schools system as we speak, obtaining access to children and instilling a message of hate. What say those who support the bigotry?

[Purple Smartie]

Well at least the lesbians are safe! :rolleyes:


Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.


Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.


It appears that 75% of women infected were heterosexual, but only 15% of male infections are from heterosexual contact. So considering HIV /AIDS is split about 50-50 between the sexes, that means these men are pretty busy!

I fail to see what any of that has to do with children or gay marriage / adoption. If anything marriage encourages monogamy (well, usually) and that would certainly slow HIV down.

But even easier than monogamy... the statistics probably don't exist but I would bet that this is equally rare among straight people... is condom use.

Certainly failing to be tested regularly after engaging in high risk behaviour, or failing to use condoms consistently, is a topic that could be opened up for debate in this forum of morals.

[JGL53]

Well, certainly dk is looking for a heated debate - and certainly he is going to get one.

I have no dogs in this fight, however I'll just point out that it is not necessary to go beyond the truth in order to counter dk and his (her?) obvious distaste for gays and gayness.

1) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and HIV
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality

One does not have to be anti-gay in any way to recognise these statements are blatant falsehoods.

I.e., why do you think the AIDS epidemic started with and has continued largely with gay males in the U.S (needle sharing being second as a transmittal source)?

It is because extremely promiscuous anal sex was prevalent among gay males (and still is), and is not nearly as present among heteros. That is a fact. And since AIDS is a blood born disease, anal sex is taylor made for it's spread, since it provides an extremely efficient method of transmittal. That is a fact.

Gay males still account for the majority of transmissions of AIDS in the U.S. If they stopped engaging in promiscuous anal sex, this transmission would essentially stop. It's that simple.

((If others wish to discuss the African situation, fine, but I see that as obviously off topic.))

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by JGL53
Well, certainly dk is looking for a heated debate - and certainly he is going to get one.

Not from me, unless someone rational indicates that they haven't already seen dk get severely beaten previously for his neverending misuse and misinterpretation of statistics (sex w/ partner of unknown risk + risk not reported does not equal "unknown pathology." :rolleyes: )

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by dk
How in the world can we be 20+ years and $trillions into an epidemic that has killed over 1/2 million people in the USA, then find 37% of women living with HIV have an unknown pathology.
You're crazy if you think that "trillions" of dollars have been spent on AIDS research. It's impossible to take you seriously if you say things like this.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
(sex w/ partner of unknown risk + risk not reported does not equal "unknown pathology." :rolleyes: )
Using dk's logic, if I catch malaria, and I don't know which mosquito gave it to me, my case would be an example of "unknown pathology".

[dk]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Not again... :rolleyes:

1) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and HIV
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality
3) the issue of gay marriage has no necessary connection to adoption
4) there is no necessary connection between homosexuality and pedophilia or paraphilia
(snip)
Bill Snedden

1 & 2) Is AIDS necessary? NO of course not. Yet AIDs has killed 1/2 million people in the US, and most people killed by AIDs were exposed by an incidence of MSM. What do you think that means? Answer: Its called a connection between anal sex and HIV.
3) Gay marriage protects (institutionalizes) homosexual access to children, intimate access i.e. parentis loco. That doesn't mean or imply any particular gay man is a pedophile, but what the Gay Rights Movement intends for children. Since Gays got access to young gay protégés in public schools, 13-17 year olds have suddenly become victims of the deadly pandemic. Even 10 years ago gays didn't have intimate access to children in schools, today PFAG pedophiles recruit teenage protégés on the Internet, and sue in open court any organization that won’t embrace them into a leadership role. Today the Gay Rights Movement uses public schools, higher education and the courts to punish adversaries with the law. In fact the President of the PFLAG chapter that filed the suit in Court against the Boy Scouts was a known pedophile. Go figure.
4) Ok, but you need to explain why 13 year old children exposed to HIV by an incidence of MSM are classified as Adults by the US and local Health Departments, and especially the state/federal courts. It’s the only time I’ve ever heard of the government putting a 13 year old (medically, politically or socially) in a national adult database, from measles to Young Democrats. Surely you understand a child can’t be treated politically, socially or medically like an adult. Why is it sexually permissible for gay mentors in public schools to recruit children, and then when the child turns up HIV+ call them adults. It seems to me children under the care of public schools would be morally and ethically bound to higher standards, at least up to standards used to control measles or chickenpox. Perhaps you can explain this odd fact to me.

[dk]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
You're crazy if you think that "trillions" of dollars have been spent on AIDS research. It's impossible to take you seriously if you say things like this. I didn't say research, most of the money is used for treatment of the million of poor souls (in the US) that have contracted the deadly disease. The cost of new infrastructure and maintenance in the US necessary to administer and deliver the AIDS services easily runs a $trillion. You don't run a health care system on science. The US Economy clips along at over $10 trillion per year. The CDC marks the cost of health servicesat $12 billion a year, but infrastructure is the big ticket item. . I think more money needs to be spent on HIV/AIDS treatment&reasearch, but we are all accountable to youth, even the the poster child of HIV/AIDS, the much celebrated Gay Rights Movement. $trillions would be conservative if we were to count the lost human lives as a capital expense, the cost would be $100 trillion.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality


If there is anyone who doesn't believe this, it is the homosexual rights groups which celebrated SCOTUS' repudiation of the Texas sodomy law.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
1) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and HIV
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality

...to which JGL 53 replied
One does not have to be anti-gay in any way to recognise these statements are blatant falsehoods.

It is not necessary to have anal sex to contract HIV.

Most cases of HIV do not arise from, nor are necessarily connected to anal sex.

It is not necessary to be homosexual to have anal sex.

Not every homosexual, particularly female homosexuals, necesarily has anal sex.

There is no more of a necessary connection between anal sex and HIV than there is between vaginal intercourse and HIV.

[dk]

Originally posted by Purple Smartie
Well at least the lesbians are safe! :rolleyes: (snip)

Certainly failing to be tested regularly after engaging in high risk behaviour, or failing to use condoms consistently, is a topic that could be opened up for debate in this forum of morals.

Your numbers are wack http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1201.htm

Amongst men heterosexual sex varies on all counts from for 5% to 9% of exposure. See table 5 and 6

[JERDOG]

Yea we can trust the government for the stats just like we can trust the government for everything else!:rolleyes:

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by dk
......
And 30% of serotonin + people remain undiagnosed, untreated and a danger to themselves & the community. Say it ain’t so Joe!!!

Would someone more skilled in medical English than I (I'm better off at medical German) tell me if that above phrase is correct, or if a simple typo ?
:confused:
I mean, I think what is meant is "seropositive";
and every human who is alive is serotonin +, but I could be wrong.
:eek:

[dk]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Would someone more skilled in medical English than I (I'm better off at medical German) tell me if that above phrase is correct, or if a simple typo ?
:confused:
I mean, I think what is meant is "seropositive";
and every human who is alive is serotonin +, but I could be wrong.
:eek:, my apologies.

You are correct, the term is seropositive.

The statement should read...
:eek:
30% of seropositive people remain undiagnosed, untreated and a danger to themselves & the community. Say it ain’t so Joe!!!

[Gurdur]

Thanks.
Truthfully, I am so rusty in medical English it's not funny sometimes.

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It is not necessary to have anal sex to contract HIV.

Most cases of HIV do not arise from, nor are necessarily connected to anal sex.

It is not necessary to be homosexual to have anal sex.

Not every homosexual, particularly female homosexuals, necesarily has anal sex.

There is no more of a necessary connection between anal sex and HIV than there is between vaginal intercourse and HIV.

Thank you, Dr. Rick! You saved me a substantive response...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by dk
Is AIDS necessary? NO of course not. Yet AIDs has killed 1/2 million people in the US, and most people killed by AIDs were exposed by an incidence of MSM. What do you think that means? Answer: Its called a connection between anal sex and HIV.

If you're going to beat this horse, you might as well try to hit it with something besides wilted spinach.

Please address the point: demonstrate the necessary connection between anal sex and HIV and between anal sex and homosexuality. IOW, for your argument to have any force whatever, you must demonstrate that there is a causal link between anal sex and HIV and between homosexuality and anal sex. Save some electrons, save a tree, save your breath: it can't be done. Here are some hints as to why: what is the leading cause of HIV transmission? Do all homosexuals engage in anal sex? Hmmmm...

Originally posted by dk
Gay marriage protects (institutionalizes) homosexual access to children, intimate access i.e. parentis loco. That doesn't mean or imply any particular gay man is a pedophile, but what the Gay Rights Movement intends for children. Since Gays got access to young gay protégés in public schools, 13-17 year olds have suddenly become victims of the deadly pandemic. Even 10 years ago gays didn't have intimate access to children in schools, today PFAG pedophiles recruit teenage protégés on the Internet, and sue in open court any organization that won’t embrace them into a leadership role. Today the Gay Rights Movement uses public schools, higher education and the courts to punish adversaries with the law. In fact the President of the PFLAG chapter that filed the suit in Court against the Boy Scouts was a known pedophile. Go figure.

And the flood of irrelevancies continues. Please address the point. For your argument to have any force whatever you must demonstrate the necessary connection between gay marriage and adoption. IOW, you must show that legalizing gay marriages necessarily legalizes adoption by gay parents. I don't see any reason to believe that one dictates the other, but it's your argument...

And I'm sincerely hoping that "PFAG" is a typo and not deliberate...

Originally posted by dk
Ok, but you need to explain why 13 year old children exposed to HIV by an incidence of MSM are classified as Adults by the US and local Health Departments, and especially the state/federal courts. It’s the only time I’ve ever heard of the government putting a 13 year old (medically, politically or socially) in a national adult database, from measles to Young Democrats. Surely you understand a child can’t be treated politically, socially or medically like an adult. Why is it sexually permissible for gay mentors in public schools to recruit children, and then when the child turns up HIV+ call them adults. It seems to me children under the care of public schools would be morally and ethically bound to higher standards, at least up to standards used to control measles or chickenpox. Perhaps you can explain this odd fact to me.

No, I don't need to explain anything as your point has no bearing whatever on the argument you've made. Again, in order for your argument to have any force, you must demonstrate that there is a necessary connection between homosexuality and pedophilia or paraphilia. And yet again, you've got quite a "row to how" as they say. Why? Hmmm...what's the sexual orientation of the majority of pedophiles again?

Does this dishonest trolling really serve any purpose?

[Scandal]

dk,

I think you have a problem with anal sex.

Anyway, wouldn't legitimizing same gender marriages help to promote an attitude of monogamy in our society?

You said: "In fact they are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or proteges through the public school system as we speak, obtaining intimate access to children with gay marriages."

Are you implying that homosexuals in general are unable to keep their creepy paws off of children?!!!

OOOOO you ARE creepy!!!!!

[yguy]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Originally posted by dk
Gay marriage protects (institutionalizes) homosexual access to children, intimate access i.e. parentis loco. That doesn't mean or imply any particular gay man is a pedophile, but what the Gay Rights Movement intends for children. Since Gays got access to young gay protégés in public schools, 13-17 year olds have suddenly become victims of the deadly pandemic. Even 10 years ago gays didn't have intimate access to children in schools, today PFAG pedophiles recruit teenage protégés on the Internet, and sue in open court any organization that won’t embrace them into a leadership role. Today the Gay Rights Movement uses public schools, higher education and the courts to punish adversaries with the law. In fact the President of the PFLAG chapter that filed the suit in Court against the Boy Scouts was a known pedophile. Go figure.

And the flood of irrelevancies continues. Please address the point.

The point of the OP seems to be that that the "gay" community is engaging in activities that further the spread of AIDS in young people. What you somehow deem irrelevant would seem to support that point very well indeed, if true. Therefore, if you would discount them, it seems you can only properly do so on the basis of their veracity rather than relevance...unless, of course, you are merely attempting to reframe the debate so as to be able to defend a position you find defensible. :)

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
necessary connection between anal sex and HIV and between anal sex and homosexuality. IOW, for your argument to have any force whatever, you must demonstrate that there is a causal link between anal sex and HIV and between homosexuality and anal sex. ....what is the leading cause of HIV transmission? Do all homosexuals engage in anal sex? Hmmmm...
[/B]

Obviously I am not so insane as to think that anal sex causes AIDS, or is the ONLY source of AIDS transmittal, or that ALL gay men engage in anal sex. I doubt even old dk is that messed up.

Certainly, there is no NECESSITY for anal sex to exist for AIDS to exist. And I am not opposed to anal sex per se, for health, moral, of any other reasons.

However, it is a (politically incorrect) fact that promiscuous anal sex among MANY gay men is the source of the AIDS epidemic in this country. If this had not been and was not now a great part of MANY gay men's lifestyle, the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. would be mostly confined to that cohort of drug addicts that share needles. The epidemic would probably be about one-sixth or so as large as it is now, and would be MUCH easier to contain.

I repeat, it is a no-brainer that anal sex, engaged in promiscuosly, was and is THE major source of AIDS transmission in this country. The health authorities have not focused on this issue because of it's political sensitivity, and I think they need to start doing so in order to save lives.

Since my first post on this thread, I read an article in the news that AIDs is again on the rise among gay males. I really don't think it is because of french kissing, oral sex, mutual masturbation, or (certainly not) anal sex between any monogamous pair of HIV- gay men.

In the U.S., promiscuous anal sex is THE major source of AIDS transmission through sex. I'm not talking about anal sex. I'm talking about PROMISCUOUS anal sex. This is still prevalent among certain large numbers of gay men. It is not particularly prevalent among heteros.

AIDS transmission does happen through the other sexual activities mentioned, to some minor extent. But I think we are well advised to focus on the major cause of the epidemic if we wish as a nation to control or reduce it.

Clear enough?

[dk]

Originally posted by Scandal
dk,

I think you have a problem with anal sex.

Anyway, wouldn't legitimizing same gender marriages help to promote an attitude of monogamy in our society?

You said: "In fact they are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or proteges through the public school system as we speak, obtaining intimate access to children with gay marriages."

Are you implying that homosexuals in general are unable to keep their creepy paws off of children?!!!

OOOOO you ARE creepy!!!!!

I personally see no merit in anal sex, but before HIV/AIDs reached out to touch babies and kids I didn't give it much thought. The HIV test came out in 1985, and AZT in 1987. Nobody had more to gain in 1985 from mandatory testing of high risk populations than people in the gay community, yet the Gay Rights Movement fought to ban mandatory testing under any and all circumstances, and won in the courts. I couldn’t believe it when The Gay Rights Movement jumped into bed with radical feminists to fight prenatal testing for HIV/AIDs in populations of women that were at risk. Prenatal testing of at risk populations wasn’t implemented until 1994, and it turns out a C-section alone, and no breast feeding cuts the risk of Mother to Child Transmission 95%. Did this serve the interests of the Mother…the Baby? NO! While some people see the Gay Rights Movement as a noble cause, I see the movement as an ulcerated wound upon the face of humanity. Not because of anal sex, but because their political agenda kills innocent people to protect their political power and social standing.

Its obvious to me the only way to beat a deadly incurable disease is to stop its spread to the next generation. Can you explain why they don’t do mandatory testing and follow up on high risk high school populations? Why they track a 13 year old HIV+ kid as an adult? Perhaps in 1982-3 there was a reason to fear a backlash against gays, but that’s certainly not a worry today. Read the literature, HIV is running unchecked in youth 13-24 years old, especially in cities that support large gay communities. Its no secret whose exposing these kids to HIV, but its politically incorrect to care or even bring the subject up. But I agree its creepy.

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by dk
While some people see the Gay Rights Movement as a noble cause, I see the movement as an ulcerated wound upon the face of humanity. Not because of anal sex, but because their political agenda kills innocent people to protect their political power and social standing.

The idea that a person who consents to unprotected sex is "innocent" is ludicrous. In the bizarre dystopia which you imagine as your reality the gay population might go out and force themselves on unwitting prepubescents, but no where in the real world is this true, and nothing rational will support it. That some gay people choose to consent in dangerous unhealthy behavior doesn't mean that those who don't should be stripped of human rights. That kind of discrimination is the "logic" of a hateful petty simpleton.

That you talk about the "political power" of homosexuals shows what a delusional bigot you are. Homosexuals can't even get married. The closest thing available is a civil union, and that's available (and applies in) 1 state. Yes, those politically potent homosexuals are just taking everything over, and spitting their infected blood into the mouths of babies along the way, too.

I'm sure if you were in charge you'd fix things: all those foul homosexuals would be put into their places; they'd know they had only two choices, denying their sick urges, or facing a barrage of stone! If only things would go back to the way they were in the good old days.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by Scandal
dk,

I think you have a problem with anal sex.

(Fr Andrew): And with hairless arms.
:D

[Diadectes]

I am homosexual but I do not consider myself part of any 'community', other than my local one (which is made up mainly of heterosexual families), I do not engage in anal sex (yuk!) and I have no desire to adopt children (one of the virtues of homosexuality is that there is no social pressure to take on this greatest of responsibilities). Therefore the statements that there is no necessary connection between anal sex/homosexuality/AIDS etc are quite correct. Why all the discussion?

[Diadectes]

:cool: sorry, accidentally posted message twice.

[Vylo]

Those statistics that show 72 % of AIDS is THOUGHT to be from homosexuals is heavily outdated, you are scewing data to fit your needs. The majority of AIDS victims are heterosexual.

[Scandal]

dk,

You said: "Nobody had more to gain in 1985 from mandatory testing of high risk populations than people in the gay community..."

And nobody had more to lose from identifying themselves as homosexual at that time. In the U.S., when the disease hit in the early '80s many people were ill informed about the transmission of AIDS and fear bred rampant intolerece and hatred.

Kind of what seems to be on your agenda with this OP.

Early on, the homosexual community was hit hard but rallied and became informed about the transmission of AIDS without government help. Thus the decrease of incidence of AIDS among the homosexual community to the point where now some young homosexuals do not remember the ravages of the disease and are once again careless about their sexual behavior.

We must continue to educate young people, gay and straight, about the dangers of promiscuous unprotected sex.

I can only see a positive outcome from allowing homosexuals to openly declare their monogamous love for one another in marriage.

Cheers,
Scandal

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Vylo
Those statistics that show 72 % of AIDS is THOUGHT to be from homosexuals is heavily outdated, you are scewing data to fit your needs. The majority of AIDS victims are heterosexual.

Again, this type of 'politically correct' pronouncement is really not necessary. Eliminating needles sharers and those who lie about their sexual contacts, the overwhelming per cent of sexually transmitted AIDS in the United States is from promiscuous anal sex among gay men.

If somehow this type of activity would be totally given up, the spread of AIDS via sexual activity would essentially grind to a halt.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Scandal
dk,

Early on, the homosexual community was hit hard but rallied and became informed about the transmission of AIDS without government help.

Actually, it was only with extreme reluctance that the male gay 'community' accepted that promiscuous anal sex was the way the disease was being spread so rapidly. The government had to close the gay bath houses. So don't blame the government.

Originally posted by Scandal
[B ... We must continue to educate young people, gay and straight, about the dangers of promiscuous unprotected sex.
[/B]

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but facts is facts. Why not education that focusing on promiscuous anal sex among gay males - the over-whelming cause of the sexual transmission of the disease in the U.S.?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by JGL53
Eliminating needles sharers and those who lie about their sexual contacts, the overwhelming per cent of sexually transmitted AIDS in the United States is from promiscuous anal sex among gay men.

...heck, if you really want to "prove" your point, just eliminate from the stats everyone that didn't get HIV from promiscuous gay anal sex; then you can provide numbers showing that damn close to 100% of all HIV is transmitted by promiscuous gay anal sex.

Actually, it was only with extreme reluctance that the male gay 'community' accepted that promiscuous anal sex was the way the disease was being spread so rapidly.

Actually, a big part of why the gay community was reluctant to follow the advice of the government was that it was perceived as homophobic rhetoric coming from a society that has long been homophobic. Gays initially saw the advice to limit their intercourse as just another gambit planted by the religious and conservative right.

Why not education that focusing on promiscuous anal sex among gay males - the over-whelming cause of the sexual transmission of the disease in the U.S.?

Why just focus on gays and not all those at risk?

[Vylo]

If somehow this type of activity would be totally given up, the spread of AIDS via sexual activity would essentially grind to a halt.


You are joking right? I seriously hope so. While it would make a substantial dent in the spread of AIDS, the halting of naal sex among gay men would come no where close to stopping AIDS, because IT CAN BE SPREAD JUST AS EASILY THROUGH HETEROSEXUALY ACTIVITIES.

I sincerely hope I misread what you said there, or that you are joking.

[Vylo]

How to get AIDS! :D

Transmission of Infection
The transmission of HIV requires contact with a body fluid that contains infected cells or virus particles; such fluids include blood, semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, and breast milk. HIV also is present in tears, urine, and saliva, but in much lower concentrations.

HIV is transmitted in the following ways:

Sexual relations with an infected person, during which the mucous membrane lining the mouth, vagina, or rectum is exposed to contaminated body fluids
Injection or infusion of contaminated blood, as occurs with blood transfusions, the sharing of needles, or an accidental prick from an HIV-contaminated needle
Transfer of the virus from an infected mother to a child before or during birth or through the mother's milk


This comes from the Merck Manual, an online medical source.

[Vylo]

Apparently the new cases have shifted once again, and it seems to be on the rise in homosexual circles:

Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

60 % of new cases are homosexual. But WAIT! lookey here 64 % of them are black!!!! They must be the source <insert sarcasism here>! If we just kept black people from breeding would that be a better solution to you, since they have the worse statistic?

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by JGL53
Actually, it was only with extreme reluctance that the male gay 'community' accepted that promiscuous anal sex was the way the disease was being spread so rapidly. The government had to close the gay bath houses. So don't blame the government.

(Fr Andrew): I was living on Barrow St (right above Jimmy Day's!) in Greenwich Village '80-'81 when AIDS hysteria was heating up. A common sidewalk sight was an overturned cardboard packing crate serving as a makeshift desk staffed by community activists taking names and as much sexual history as residents were willing to divulge. That AIDS was transmitted largely through anal sex was lost on no one.
The government's kneejerk response (close the baths) was seen as shortsighted and typically homophobic.


Originally posted by JGL53
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but facts is facts. Why not education that focusing on promiscuous anal sex among gay males - the over-whelming cause of the sexual transmission of the disease in the U.S.?

(Fr Andrew): The education is there. From the gay and the straight community. Unprotected sex (at least) spreads AIDS.
That some gay--mostly young (and thus invincibile, don't you know)--men still engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex is no stranger a phenomenon than young straight people doing the same.
It's hormones and arrogance.
That AIDS is on the rise among young gay men after a period of decline, can be attributed to faith in recent medical advances and the aforementioned youthful arrogance, imo...i.e. "It won't happen to me and, if it does, they'll find a cure before I need to worry about it."

[yguy]

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
The government's kneejerk response (close the baths) was seen as shortsighted and typically homophobic.

Gosh, I didn't know Randy Shilts was a homophobe.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...heck, if you really want to "prove" your point, just eliminate from the stats everyone that didn't get HIV from promiscuous gay anal sex; then you can provide numbers showing that damn close to 100% of all HIV is transmitted by promiscuous gay anal sex.

-You misread the intent of my statement. I was saying that the overwhelming majority of SEXUALLY transmitted AIDS in the U.S. was and is from a particular type and variety of sexual activity - promiscuous anal sex - which happens to be overwhelming prevalent in the U.S. among a certain good size cohort of gay men. That is all.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...Actually, a big part of why the gay community was reluctant to follow the advice of the government was that it was perceived as homophobic rhetoric coming from a society that has long been homophobic. Gays initially saw the advice to limit their intercourse as just another gambit planted by the religious and conservative right.

Correct. I was just responding to the implication that somehow the rapid spread of AIDS among a huge number of gay men was somehow the government's fault. I'm not a big fan of government bureaucracy, but they screw enough things up without folks unfairly blaming them in areas they are clearly not at fault.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
...Why just focus on gays and not all those at risk?

You ask why, I ask why not? The key word here is 'focus'. Obviously we should not ignore the promiscuous exchange of bodily fluids between heteros, which is a great problem in teenagers and college age people, or needle sharing.

Originally posted by Vylo
You are joking right? I seriously hope so. While it would make a substantial dent in the spread of AIDS, the halting of naal sex among gay men would come no where close to stopping AIDS, because IT CAN BE SPREAD JUST AS EASILY THROUGH HETEROSEXUALY ACTIVITIES. I sincerely hope I misread what you said there, or that you are joking.


I am not joking. The 'substantial dent' you refer to would be about 90 pr cent of all sexually transmitted cases of AIDS.

I never said it would 'come close to stopping AIDS. There is still the terrible problem of needle sharing.

And I never said anything about 'the halting of anal sex among gay men'. I have repeated several times now I am taking about the need of halting PROMISCUOUS anal sex - be it hetero or homo - though I am not aware of such a problem existing among heteros in the U.S. (it is a problem in Africa, I understand).

And you can put the words 'It can be spread just as easily through heterosexual activiities' in capital letters all day long, and that will still be a false statement.

Case in point. A study early on of about 500 HIV+ hetero hemophiliac men showed a twenty per cent transmission rate after unprotected sex with their wives/girlfriends over aabout a one year period.

Do you really think the transmission rate would have been this low if these guys had same-sex partners and engaged in anal sex acts for one year?

If you were to answer in the affirmative, I would think YOU were joking.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by yguy
Gosh, I didn't know Randy Shilts was a homophobe.

Randy Shilts was politically incorrect, just like me. We should both die and rot in Hell.:rolleyes:

[yguy]

[removed - 99%]

[JGL53]

(( Off topic - sorry, guys. ))

[yguy quote removed -99%]

I think you were initially confused by my defence of subjective morality on a thread debating abortion a few weeks back.

[Paragraph replying to quote that no longer applies removed - 99%]

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by JGL53
Do you really think the transmission rate would have been this low if these guys had same-sex partners and engaged in anal sex acts for one year?

If you were to answer in the affirmative, I would think YOU were joking.

You actually have to take two facts into consideration:

1) Many people of European decent are in fact immune or resistant to the HIV because it uses the exact same method of attack as bubonic plague and Europeans have a high immunity to it due to several large outbreaks that wiped out those who weren't.

2) The AIDs epidemic in the US was primarily from a mutated version of HIV (mutated from the African/Asian variety) which specifically mutated in a way which made it easier to transmit anally rather than vaginally. IOW the variant prevalent in the US is more difficult to transmit vaginally or orally than the African variant.

Of course that doesn't help the large number of victims who are a) Hispanic or Afro-Carribean in origin or b) African/Asian immigrants carrying the African or Asian variant which I believe are increasingly being found in the US.

(another factoid is that the time from initial infection to full blown AIDs in the US variant is much shorter than the African/Asian variants, i.e it is much more virulent. A few decades from now the ratio of AIDs victims will probably swing the other way and the US will start to show a ratio more similar to those in African/Asian countries)

Amen-Moses

[Vylo]

I am not joking. The 'substantial dent' you refer to would be about 90 pr cent of all sexually transmitted cases of AIDS.


How does 72 percent initially and 60 % currently suddenly work out to 90% of the cases?

I never said it would 'come close to stopping AIDS.

Oh my mistake I thought you said:

If somehow this type of activity would be totally given up, the spread of AIDS via sexual activity would essentially grind to a halt.

Short memory?

Do you really think the transmission rate would have been this low if these guys had same-sex partners and engaged in anal sex acts for one year?


I suspect you are with holding data, and I see no verification of the validity of this data.

[dk]

dk: While some people see the Gay Rights Movement as a noble cause, I see the movement as an ulcerated wound upon the face of humanity. Not because of anal sex, but because their political agenda kills innocent people to protect their political power and social standing.
Pain Paien: The idea that a person who consents to unprotected sex is "innocent" is ludicrous. In the bizarre dystopia which you imagine as your reality the gay population might go out and force themselves on unwitting prepubescents, but no where in the real world is this true, and nothing rational will support it. That some gay people choose to consent in dangerous unhealthy behavior doesn't mean that those who don't should be stripped of human rights. That kind of discrimination is the "logic" of a hateful petty simpleton.
dk: The Gay Rights Movement fought prenatal AIDs testing for pregnant women in high risk populations from 1987 to 1994. Thousands of babies were needlessly infected by HIV, thousands of innocent babies. The scientists that studied MTCT of HIV weren’t allowed to tell the poor pregnant mother so she could save her baby. There are many cases where a rape victim, assault victims,,, etc. exposed innocent people, and the courts in many jurisdictions protect the perpetrator's serostatus hanging the victim out to dry. What kind of logic is that?

Pain Paien: That you talk about the "political power" of homosexuals shows what a delusional bigot you are. Homosexuals can't even get married. The closest thing available is a civil union, and that's available (and applies in) 1 state. Yes, those politically potent homosexuals are just taking everything over, and spitting their infected blood into the mouths of babies along the way, too.
dk: Only a knowledgeable person with a childlike intellect, deceptive character or extreme bias can deny the political power the Gay Rights Movement wields.

Pain Paien: I'm sure if you were in charge you'd fix things: all those foul homosexuals would be put into their places; they'd know they had only two choices, denying their sick urges, or facing a barrage of stone! If only things would go back to the way they were in the good old days.
dk: I have no ill will towards gays generally or specifically , my judgment and comments regard the deceptive tactics, psychopathic history, prurient culture, corruption and subterfuge the Gay Right Movement employs to their own demise. Love does no harm, and anal sex spreads deadly microbes because it bypasses the bodies defense systems. Once in the lower digestive system deadly microbes get absorbed directly into the blood system. Lets be absolutely clear, in high risk populations for HIV/AIDS its not just AIDS. The MDR microbes (not just AIDs) spread from person A to person B in bath houses, gay bars, and other anonymous sex venues. The danger MDR microbes present is magnafied by epidemical population. At any time battle against contagious disease could shift in favor of MDR super microbes. Be honest now, you know the inherent risk of sticking foreign non-sterile objects invasively (through the anus) into the lower intestine?

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by dk
The Gay Rights Movement fought prenatal AIDs testing for pregnant women in high risk populations from 1987 to 1994. Thousands of babies were needlessly infected by HIV, thousands of innocent babies. The scientists that studied MTCT of HIV weren’t allowed to tell the poor pregnant mother so she could save her baby. There are many cases where a rape victim, assault victims,,, etc. exposed innocent people, and the courts protected the perpetrator serostatus. What kind of logic is that? :

Please provide evidence that the "Gay Rights Movement" did any such thing. If you can't support that the majority of the movement was doing this, then you're wasting your breath. Even if you DO prove it, however, it's still irrelevant to the issue of homosexual rights, specifically the right of monogamous consentual adults to marry and adopt children.


Only a knowledgeable person with a childlike intellect, deceptive character or extreme bias can deny the political power the Gay Rights Movement wields.

You see, the problem is that's only true in bigot-land. In the REAL world, anyone can see that any movement that can't even procure equal rights doesn't really have much political power at all. In case you're confused, I'll point out that cultural influence does not equal political power.

I have no ill will towards gays generally or specifically , my judgment and comments regard the deceptive tactics, psychopathic history, prurient culture, corruption and subterfuge the Gay Right Movement employs to their own demise. Love does no harm, and anal sex spreads disease because it bypasses the bodies defense systems. Be honest now, you know the inherent risk of sticking foreign non-sterile objects invasively (through the anus) into the lower intestine?

What nice little non sequiturs. I must admit that seeing your bigoted logic in action is rather fascinating. First you say that you don't have ill will toward homosexuality, which is so transparently untrue that I needn't even disprove it. Then you say your judgement applies only to the "Gay Rights Movement" and their dispicable acts. You act as if you hold no prejudice, and then you paint an entire group of people as corrupt and evil. That's a new twist on an old song: "I don't hate homosexuality, just homosexuals". Then, to top this pile of illogic, you mention that sex is dangerous. Aside from the fact that it's only dangerous if one or both of those participating in the act is infected, it's completely irrelevant. Any logical person can see this, but it's revealing that you attempt to connect unsafe behavior with homosexual rights. Just to clarify once more: promiscuous anal sex has nothing to do with the marriage rights of monogamous homosexuals. Form actual points, and not hate-filled irrelevancies, if you please.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Vylo
How does 72 percent initially and 60 % currently suddenly work out to 90% of the cases?

A great increase in the number of transmittals from sharing needles would account for the difference.

Originally posted by Vylo

Oh my mistake I thought you said:

Short memory?



Yes, your mistake, indeed, and there's nothing wrong with my memory. I said the SEXUAL transmission of AIDS would ESSENTIALLY grind to a halt. You mistated this as me saying the AIDS epidemic would cease. Never said that.

As before, you tend to misread and misquote my statements, then go off on attacking straw man rants. Why is that?

Originally posted by Vylo
I suspect you are with holding data, and I see no verification of the validity of this data.

This is an study that I recall reading in a pharmacy magazine back in the mid-1980s. I certainly can't recall the reference, so I guess it means nothing. But, then, Amen-Moses's post seems to corrolate with this.

As to your suspicion of my 'withholding data', what exacty are you implying? What would be my suspected motivation?

[dk]

dk: The Gay Rights Movement fought prenatal AIDs testing for pregnant women in high risk populations from 1987 to 1994. Thousands of babies were needlessly infected by HIV, thousands of innocent babies. The scientists that studied MTCT of HIV weren’t allowed to tell the poor pregnant mother so she could save her baby. There are many cases where a rape victim, assault victims,,, etc. exposed innocent people, and the courts protected the perpetrator serostatus. What kind of logic is that? :
Pain Paien: Please provide evidence that the "Gay Rights Movement" did any such thing. If you can't support that the majority of the movement was doing this, then you're wasting your breath. Even if you DO prove it, however, it's still irrelevant to the issue of homosexual rights, specifically the right of monogamous consentual adults to marry and adopt children.
dk: Lambda Legal was on this like flies on shit, and so was the pro-choice abortion crowd. Mandatory testing of high risk populations, especially pregnant women, would have had major legal ramifications.
-------------Memos 09/01/1996
Mandatory Newborn Testing
A Policy Paper (http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=150)
(snip)
Mandatory testing as a solution to the treatment of HIV-exposed infants simplistically removes parental choice as a remedy for the labyrinth of barriers that women in poverty must navigate in order to access a health care system which frequently is unresponsive and judgmental. The treatment of HIV infected infants and their mothers requires a systemic response which one-time testing does not provide and which mandatory testing advocates effectively ignore.
(snip) -

dk: Only a knowledgeable person with a childlike intellect, deceptive character or extreme bias can deny the political power the Gay Rights Movement wields.
Pain Paien: You see, the problem is that's only true in bigot-land. In the REAL world, anyone can see that any movement that can't even procure equal rights doesn't really have much political power at all. In case you're confused, I'll point out that cultural influence does not equal political power.
dk: I can’t find bigot-land on the map, and that implies a child like intellect.

dk: I have no ill will towards gays generally or specifically , my judgment and comments regard the deceptive tactics, psychopathic history, prurient culture, corruption and subterfuge the Gay Right Movement employs to their own demise. Love does no harm, and anal sex spreads disease because it bypasses the bodies defense systems. Be honest now, you know the inherent risk of sticking foreign non-sterile objects invasively (through the anus) into the lower intestine?
Pain Paien: What nice little non sequiturs. I must admit that seeing your bigoted logic in action is rather fascinating. First you say that you don't have ill will toward homosexuality, which is so transparently untrue that I needn't even disprove it. Then you say your judgement applies only to the "Gay Rights Movement" and their dispicable acts. You act as if you hold no prejudice, and then you paint an entire group of people as corrupt and evil. That's a new twist on an old song: "I don't hate homosexuality, just homosexuals". Then, to top this pile of illogic, you mention that sex is dangerous. Aside from the fact that it's only dangerous if one or both of those participating in the act is infected, it's completely irrelevant. Any logical person can see this, but it's revealing that you attempt to connect unsafe behavior with homosexual rights. Just to clarify once more: promiscuous anal sex has nothing to do with the marriage rights of monogamous homosexuals. Form actual points, and not hate-filled irrelevancies, if you please.
dk: Sorry, bigotry associates a particular political, cultural, or social movement with an individual on the basis of sex, ethnicity, race, etc... I oppose a particular political, cultural or social movement on the basis of their record, platform and policies, and that’s how democracy works. I know this is going to shock you Pain, but people that support The Gay Rights Movement call me bigot, homophobe, hate monger and worse when in reality I’m a fiscal liberal & social conservative.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by dk
I know this is going to shock you Pain, but people that support The Gay Rights Movement call me bigot, homophobe, hate monger and worse when in reality I’m a fiscal liberal & social conservative.

Six of one, half dozen etc. Social conservative and bigoted homophobe are the same thing.

[dk]

Originally posted by JGL53
A great increase in the number of transmittals from sharing needles would account for the difference. Lets not forget the HASR distinguishes(MSM) from (MSM and IDU), and doesn't track male bisexuals at all except as an incidence of exposure for heterosexual women. There's also 10 to 30% incidence of exposure "risk not identified" and some people lie on the surveys. This is one of my grips against the legal protections the courts granted the Gay Rights Movement, health officials have never been able to run down and verify the chain of incidence that spreads HIV/AIDs, even as the disease spreads to the next generation under the cloak of penumbra privacy rights.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by yguy
Gosh, I didn't know Randy Shilts was a homophobe.

(Fr Andrew): Why, I didn't know that, either! Is that another of your intuitive insights?

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by dk
dk--I oppose a particular political, cultural or social movement on the basis of their record, platform and policies, and that’s how democracy works.

(Fr Andrew): No, you interpret the record, platform and policies of a particular political, cultural or social movement so as to support your prejudices.
That's how bigotry works.
Give it a rest, dk--you're the guy who insists that smooth-armed men are effeminate and probably gay, remember?
No one takes you seriously.

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Six of one, half dozen etc. Social conservative and bigoted homophobe are the same thing. Many gays and lesbians are social conservative men and women that lead chaste lives. There have also been many public "outings" from the ranks of the ultraconservative. Clearly to call someone a bigot on the basis of their political position outs the true bigots. Oddly enough Herbert Marcuse wrote in Eros & Civilisation "a period when the omnipotent apparatus punishes real non-conformity with ridicule and defeat." In the 1960s Marcuse was a household name, and called the guru of the New Left. We have come full circle, and the New Left of the 1960s has become Marcuse's omnipotent apparatus.

[Godless Dave]

If social conservatism is the philosophy that society should proscribe certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults then it is bigoted. You need to provide a justification if you are going to restrict someone's behavior. People do not have to justify their right not to be restricted.

[dk]

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): No, you interpret the record, platform and policies of a particular political, cultural or social movement so as to support your prejudices.
That's how bigotry works.
Give it a rest, dk--you're the guy who insists that smooth-armed men are effeminate and probably gay, remember?
No one takes you seriously. My reference was to the late maturing smooth-armed boys just beginning to grow hair on their balls, when their peers are shaving. These boys are often teased by their peers as effeminate and often suffer a gender crisis. Corrupt Gay Mentors swoop down like birds of prey to exploit the crisis and claim their protégé.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by dk
My reference was to the late maturing smooth-armed boys just beginning to grow hair on their balls, when their peers are shaving. These boys are often teased by their peers as effeminate and often suffer a gender crisis. Corrupt Gay Mentors swoop down like birds of prey to exploit the crisis and claim their protégé.

(Fr Andrew): No, your reference was to the Biblical Jacob who had less hair on his arms than his brother Esau and was, therefore, in your strange mind, effeminate.
And you referred to him in order to articulate the inane notion that God favors effeminate men.
When I get home from work, I'll dig up the thread and we can review it, if you like.

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
If social conservatism is the philosophy that society should proscribe certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults then it is bigoted. You need to provide a justification if you are going to restrict someone's behavior. People do not have to justify their right not to be restricted. Social conservatism isn't a philosophy, but a political attitude. A social conservative may subscribe to Rand's Objectivism, neo-scholasticism, Leibniz's 'Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas', GK Chesterton's common sense etc...

I've justified myself and my politics on the intrinsic value of all human beings, and the threat The Gay Rights Movement presents to civilization. MDR microbes breed in the multi-drug saturated intestines of epidemical populations that practice promiscuous anonymous anal sex. Over the last 40 years society has "defined down deviancy" precisely because the level of deviance offends human sensibilities. Take a happy pill, don't worry your pretty little head Godless Dave.

[dk]

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): No, your reference was to the Biblical Jacob who had less hair on his arms than his brother Esau and was, therefore, in your strange mind, effeminate.
And you referred to him in order to articulate the inane notion that God favors effeminate men.
When I get home from work, I'll dig up the thread and we can review it, if you like. The Biblical Jacob was such a boy, his mother's favorite. As a teenager Jacob seldom left his mother's skirts. Esau was his Father's favorite, had physically matured young and loved the outdoors and the hunt. If Jacob had been raised in a public school today he would surely be apple in the eye of a corrupt Gay mentor. Dig it, Jacob as a teenager would have been introduced to gay culture, and that spells "a t r i s k" for "H I V". Do you see the problem I'm getting at. Gay mentors brought into Public Schools to support gay proteges transported HIV to the next generation. Can I prove it? No, because The Gay Rights Movement protects corrupt Gay Mentors with a cloak of penumbra privacy rights. Public Schools are themselves corrupt because they assume parentis loco of children. That raises some questions...
1) Why do we track an HIV+ 13 year old as an adult?
2) Why do public schools put thier students at risk?
3) Why do public schools protect the sexual preditors that infect students with HIV.

I repeat, the only way to stop HIV (an incurable deadly contagious disease) is with the next generation!!! Yet our youth have become disproportionately infected with HIV. What the hell is going on!!!!

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by dk
My reference was to the late maturing smooth-armed boys just beginning to grow hair on their balls, when their peers are shaving. These boys are often teased by their peers as effeminate and often suffer a gender crisis. Corrupt Gay Mentors swoop down like birds of prey to exploit the crisis and claim their protégé.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this wild assertion? What the hell is a Gay Mentor?

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Do you have any evidence at all to support this wild assertion? What the hell is a Gay Mentor? Yeh... HIV is the only contagious disease that tracks and databases 13 year olds with adult populations. In large metropolitian areas Kids exposed to MSM incidences from 13-19 are infected at an annual rate of 6%, at a higher rate for minorities. Who do you think exposes these kids to incidences of MSM? The tooth fairy.

[Godless Dave]

That's not at all conclusive. I'm asking for evidence that a significant number of adult gay HIV-positive men are seeking out relatively hairless teenage boys for sexual relations.

I would also like to see evidence that boys who develop body hair relatively late undergo a "gender crisis" because of teasing by other boys.

While you're at it, could you define "gender crisis"?

[Vylo]

Yet our youth have become disproportionately infected with HIV. What the hell is going on!!!!

Um, kids fuck too. There have been instances of 1st grade teachers having to break up children attempting to have sex. I am sure at least a few get it right and can end up transmitting the disease. It only takes 1 infected, horny child to make 1000 infected horny children. A disproportionate amount of children with AIDS does not mean they are being preyed upon massively by gay people. I am sure most gay people are just as opposed to pedophilia as straight people. Remember that children are muchy more likely to have unprotected sex, as they don't have easy access to contraceptives, and they are generally uneducated about diseases such as AIDS until they are in high school.


Yes, your mistake, indeed, and there's nothing wrong with my memory. I said the SEXUAL transmission of AIDS would ESSENTIALLY grind to a halt.

Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex

What about them? Women make up 50 % of infected people?

This is an study that I recall reading in a pharmacy magazine back in the mid-1980s. I certainly can't recall the reference, so I guess it means nothing.

Yeah basically if you can't even reference it and it is severly outdated.

As to your suspicion of my 'withholding data', what exacty are you implying? What would be my suspected motivation?

See your quote just above, I think you are trying to make homosexuals a scapegoat for the AIDS virus.

[Vylo]

Oh just one other thing, do either DK or JGL53 have any references? I've given mine (Merck Manual and the CDC). All I hear are baseless "facts" with no proof.

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
That's not at all conclusive. I'm asking for evidence that a significant number of adult gay HIV-positive men are seeking out relatively hairless teenage boys for sexual relations.

I would also like to see evidence that boys who develop body hair relatively late undergo a "gender crisis" because of teasing by other boys.

While you're at it, could you define "gender crisis"?

I'd like to see HIV+ kids tracked in a pediatric data base like every other contagious disease in the US. I'd like to see public health officials with the tools to do their job, instead of handing out surveys. I'd like to see the Gay Rights Movement step up to the plate and hit a home run, instead of playing both ends against the middle in a dangerous game of subterfuge, deceit and corruption. Lets be clear, the HIV pathology isn't going to change. In another 10-30 years there will be an historical accounting. If History shows the Gay Rights Movement consorted with malice to spread HIV to the new generation there will be hell to pay. Its already part of the historical record that many HIV+ gays celebrated HAART treatment by taking the gloves off. Even more substantive, if any of the HIV opportunistic infections becomes a super bug it could literally mean the end of civilization and a return to the Dark Ages. Clearly the Gay Rights Movement bets their future, our future and our progenies future on a vaccine and the epidemiological race against super bugs. I think the bet alone proves the Gay Rights Movement is pathological.

[dk]

dk: Yet our youth have become disproportionately infected with HIV. What the hell is going on!!!!
Vylo: Um, kids fuck too. There have been instances of 1st grade teachers having to break up children attempting to have sex. I am sure at least a few get it right and can end up transmitting the disease. It only takes 1 infected, horny child to make 1000 infected horny children. A disproportionate amount of children with AIDS does not mean they are being preyed upon massively by gay people. I am sure most gay people are just as opposed to pedophilia as straight people. Remember that children are muchy more likely to have unprotected sex, as they don't have easy access to contraceptives, and they are generally uneducated about diseases such as AIDS until they are in high school.
You’re in denial, but I still love you Vylo.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by dk
Do you see the problem I'm getting at.

(Fr Andrew): No...I see someone going to absurd lengths to defend an asinine and harmful prejudice.

[dk]

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): No...I see someone going to absurd lengths to defend an asinine and harmful prejudice. You haven't addressed the questions...

Why does the CDC track 13 year olds in the adult HIV/AIDS database?

Its a good question, why do they do that?

I started this thread and that is the topic of discussion. Nobody has even attempted to answer the question, including FrAndrew. Go for it, or you're wasting my time.

[Vylo]

Why does the CDC track 13 year olds in the adult HIV/AIDS database?


I do not see any distinct Adult HIV/AIDS database by the CDC, you have a link?

[Godless Dave]

Given the statistics you cited, dk, the only rational conclusion is that social conservatives are seeking out vulnerable teenage boys and sticking them with HIV-contaminated hypodermic needles.

[dk]

Originally posted by Vylo
I do not see any distinct Adult HIV/AIDS database by the CDC, you have a link? See HASRxxxx (HIV AIDS Surveillance Report). The CDC tracks HIV/AIDs in a data base. States Health Departments report to the CDC, local health officials report data to the State, and so forth and so on right down the line. Then the CDC runs querries and statistical analysis on the data base to create the surveillance reports.

In every other instance, I can find, the CDC, NIH, etc.. distinguishes between children and adults, so do medical schools, scientists, clinics and medical associations. Doctors can't treat a disease in a 13-17 year old the same as an adult. For example is a report on chlamydia, broken down
<=17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-29, >=30 years of age. I mention clamydia because the public health system didn't issue recommendation and track it before 1993.

For HIV/AIDS its 13 years old and up. Surely you can understand why this is a problem?

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Given the statistics you cited, dk, the only rational conclusion is that social conservatives are seeking out vulnerable teenage boys and sticking them with HIV-contaminated hypodermic needles.

I’m so glad you asked. Ok, the problem with the hypothesis follows.
In 1992, under Clinton's National HIV/AIDs Strategy placed Gay support groups (chomping at the bit) into Public Schools as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, education, and support programs. It took a few years to rump up.

In 1998 the CDC said…” During 1997, HIV prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 1.0% in the six adolescent medicine clinics, with no consistent geographic pattern of prevalence (Table 3). -HIV 1997 Summary (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/hivser97/summary.htm)

Then in 2001 the shit hit the fan when the CDC published, “In the seven cities, 3492 young MSM enrolled (range for the seven cities: 357--702 MSM) (8). The enrollment rate was 62% (range: 51%--75%). The prevalence of HIV infection was 7.2% (range: 2.2%--12.1%), increased with age, and was higher among blacks, Hispanics, and men of mixed race than among whites or Asians/Pacific Islanders (Figure 1). These findings and the high prevalence of unprotected anal sex during the preceding 6 months (41%; range: 33%--49%) suggested that HIV incidence was high among these young men.
snip...
Because there were no earlier incidence studies of MSM aged 15--22 years, it is unknown whether HIV transmission among very young MSM is increasing. HIV incidence was 2.5% among whites (95% CI=1.4%--4.6%), 3.5% among Hispanics (95% CI=1.4%--8.6%), and 14.7% among blacks (95% CI=7.9%--27.1%).
HIV Incidence Young MSM Seven U_S_ Cities 1994 2000 (C:\My Documents\HIV and AIDS Statistics summary (USA)_files\HIV Incidence Young MSM Seven U_S_ Cities 1994 2000.htm)

Go figure, but something very bad happened from 1997 and 2001, somehow somebody (PFLAG and strategic partners) transported HIV into the public schools. Truth stranger than fiction. I also find it odd that the CDC contradicted themselves.

In 1997 they said, "During 1997, HIV prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 1.0% in the six adolescent medicine clinics, with no consistent geographic pattern of prevalence (Table 3)"

But in 2001 say, "Because there were no earlier incidence studies of MSM aged 15--22 years, it is unknown whether HIV transmission among very young MSM is increasing. "

Another bureaucratic snafu I suppose.

[JGL53]

Originally posted by Vylo
... I think you are trying to make homosexuals a scapegoat for the AIDS virus.

No, that is incorrect. Sorry about the big misunderstanding. It is not about blame.

I am merely trying to make the point that promiscuous anal sex among gay men needs to cease if we as a nation are ever going to effectively contain AIDS. Whatever can be done to persuade them to avoid that behavior should be the health profession's number one priority in preventing the spread of AIDS. Getting free clean needles to addicts and doing whatever else we can to discourage needle sharing should be the second focus.

The political/cultural aspects of this discussion seem most important to you. Identifiying slurs against the gay community and countering them seems to be your big priority. Mine is stopping the spread of AIDS.

You seem to have me confused with dk. In fact, I suspect you confuse EVERYONE with dk who doesn't mouth the exact politically correct party line.

The health authorities aren't stupid - they know what the main causes of the continued spread are. My main point is that they need to quit catering to people like you, whose big priority is 'homophobia' and how to fight it, and start focusing on what will be the most effective methods of discouraging the spread of AIDS. Get over this 'blame game' mentality. I think the focus should be saving lives.

[dk]

Originally posted by JGL53
No, that is incorrect. Sorry about the big misunderstanding. It is not about blame. (snip)

You seem to have me confused with dk. In fact, I suspect you confuse EVERYONE with dk who doesn't mouth the exact politically correct party line.

The health authorities aren't stupid - they know what the main causes of the continued spread are. My main point is that they need to quit catering to people like you, whose big priority is 'homophobia' and how to fight it, and start focusing on what will be the most effective methods of discouraging the spread of AIDS. Get over this 'blame game' mentality. I think the focus should be saving lives. I agree, health authorities know exactly where an outbreak of HIV has occurred long before the infected individuals would test positive. All they need do is follow the outbreak of more virulent STDs like syphilis and gonorrhea. In the greater picture I have two concerns.
First, the window of vulnerability that puts kids age10-19 in harms way.
Second, The HIV pandemic in Africa and the US/Europe run on two different vectors. There are four possibilities, probably more,
different strains of HIV, one more virulent in heterosexuals
iatrogenic
cultural, I don’t think African’s are sexual Olympians evolved for promiscuity
genetic, immunity from the Plague. Some Europeans may be immune but the plague followed trade routes, and people that could beat feet into the country at the first hint of plague, so most survivors of the plague lived in the country.

So I agree health officials, for now, know what’s happening in the US/Europe, but I don’t think we have a clue about Africa. We probably disagree on the character of the Gay Rights Movement. I'm personally angry about the polarization and politics that imbue the HIV epidemic in US/Europe, so once I get into the blame game have trouble backing off.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
...something very bad happened from 1997 and 2001

The "something very bad" happened in 2003 with the inappropriate juxtapostion and misuse of statistics by dk.

Selectively and incompletely quoted from the CDC by dk:
In 1998 the CDC said…” During 1997, HIV prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 1.0% in the six adolescent medicine clinics, with no consistent geographic pattern of prevalence (Table 3). -HIV 1997 Summary

...now, here is it is again, this time without the exclusion of the part describing the population under study:

National patterns of HIV prevalence among youth are provided by the CDC unlinked adolescent surveys and the screening programs of Job Corps entrants and applicants for military service. [emphasis added] During 1997, HIV prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 1.0% in the six adolescent medicine clinics, with no consistent geographic pattern of prevalence (Table 3).

These stats were from a broad sampling of adolescents, not only gays.

dk then compares "apples to oranges" by contrasting these findings with a later sampling of only gay young men:

In the seven cities, 3492 young MSM [emphasis added] (not the broad category of adolescents used in the prior quote) enrolled...The prevalence of HIV infection was 7.2%

No valid conclusions about HIV rate increases can be drawn by comparing these two dissimilar study groups.

The 1997 data from the CDC does have seperate stats on just gays, but that was also excluded from dk's post. Here it is:

In STD clinics, prevalence rates were highest among the population of men who reported having sex with men. The median clinic prevalence rate in this population was 19.3%; rates among black men who have sex with men (MSM) were approximately twice that of white MSM. The median clinic prevalence rate was 4.8% among injection drug users (IDUs) attending STD clinics. Among heterosexuals attending STD clinics and reporting no other behavioral risk category, prevalence rates were higher for males than for females in nearly all metropolitan are

...which might suggest that HIV rates among gays in the 1997 study group were actually more than twice as high as the rates in the group from the 2001; completely the opposite of the conclusion forwarded by dk.

HIV rates did not really decrease during the period from 1997 to 2001, of course; the difference here, as before, is that the study populations in each group were too dissimilar to draw valid conclusions about changes in the rates of HIV infection. What this does show is that we need to be very careful when comparing data from one study to another, and we need to be especially careful when such comparisons are provided by dk.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by dk
You haven't addressed the questions...

(Fr Andrew): I haven't tried to. I was illustrating why no one takes you seriously.

Questions from those convinced that the amount of hair on someone's arms is an accurate barometer of their "maleness", and who believe that there exists in the gay community a conspiracy to infect children with AIDS, are not worth considering.
I love you, too, dk.

[Vylo]

I started re-reading the thread as throughout the discussion, I seem to now be a bit confused about what the point of it was in the first place.

You seem to have me confused with dk.

I believe I have.



That would be the first time anyone has ever implied that I am politically correct
:p .


So now, let me try to address you JGL35.

[quote] 1) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and HIV
2) there is no necessary connection between anal sex and homosexuality

One does not have to be anti-gay in any way to recognise these statements are blatant falsehoods.


1. It may be a miscorelation, and that gay men simply neglect to use protection during anal sex more then straight men neglect to use protection with their partners, but there is definetly a connection between anal sex and HIV/AIDS, based upon the data I have seen and that others have presented. Half the current cases of HIV have resulted from male homosexual sex.

2. I seriously doubt gay people would push to have sodomy laws struck down if they never planned to engage in it. So yes JGL I have to agree with you here as well.

Gay males still account for the majority of transmissions of AIDS in the U.S. If they stopped engaging in promiscuous anal sex, this transmission would essentially stop. It's that simple.


It may slow it down, but it will not stop, not even close. Not until all sources of HIV have been stifled will we come close to ending the epidemic.

However, it is a (politically incorrect) fact that promiscuous anal sex among MANY gay men is the source of the AIDS epidemic in this country.

Is a MAJOR source or the MAJOR source would have been more correct, and you to rephrase that here:
I repeat, it is a no-brainer that anal sex, engaged in promiscuosly, was and is THE major source of AIDS transmission in this country.

AIDS transmission does happen through the other sexual activities mentioned, to some minor extent. But I think we are well advised to focus on the major cause of the epidemic if we wish as a nation to control or reduce it.

Clear enough?

I suppose I can agree that we need to give this more attention. As you have stated (or at minimum implied), we do not have to be against gays to try and get them to have safe sex.

Why not education that focusing on promiscuous anal sex among gay males - the over-whelming cause of the sexual transmission of the disease in the U.S.?

Good idea.


I really got twisted around there, I read DKs earlier posts and thought they were yours, sorry about that man. You just missused same bad data, and had some bad wording. But your ideas are good, especially in respect to increasing education.

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by dk
I can’t find bigot-land on the map, and that implies a child like intellect.

Actually, failing to grasp such obvious facetiousness has much stronger implications about your intellect. I'll explain, since understanding the concepts involved might be difficult for you: you are transparently bigoted against homosexuals, and this causes you to view reality in such a biased and irrational way that you essentially live in a fantasy world. I hope that clarifies things for you. I hope you didn't look too hard on that map of yours.

As for your "evidence" it fails to prove anything whatsoever, least of all your delusions of a homosexual conspiracy. Your paranoid fantasies of predatory homosexuals forcing themselves on hairless teenagers are (as well as your other conspiracy theories), more than just being completely unsupported by fact, amusingly insane. If only you'd been indoctrinated with just a slightly different bigotry you could be telling us about the Zionist conspiracy, and the predatory and avaricious Jew, who preys on the poor in order to line his pockets. It would only be slightly more unusual, and certainly no more ridiculous.

[Diadectes]

QUOTE]Many gays and lesbians are social conservative men and women that lead chaste lives. [/QUOTE]

Socially conservative homosexuals are pure, modest and virtuous, while the rest of us are rampantly promiscuous? Oh, please! :rolleyes: And I thought you wanted us to believe you had a grasp on the reality of the situation.

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
If social conservatism is the philosophy that society should proscribe certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults then it is bigoted. You need to provide a justification if you are going to restrict someone's behavior. People do not have to justify their right not to be restricted. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but we live in a free democracy conceived in liberty and dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal. What government should do about Gay Rights isn't prescribed by conservatives or liberals, but principles, law and tradition. Many that support Gay Rights seem to believe they alone can access the great "omnipotent apparatus". That's a brand of hypocrisy and conformity US principles, law and traditions find unconstitutional, contemptible and uncivil. I am flabbergasted by the narrow egotistical responses I’ve received on this thread.

[dk]

Originally posted by Pain Paien
Actually, failing to grasp such obvious facetiousness has much stronger implications about your intellect. I'll explain, since understanding the concepts involved might be difficult for you: you are transparently bigoted against homosexuals, and this causes you to view reality in such a biased and irrational way that you essentially live in a fantasy world. I hope that clarifies things for you. I hope you didn't look too hard on that map of yours.
Really, the substance of this response is, "I'm made out of rubber, you're made out of glue… follow by an ad hominem attack. ". This is a great example of a child like intellectual.
Originally posted by Pain Paien
As for your "evidence" it fails to prove anything whatsoever, least of all your delusions of a homosexual conspiracy.
So it's your opinion dk runs the CDC, NIH, AIDs research, etc... And you call me delusional. You need to address the issue, for example, please explain why so many HIV+ gay men openly celebrated HAART treatments riding bareback. Sure sounds pathological.
Originally posted by Pain Paien
Your paranoid fantasies of predatory homosexuals forcing themselves on hairless teenagers are (as well as your other conspiracy theories), more than just being completely unsupported by fact, amusingly insane.
Good point, please explain what happened between 1997 and 2000...
In 1997 the CDC estimates adolescent HIV prevelance between 0.0% and 1.0% with no geographic pattern.
In 2001 the CDC puts HIV+ prevalence at 6% for gay adolescents generally, and higher for minority gay adolescents.
Surely you must understand the epidemiological implications!!!
Originally posted by Pain Paien
If only you'd been indoctrinated with just a slightly different bigotry you could be telling us about the Zionist conspiracy, and the predatory and avaricious Jew, who preys on the poor in order to line his pockets. It would only be slightly more unusual, and certainly no more ridiculous.
Is that how the Gays Rights Movement's “omnipotent apparatus” dispels doubt amongst its budding legions, by attacking Jews?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
In fact [gays] are in the business of infecting a whole new generation or protégés through the public schools system as we speak, obtaining intimate access to children with gay marriage...I personally see no merit in anal sex...my judgment and comments regard the deceptive tactics, psychopathic history, prurient culture, corruption and subterfuge the Gay Right Movement employs to their own demise...We have come full circle, and the New Left of the 1960s has become Marcuse's omnipotent apparatus...I've justified myself and my politics on the intrinsic value of all human beings and the threat The Gay Rights Movement presents to civilization...

"That's a brand of hypocrisy and conformity [that] US principles, law and traditions find unconstitutional, contemptible and uncivil."

...please explain what happened between 1997 and 2000...
In 1997 the CDC estimates adolescent HIV prevelance between 0.0% and 1.0% with no geographic pattern.
In 2001 the CDC puts HIV+ prevalence at 6% for gay adolescents generally, and higher for minority gay adolescents.
Surely you must understand the epidemiological implications!!!

"I am flabbergasted" by the statistical misrepresentations and hypocritical denounciations dk has posted on this thread

[JamesKrieger]

Originally posted by dk

Good point, please explain what happened between 1997 and 2000...
In 1997 the CDC estimates adolescent HIV prevelance between 0.0% and 1.0% with no geographic pattern.
In 2001 the CDC puts HIV+ prevalence at 6% for gay adolescents generally, and higher for minority gay adolescents.
Surely you must understand the epidemiological implications!!!


Ever heard of the logical fallacies, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and non causa pro causa?????

You have repeatedly committed them in this thread.

[dk]

dk: ...something very bad happened from 1997 and 2001
Dr Rick: The "something very bad" happened in 2003 with the inappropriate juxtapostion and misuse of statistics by dk.
dk: Ok, lets suppose adolescent gay protégés in 1997 were part of the ongoing epidemic, so it only appeared something bad happened between 1997 and 2000. Assuming this we have a second hypothesis.. The CDC, NIH, State Health Officials and epidemiologists just forgot to test these kids so don’t know how they got infected. This hypothesis is more cynical and paranoid than the one I previously gave. Surely our health officials know the only way to stop a deadly incurable epidemic requires they stop the spread between successive generations. What are the implications of the second hypothesis… Well instead of damning the “Gay Rights Movement” for the politicalation of an epidemic (through the courts, media and education), now we’ve indicted our entire health care system as inept bureaucratic lackeys. You haven’t answered any question, but opened up a Pandora’s box of “OH Shit”.

Dr Rick: Selectively and incompletely quoted from the CDC by dk:
In 1998 the CDC said…” During 1997, HIV prevalence ranged from 0.0% to 1.0% in the six adolescent medicine clinics, with no consistent geographic pattern of prevalence (Table 3). -HIV 1997 Summary (snip)
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about, I provided the URL.

Dr Rick: In the seven cities, 3492 young MSM [emphasis added] (not the broad category of adolescents used in the prior quote) enrolled...The prevalence of HIV infection was 7.2%
dk: Its all they got Dr. Rick, so it must be sufficient otherwise our whole health care system that spends about 4 trillion a year is run by inept lackeys. Pick your poison. If in 1997, 16 years into the epidemic, the CDC, NIH, WHO, Florida, NY, and CA didn’t know the epidemical demographics of HIV/AIDs then they are inept, incompetent and corrupt lackeys. There’s no other possible conclusion in any possible world that can be imagined. You’re conjecture has no substance.

(snip) more meaningless tripe.

[dk]

Originally posted by JamesKrieger
Ever heard of the logical fallacies, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and non causa pro causa?????

You have repeatedly committed them in this thread.


I don't follow.

If
in 1997 there was no prevelance, and no pattern of HIV seropositive adolescent populations, and
then
in 2000 6% of MSM participating adolescent populations show a pattern of 6% / year seropositive.

Something certainly happened that was very bad. The only other possbility is that adolescents had been part of the HIV epedemic all along, and the CDC, NIH, WHO, US states, cities all forgot to test kids, but instead hid the possibility to make people feel good. Do you feel good now?

[JamesKrieger]

Originally posted by dk
I don't follow.


You are quoting stats from 1997, and then from 2001, and then assuming what the cause is. This is the fallacy of non causa pro causa.

For example, I could point out that there is a disproportionately high number of African-Americans in jail, compared to the proportion of African-Americans in the general population. However, this does not mean that being African-American causes people to go to jail.

You have provided no evidence of any sort of causal relationships between anything that you have discussed in this thread.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
I have no idea what you’re talking about...
Right, and that's because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[dk]

Originally posted by JamesKrieger
You are quoting stats from 1997, and then from 2001, and then assuming what the cause is. This is the fallacy of non causa pro causa.

For example, I could point out that there is a disproportionately high number of African-Americans in jail, compared to the proportion of African-Americans in the general population. However, this does not mean that being African-American causes people to go to jail.

You have provided no evidence of any sort of causal relationships between anything that you have discussed in this thread.

Assume... in 1997 the CDC publishes there's no pattern or prevelance of HIV in adolescent populations. IN 2000 THEY SAY 6%/year seropositive in MSM adolescents. Now there are only two choices...

1) 16 years into the worst most deadly epedemic since the Middle Ages the CDC, NIH.... are clueless.
2) Something very bad happened between 1997 and 2000.

You pick... and explain it.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
"That's a brand of hypocrisy and conformity [that] US principles, law and traditions find unconstitutional, contemptible and uncivil."

"I am flabbergasted" by the statistical misrepresentations and hypocritical denounciations dk has posted on this thread I love you Dr.Rick

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by JamesKrieger
You are quoting stats from 1997, and then from 2001, and then assuming what the cause is. This is the fallacy of non causa pro causa.

It's worse than that, James; he's quoting statistics from two different population groups to draw statistically invalid conclusions.

His inferences are akin to comparing death rates from church van accidents amongst all adolescents from one year with church van deaths amongst only church van riders in another year. The later will be much higher because the former is diluted by the vast majority of people that never ride in church vans.

No valid inference can be drawn about the rate of rise in church van deaths by comparing the number of adolescents that die in church van accidents as a percentage of all adolescents to the death rate in only church van riders, but that is essentially what dk is trying to get the rest of us to do.

more nonsense from dk:
Assume...

Assume nothing when the subject is something that you don't understand, otherwise you'll continue to make more dumb errors like this one:

...in 1997 the CDC publishes there's no pattern or prevelance of HIV in adolescent populations. IN 2000 THEY SAY 6%/year seropositive in MSM adolescents. Now there are only two choices...

1) 16 years into the worst most deadly epedemic since the Middle Ages the CDC, NIH.... are clueless.
2) Something happened between 1997 and 2000.

You pick... and explain it.

False dichotomy; you've compared two unrelated groups and provided two irrational conclusions to choose from, neither of which is right or supported by the data you've presented

The correct answer is that the 1997 data you are selectively quoting was an attempt to estimate the HIV infection rate among all adolescents, whereas the 2001 data you are comparing it to is HIV rates among a group that includes only young gay men, many of whom aren't even adolescents.

Here are the real facts about how the statistical data collected by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302/commentary.htm) has changed:

"At the end of 2001, an estimated total of 362,827 persons in the United States were living with AIDS (Table 28). Since the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) became widespread during 1996, trends in AIDS incidence have become less reflective of underlying trends in HIV transmission. However, because HIV surveillance data have not been available nationwide, AIDS surveillance data have been and continue to be used for formula-based distribution of federal funds for prevention and care. An Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee is assessing the adequacy and reliability of HIV surveillance data for use as the basis for distributing Ryan White CARE Act funding. For more information on the progress of the IOM committee or to provide feedback to the committee"

One of the reasons that HIV prevalence rates in the US are increasing is because a smaller percentage of people infected with HIV are dying each year now compared to ten years ago. However, "the estimated number of annual new HIV infections in the United States has remained at 40,000 for over 10 years" ( MMWR July 18, 2003 / 52(RR12);1-24)

If any rational, non-paranoid, non-homophobe reading this still doesn't see the error in dk's misguided analysis, I'll be happy to address the issue further.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally posted by dk
Assume... in 1997 the CDC publishes there's no pattern or prevelance of HIV in adolescent populations. IN 2000 THEY SAY 6%/year seropositive in MSM adolescents. Now there are only two choices...

1) 16 years into the worst most deadly epedemic since the Middle Ages the CDC, NIH.... are clueless.
2) Something very bad happened between 1997 and 2000.

You pick... and explain it.

First, you have completely misquoted the statistics, as Dr. Rick pointed out. You are comparing statistics of two completely different samples, drawn in different ways from two different populations that were never intended to be compared. Take a basic course in statistics and you'll find out why you commit a serious error here.

What you are doing would be no different from if I did the following. In 1997, I take a random sample of 1000 people (not just gay men) from the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and find an HIV rate of 0.1 to 1.0%. Then, in 2000 (a completely different year), I take a random sample of 2000 gay men from the states of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and find an HIV rate of 6.0%. Then, I go and claim that the HIV rate in gay men has skyrocketed by saying the HIV rate in men in general is 1%, but, now, a few years later, is 6% in gay men. However, I can't compare the two because they use different samples and sampling methods, were sampled at different times, and are drawing from completely different populations.

My claim in the previous paragraph is complete bull, because I have manipulated the statistics and not completely reported them. And this is exactly what you have done. Basically, you have manipulated and incompletely reported the statistics to support your preconceived conclusion.

Even if your statistics were true, you have provided no evidence of what you ASSUME to be the causal relationship...that gay mentors are recruiting gay adolescents and passing the disease onto them. You have provided NO evidence that such an occurrence is even happening. It is a wild, ad hoc explanation for your bogus statistics. Your explanation would be no different from if I did the following to explain my above statistics:

Gay men love hot male bodies. Since the weather is nice in the Southern States, there are a lot of scantily clad men there. Gay men are flocking down there to recruit others into their protege' and encouraging unprotected anal sex. Hence, the HIV rate has exploded.

First, I manipulated and incompletely reported the statistics to make it look like the HIV rate in gay men has skyrocketed. Then, I completely made up an explanation for these bogus statistics, with absolutely no evidence to support this explanation. And this is exactly what you have done. You have created an ad hoc explanation for bogus statistics to support your preconceived bigotry.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It's worse than that, James; he's quoting statistics from two different population groups to draw statistically invalid conclusions.

Really, so so the Summary Report for 1997 doesn't include MSM adolescents?

(snip) more tripe

Originally posted by Dr Rick
No valid inference can be drawn about the rate of rise in church van deaths by comparing the number of adolescents that die in church van accidents as a percentage of all adolescents to the death rate in only church van riders, but that is essentially what dk is trying to get the rest of us to do.

The "National HIV Prevalence Surveys - 1997 Summary Summary of Findings covers everyone in the US.

In 1997 Summary Reported no pattern or prevelance.
In 2001 they found 6%/year seropositive in MSM populations.

Seems two me the two populations necessarily intersect. Unless the young men sampled from ..."194 venues in Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New York, New York; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington" aren't located in the US.


Originally posted by Dr Rick
The correct answer is that the 1997 data you are selectively quoting was an attempt to estimate the HIV infection rate among all adolescents, whereas the 2001 data you are comparing it to is HIV rates among a group that includes only young gay men, many of whom aren't even adolescents.

I guess the 1997 summary report didn't include adolescent MSM from Baltimore, Dallas, NYC, LA, SF, Seatle and Miami. If it had, they couldn't have possibly said, no prevelance or pattern of HIV.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Here are the real facts about how the statistical data collected by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302/commentary.htm) has changed:

"At the end of 2001, an estimated total of 362,827 persons in the United States were living with AIDS (Table 28). Since the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) became widespread during 1996, trends in AIDS incidence have become less reflective of underlying trends in HIV transmission. However, because HIV surveillance data have not been available nationwide, AIDS surveillance data have been and continue to be used for formula-based distribution of federal funds for prevention and care. An Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee is assessing the adequacy and reliability of HIV surveillance data for use as the basis for distributing Ryan White CARE Act funding. For more information on the progress of the IOM committee or to provide feedback to the committee"

Yeh, those stats are the real deal, do you know what "have become less reflective" means.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
One of the reasons that HIV prevalence rates in the US are increasing is because a smaller percentage of people infected with HIV are dying each year now compared to ten years ago. However, "the estimated number of annual new HIV infections in the United States has remained at 40,000 for over 10 years" ( MMWR July 18, 2003 / 52(RR12);1-24)

If any rational, non-paranoid, non-homophobe reading this still doesn't see the error in dk's misguided analysis, I'll be happy to address the issue further. [/B]

Do you know what...
"the estimated number" means?

In fact only 34 states in 2001 comply with CDC HIV Surrveillance which makes the number "subject to change". By the way 40,000/year is hardly a success story, and doesn't even hint at the rate of increase which we can only hope isn't expodential. The 6%/year rate for adolescent MSM translates to a 50% seropositive status by age 30. You're digging yourself a hole buddy. I love you.

[dk]

Originally posted by JamesKrieger
First, you have completely misquoted the statistics, as Dr. Rick pointed out. You are comparing statistics of two completely different samples, drawn in different ways from two different populations that were never intended to be compared. Take a basic course in statistics and you'll find out why you commit a serious error here.

No, Rick errantly brought up HASR, which, by the way, NY and CA only comply in part (not at all for HIV). I quoted from...

1) National HIV Prevalence Surveys - 1997 Summary Summary of Findings
and
2) HIV Incidence Young MSM Seven U_S_ Cities 1994 2000

Clearly the Prevalence Survey taken across the US, and the seven cities study done from 1994-2000 intersected 100%. Rick is the one who made a mistake, but I still love him.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally posted by dk
No, Rick errantly brought up HASR, which, by the way, NY and CA only comply in part (not at all for HIV). I quoted from...

1) National HIV Prevalence Surveys - 1997 Summary Summary of Findings
and
2) HIV Incidence Young MSM Seven U_S_ Cities 1994 2000

Clearly the Prevalence Survey taken across the US, and the seven cities study done from 1994-2000 intersected 100%. Rick is the one who made a mistake, but I still love him.

No, you are the one who has still made the mistake. Please go take a course on basic statistics.

Whether the National Prevalence Survey included MSM adults is irrelevant. You are comparing a rate from 1997, across the entire nation, to a rate, in a completely different year, in metropolitan areas only. The two populations are completely different, and thus the comparison is invalid. Remember that the rate across the nation includes rural as well as metropolitan areas. It is unfair to compare a rate in metropolitan areas only, to a rate that includes both areas.

This is not the only problem with your use of statistics. Let's say, for a moment, that your stats are drawn from comparable populations (which they aren't). You still would need to show that the change in percentages is statistically significant. When dealing with random samples, you can see variation in proportions due to random chance. You would need to carry out a statistical procedure, such as a t-test, to see if the change is not due to chance caused by the variation due to random sampling.

For example, let's say I take a sample of 100 individuals from a population of 1000 individuals, and find that 10% of those 100 individuals (10 individuals) have HIV. However, this does not mean that the rate for the entire population is exactly 10%.. There will be some error in estimating the true proportion of the population from the random sample. For example, the true percentage of the population may be 13%.

I take another random sample of 100 at a later time period, and find that 12% of them have HIV. However, this 2% increase may not be an increase at all, but rather, a variation due to random chance. The true percentage of the population may still be 13%. Thus, it looks like the percentage increased in my sample, but in reality, there was no increase in the overall population. It was just due to random sampling variation.

Statistical procedures, like t-tests, are done to determine if differences are due to true differences in populations, or just random variation. You have provided no evidence of statistical significance of the changes, making your quoted stats even more bogus.

[Pain Paien]

Originally posted by dk
Really, the substance of this response is, "I'm made out of rubber, you're made out of glue… follow by an ad hominem attack. ". This is a great example of a child like intellectual.

So you choose to prove your own intellectual maturity by reciprocating this so-called "childishness". If you feel you are above flippant remarks, you are free to ignore them in the future, rather than responding in kind and pretending you took the high road.

So it's your opinion dk runs the CDC, NIH, AIDs research, etc... And you call me delusional.

You've provided no compelling research, so I would have no motivation to make such an accusation, even if I were so biased. In response to that last remark, I'll just note your use of the third person without comment.

You need to address the issue, for example, please explain why so many HIV+ gay men openly celebrated HAART treatments riding bareback. Sure sounds pathological.

I'll address it if you provide evidence for the fact that it was "so many" HIV+ gay men. People behaving stupidly in celebration is not pathological, just unfortunate. If someone got drunk in celebration of a bit of good news and crashed their car into a schoolbus it wouldn't be pathological, just foolish and irresponsible. The same applies here.

Good point, please explain what happened between 1997 and 2000...

In 1997 the CDC estimates adolescent HIV prevelance between 0.0% and 1.0% with no geographic pattern.

In 2001 the CDC puts HIV+ prevalence at 6% for gay adolescents generally, and higher for minority gay adolescents.

There are any number of possibilities, least likely of which is your completely unfounded assumption of "gay mentors". Perhaps the first children who were infected by their mothers became sexually active. Perhaps drug-using sexually active teens became infected through needle-sharing and spread the disease to sexual partners. Either of those two possibilities has more merit than your baseless belief in a stereotypical "homosexual predator". Just because homophobes have been portraying homosexuals as perverts and sexual predators for years doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Surely you must understand the epidemiological implications!!!

I understand the reason you propose such ludicrous stereotypes as the cause, and it has nothing to do with any data.


Is that how the Gays Rights Movement's “omnipotent apparatus” dispels doubt amongst its budding legions, by attacking Jews?

In