Posted on 06/03/2005 11:18:37 AM PDT by FormerLib
I've read a few articles along those lines but there's just too much of a correlation between HIV and AIDS for me to buy into that theory.
And that's not what the article claims either as Tulane would try to pretend.
Why are you wasting your time with this lemming moonbat?
But HIV was (still is if you have unprotected sex) a major risk to all, especially in the 1980s before blood banks were tested.
Take a look at the suggestion that he was referencing and tell me that a Christian wrote it.
Actually, that's a excellent point!
I made my points as comprehensively as I could, and I stick by them (as do most scientists). As for 'agenda-driven' science, well ....what would you call the article? Again, the only difference between this article and the others is that the people in it have REAL (for a change) scientific credentials and are not delving into water-dousing. Which is refreshing, even though they are a very small minority in the scientific realm (especially when you take out the kooks and politicians). As for 'ageng-driven science' just remember that 'agenda-driven' goes both ways and cuts both ways. I'm not saying the article is agenda-driven, but at the same time i am not saying it is not! It does quack like a duck though, particularly when the guy starts 'guessing' and making up statistics. But hey, he could just be overly passionate and exuberant.
Anyways let me add this. In the West the viral spread has a different dispersal and nature than in the 3rd world. And here it has a storng link to homosexuality (and most of the infected either have a direct or indirect link to either gay partners, 'hetero' partners that have gay linkages somewhere down the line, or intravenously delivered drugs). Even the demarcation of infection shows a difference (eg in Africa there are more women infected than men; but in the US the rate of male infections to female infections is 3:1, primarily due to gay male epicenters). The focal epicenters are very different.
Anyways believe as you will, and I will as I do. I do know, having spent 18 of my years in Afric, that things like homosexual sex are anathema. I also know of studies (some lasting 10 yrs) on HIV spread (and anal sex was actually studied, with it being found in tourist areas between mostly European tourists and gay prostitutes). The vast majority of infections were due to stupid heterosexual contact. Infected needles were found to comprise a small percentage of infection (around 2.5-3%) in the last decade. Gay sex, while a bane in the west, is simply not sizeable to even account for a fraction's fraction of the sheer number of cases running rampant.
Anyways, have a great day and God bless.
My problem with the article is the labeling of the Big Lie. And if you think I am a moonbat, that is most certainly your problem.
I doubt he meant it literally, and last I checked, I don't think you or I can judge the status of his Christianity.
Odd, some one was just claiming the same familiarity with Africa/Middle East and they claimed it was commonplace.
I think his making such a statement does give us some indication, IMHO.
Good for you, you pious person.
That's all you can come back with, after he crushed your "argument," huh?
In Muslim areas there is a tradition of certain 'interesting' practices. For example (since you brought the Middle East into this) there are certain practices that are quite weird. For example in Afghanistan little boys are often targeted by older men. That is totally different from what I am talking about, the middle east is not Africa, and most of the infected in Africa are not muslim. Next non sequitur.
Pointing out that another poster had refuted what he alleged is a pretty good comeback.
But so far as him "crushing my argument", LOLOLOLOLOL! That's just stupid and deserves to be called as much!
"But still that's a heck of a lot of homo's or butt lovers in Africa."
As odd as this sounds (and I have read up on the topic, so this is accurate) there are key differences in how heterosexuals perform intercourse in some parts of Africa. The same subcultures that practice female circumcision also believe that "dry sex" is preferable and more godly in the eyes of Allah. If you can imagine sex without lubrication of any sort, it would also be easier to imagine how heterosexual intercourse could spread disease... direct blood-to-blood or blood-to-bodily fluid contact.
This would also help explain why heterosexual transmission is fairly rare among women who do not have other STD's that would cause open sores in the genital region.
Do you remember the hilarious spot on that "know your mate" type couples question show. The one where a very charming if somewhat naive black wife answered the question "where is the most unusual place you have ever had sex?" and said ...... "in the b***!"
I don't suppose it would occur to you as a possible answer to your "puzzle"?
You read the article?
I don't think that climate, poverty, etc. cause lesions or open sores, but those things surely contribute to them. I don't doubt that you are correct in stating that the existence of those things has been recorded by westerners.
Certainly, if not the reverse, then something other than the lesions, punctures and open sores could contribute to AIDS in Africa. Even so, it's likely that any type of open wounds aggravate the situation, since they would make infections of all types more likely. In fact, infections of all types are usually associated with AIDS, I believe.
As I said, I don't believe the authors of the article made their case regarding AIDS in Africa. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with them that politics obscure the situation to some extent.
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.