Posted on 05/03/2005 6:39:30 AM PDT by A. Pole
notice how 15 to 24 is a category.
They should have UNDER 18 vs OVER 18.
I think the inclusion of 15 year olds with adults is a means of disguising stautory or juvenile sexual delinquency cases.
I think this your post deserves its own thread.
Perhaps entitled "ZERO TEENAGE AIDS CASES REPORTED SO CDC CHANGES REPORTING RULES."
Interesting, by maximizing the false positives the aids industry can push the BS of "living with aids".
I wonder how many totally healthy people are killiing themselves with aids drugs.
Thank you.
I may take up your suggestion and post this as a thread.
Warmest regards,
David
You are pretty quick to challenge and call something absurd that you have not done the least bit of research on. I say that becuase if you just make one call to the CDC hotline they will tell you the same thing. You think I'm just on here making things up?
I'll even give you the telephone numbers. (800) 227-8922 or (800) 342-2437. Report back with your findings.
Again, let me know what you find out.
Again I challenge you to provide one creadible reference.
Again I say this is utter nonsense.
I have been an 'AIDS' researcher for twenty years and so can speak with a degree of knowledge.
CAN I GET AIDS FROM KISSING?
No. Actually, AIDS is hard to catch. In order to pick up the virus from someone, you have to have their BLOOD, SEMEN or VAGINAL FLUID come in contact with your BLOOD. Unless you’re doing some pretty weird kissing, this isn’t going to happen. So kissing is safe.
http://www.secondchanceinc.com/AIDSpamphlet.html
You cannot get HIV or AIDS from kissing
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile08m.pdf
You cannot get HIV or AIDS from kissing
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile08m.stm
You cannot get AIDS from kissing
http://www.friscogirls.com/info/aids.htm
Holmberg said none of the country's more than 500,000 reported AIDS cases have been attributed to exposure to saliva, which usually inhibits HIV's ability to infect. In this case, blood in the saliva apparently carried the AIDS virus.
"We have not observed any instances of HIV transmission through regular kissing," Holmberg said.
Reuters NewMedia, Inc. - Thursday July 10 5:48 PM EDT
There has only ever been one suspected case and that remain completely unproven. One suspected (but completely unproven) case in the entire World in twenty one years is hardly proof.
The one suspected case you are talking about is like the Super Virus scare of a few weeks ago.
After the story made World headlines it soon turned out to be without foundation.
Just another attempt to scare the public and profit from it.
UNITED STATES:
"AIDS Alert Draws Criticism"
Newsday (02.13.05)::Kathleen Kerr
On Saturday, New York health officials were criticized as having acted too hastily in alerting the public that an antiretroviral-naive city resident recently contracted HIV resistant to three ARV drug classes and quickly progressed to AIDS.
Just one case "was not enough to warrant a public health alert," said Dr. Robert Gallo, a leading virologist at University of Maryland. "It's irresponsible and outrageous. We've already heard past claims about superviruses that all turn out to be nonsense. From the science, I would say the probability is very high that you won't see this virus again," he said. Gallo noted that other HIV patients have quickly developed AIDS before responding to treatment and said that officials should have waited to see if a cluster of cases similar to the man's developed.
Asked whether the city overreacted, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "We have first and foremost a responsibility to educate the public as to what they can do to save their lives."
Gallo's remarks are "a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of public health," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, commissioner of New York's health department. "This has occurred in a man who was using crystal [methamphetamine] and probably got it from somebody he had sex with." Since the infected man had unprotected sex with numerous partners, Frieden said the city could not wait to see if a cluster emerged.
_______
The man behind the NY Super virus scare
Ho, meanwhile, was coming under heavy criticism."When I first heard this, I said, Holy shit‹there is no evidence, says Dr. Robert Gallo, an eminent virologist. "Clearly, conclusively, scientifically, it was inappropriate to make that statement."
Gallo and other leading figures in the field including Dr. Tony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases believe the new case report, while unfortunate for the patient, is likely a statistically predictable outlier.
Unfortunately, according to data generated by Ho's institute, drug-resistant HIV is now commonplace: Nearly 30 percent of newly diagnosed HIV cases are resistant to at least one AIDS drug, and 11 percent are resistant to drugs in two or more drug classes.
In much of the criticism, there was an undercurrent of resentment toward Ho. Many saw the announcement as grandstanding. Michael Petrelis, an AIDS activist and blogger from San Francisco, fanned the flames with revelations about Ho's links to Frieden (who sits on the Aaron Diamond Board of Directors) and the San Francisco laboratory that does the resistance testing, ViroLogic (as a scientific adviser, he receives a stipend and stock options).
The lesson being: - Don't trust a Ho.
1). Is an exchange of blood a transmission route for HIV?
2). If blood is contained in the saliva of an HIV infected person, is the exchange of that saliva and that blood through kissing a transmission route?
If you say no, then you are in disagreement with everyone at the CDC I have talked to. Who am I supposed to believe?
Again, did you call the CDC? I gave you the number. It would take you all of 1 minute to get the answer from them, a whole lot less time that it took for you to post the links to the articles you put up.
I'll be happy to be proved wrong. I'm not trying to pass along false information here. But you apparently will not even make a simple 1 minute phone call in support of your position.
No. Actually, AIDS is hard to catch. In order to pick up the virus from someone, you have to have their BLOOD, SEMEN or VAGINAL FLUID come in contact with your BLOOD. Unless you’re doing some pretty weird kissing, this isn’t going to happen. So kissing is safe.
What does this say? It says that yes you can get AIDS from kissing if there is an exchange of blood. The article calls it "weird" kissing without going into what that might be, but it still confirms that AIDS can be spread by kissing.
The second article you put up directly contridicts the information from the CDC. Who is correct?
You cannot get HIV or AIDS from kissing. Deep kissing or "French kissing" is safe.
Again, in direct contradiction to what the CDC says.
"If you have cuts inside your mouth, DO NOT have oral sex with anyone."
The emphasis is in the original citation, I did not capitalize "DO NOT" for emphasis, your source did.
Do you suppose that if someone has cuts in their mouth that not only should they not have oral sex but that they should also not kiss?
More to the point, you are being dangerous with the information you are posting. Please, you need to talk to the CDC before you go about spreading any more misinformation. What you are telling people could likely result in their death sentence. You are flat out wrong.
Dear Jung,
That is a good question. I have been researching 'AIDS' for almost twenty years now and have found you can find someone who says just anything you want to hear about 'AIDS'.
You must understand 'AIDS' is now estimated to be a 300 billion dollar business (all aspects combined).
Every new scare makes millions more for someone.
I cannot tell you what is the truth but just suggest you examine the facts from every perspective for yourself and make up your own mind.
Let me give you one example. We are told that 'AIDS' is wiping out the population of Africa. I did not simply accept this but checked the population figures for each country for myself.
What I found is that most of them had population growths three times HIGHER than America. In addition the mortality rate from non natural causes in South Africa was EXACTLY the same as before 'AIDS'.
It takes a lot of work but if you are willing to do it you will find (in my opinion) that what you are being told is without foundation.
I apologize for being rude in my original reply and hope you will accept it.
Warmest regards,
David
Dear Jung,
May I suggest the misinformation being spread is that coming from the CDC.
They claim that HIV has been isolated. It has not.
They claimed that condoms were 99.99% protection - They have now retracted that statement.
They claimed that most new cases were in teenager. Their very own figures expose that lie (see above).
They claimed that 'AIDS' would reach 20 million by the year 2000. The actual figure was 300,000 LOWER than the figure when they made that statement (1M).
You ask me to trust a body that has lied and lied and lied.
Would you?
A 7-year-old? Do you want the teacher to explain fisting and threesomes?
No worries on that score. No need to apologize. All in the spirit of debate and getting at the correct answer. As it should be on FR. Best Regards, BJN
HIV is thought to cause immunodeficiency by killing T-cells, but paradoxically only after the virus has been neutralized by antiviral immunity, and only on average 10 years after infection (Institute of Medicine, 1988; Duesberg, 1992a; Weiss, 1993).
However, HIV, like all other retroviruses, does not kill T-cells or any other cells in vitro; in fact, it is mass-produced for the HIV antibody test in immortal T-cell lines (Duesberg, 1992a). Moreover, the basis for the 10-year latent period of the virus, which has a generation time of only 24-48 h, is entirely unknown (Duesberg, 1992a; Weiss, 1993; Fields, 1994). It is particularly paradoxical that the loss of T-cells in hemophiliacs over time does not correspond to viral activity and abundance.
No T-cells are lost prior to antiviral immunity, when the virus is most active (Duesberg, 1993a; Piatak et al., 1993). Instead, most T-cells are lost when the virus is least active or latent in hemophiliacs (Phillips et al., 1994a) and other risk groups (Duesberg, 1992a; 1993a, 1994; Piatak et al., 1993; Sheppard, Ascher & Krowka, 1993), namely after it is neutralized by antiviral immunity (a positive HIV-antibody test).
Indeed, there are healthy, HIV-antibody positive persons in which 33 to 43 times more cells are infected by latent HIV than in AIDS patients (Simmonds et al., 1990; Bagasra et al., 1992; Duesberg, 1994). Even Gallo, who claims credit for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis (Gallo etal., 1984), has recently acknowledged: "I think that if HIV is not being expressed and not reforming virus and replicating, the virus is a dud, and won't be causing the disease ... nobody is saying that indirect control of the virus is not important ...." (Jones, 1994).
"No need to apologize."
I thank you but debate does not justify rudeness.
It has been a pleasure talking with you and hope to do so again in the near future.
Very warmest regards,
David
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.