Posted on 06/03/2005 11:18:37 AM PDT by FormerLib
Glazov: Dr. Brody, let’s begin with you. Could you kindly comment on this phenomenon and give your perspective on some of the themes I have raised?
Brody: In the early 1980s, in my hometown of New York, it was apparent that AIDS deaths were occurring in transfusees, injecting drug users, and male homosexuals. It was also apparent to the homosexual community that given that affected population, generous federal funding would not be forthcoming. People skilled at public relations developed the "Big Lie": that HIV was a major risk to all, and was readily spread via penile-vaginal intercourse (rather than only by injection or anal intercourse) to otherwise reasonably healthy adults. This lie was understandable given the circumstances at that time. With time, generous funding became available, and the lie was no longer needed for the original purpose.
However, by that time, several political interests became very invested in the Big Lie. Those interests included those who sought to confuse political equality of homosexuals with egalitarian disease susceptibility (I suspect that only a small minority of those promoting that agenda were themselves nominally homosexual). So-called "gender feminists", inspired by the late Andrea Dworkin and her ilk, were keen to vilify intercourse, and hoped to reduce intercourse frequency (in favor of sexual behaviors that were less exclusively heterosexual), as well as to dampen its quality and intimacy (via condom promotion).
In addition to the major role played by the political left, segments of the political right might have been pleased to see a means of enforcing relative sexual continence. People of any political persuasion who, for their own psychological reasons, feared intercourse, also joined the chorus.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
How are babies born with HIV if it is a gay, drug user disease?
And given that anal sex has many times the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS than does vaginal sex, isn't it irresponsible to equate the two?
Great point. Many children in Africa (and elsewhere) are born with the disease. God bless them!
They certainly point to unsafe and/or unsterile injections as being a major contributor.
The article does not in fact dispute that people are infected through heterosexual sex. It does state that one is more likely to acquire it through anal sex. Or needles. It suggests that the reason that AIDS infects both sexes to such an extent in Africa could be due to lesions or other infections the inhabitants have acquired there, perhaps due to the tropical climate, real poverty and primitive conditions. It also calls for more of the hard science you have cited.
For all I know your argument is the correct one, but your general rudeness and air of superiority tends to discredit your case.
Who on this thread is equating the two?
Some say the holocaust is a big lie, and they have bogus information discrediting the facts too.
I'll tone down the "arrogance." It just upsets me because I know women who have been infected through heterosexual intercourse.
By having parents who engage in high-risk behaviors and/or have it injected via unsterile punctures, as plainly discussed in the article. Homosexuals and drug-users are the primary carriers because of their behaviors. Surely you knew that, yes?
"Clearly the number of transmission via normal heterosexual intercourse have been inflated to serve an agenda; that is The Big Lie (thought that is not the title of the article)."
Clearly HIV is transmitted faster in small communities, such as gays, drug users and senior "Viagra" communities in Broward County (and another one which I can't think of now). The fact that it becomes "epidemic" in these communities is because it is more readily noticeable. In Africa, soldiers are hit especially hard, because they are sharing HIV infected prostitutes. Their wives and unborn children are then hit.
And again, so what? The bottom line is a person can get the virus through heterosexual sex. Labeling something the "Big Lie" is dangerous, in my opinion, because it tends to obscure the very real fact that, if a person has unprotected sex, it is possible to contract a fatal disease.
Every "group" in the world attempts to use scientific data to support an "agenda." Indeed, labeling research "The Big Lie" leads me to believe there is an agenda behind the article, and pure science is not it.
Interestingly this is one of the article ranges that occasionally pop up on FR every 3 months or so (another example of such being the ‘Earth is 6,000 years old – or thereabouts’ articles that pop up every now and then; and another being the ‘HIV/AIDS doesn’t exist, and/or it is only Malaria’ spiel that some Freeper – now banned – was trying to assert). And it seems perfect in saying that HIV/AIDS is solely the domain of homosexual/drugee facets, which in a way (actually it) is the case in the west, where most of the infected normally have some link with gay culture, be it knowingly or unknowingly (for example when a husband is having secret gay sex and then bringing death home).
But saying that in the 3rd world it is due – or I mean the person GUESSES – it is due to anal intercourse and infected needles is ludicrous (interesting how in the Frontpage mag he espouses the anal connection yet in his interview with the Post he was concentrating on the needle aspect). Homosexual sex is anathema to a level you couldn’t believe. And not just that but the spread patterns are quite different in the 3rd world than they are in the West. The dispersion patterns in the west are centered around nodes, with clearly defined hubs of homosexual activity. And the numbers involved are far less than in non-western nations. However in the 3rd world the dispersal patterns are far more obtuse (with the important hubs being cities and commercial/transportation centers), the numbers are immense (unless Africa and Asia are gay paradises with millions of people having anal sex), and there have been several studies done (plus a host of preventive programs, some that have worked). Actually take Uganda. Up and until around 5 years ago that country was killing itself. Whole villages were being wiped out (which was ironic considering the dude who was saying it was all ‘lies’ and that the culprit was ‘malaria’ – an interesting, and ridiculous, point considering that the survivors in those areas were little children and their grandparents ….basically the very old and very young A.K.A malaria’s favorite victims). Anyways, Uganda was imploding in a way that even South Africa hasn’t yet touched, but nowadays the AIDS crisis in Uganda is not only under control but actually being turned down. What happened is that the local churches had mass drives where they told the people most at risk to start respecting themselves and not engage in promiscuous sex, and at the same time local NGOs started reaching out to the women (since it was easier to reach more of them than the men who were out in the cities working) and teaching them on how the virus was spread and ways to protect oneself. The results were quickly apparent and Uganda saved itself from a death spiral. Compare and contrast with South Africa, a country which is vastly more developed than Uganda but is going through death throes due to frenetic infection rates. In SA there are all sorts of stupid politics, eg some politicians saying HIV doesn’t exist, scientists clashing with religious leaders and vice-versa, people believing all sorts of stupid notions (which sadly leads to atrocities like child rape) etc etc etc. Thus countries like Uganda and Zambia (Zambia is another country that is actually reversing the epidemic), as well as Cote d’vore (where by approaching prostitutes and educating them about viral spread they have managed to reduce infection in the prostitutes from just under 90% to 30%, and by doing so basically stop in its tracks the spread to the wider population) are having positive results, while nations like Zimbabwe and South Africa are burning their candle at both ends (and in the nations with crazy spread you’ll find people who have their heads in the sand …eg SA president Thambo Mbeki and his beliefs that AIDS is a ‘nutritional deficiency’) .
Anyways, the spread of HIV is different between the hemispheres. In Africa, Asia and South America the major mode of transmission is loose heterosexual contact. It is that simple. And a booster in infection is that diseases like gonorrhea and syphilis also make infection easier. And there have been studies (that the people in the article apparently haven’t come across) where prostitutes in commercial and trucking centers in Africa have been queried for many years in a row (reason being that some of the prostitutes started to develop immunity to HIV, with a small number actually being heavily resistant to infection). According to the prostitutes most of their johns wanted to have unprotected sex, vaginal sex, and they would do this while they worked in the commercial centers. Most of the johns never wanted to use any form of protection, and many of the prostitutes never demanded it either. Thus a focal point developed, and from there spread.
Anyways, I can see why it would be perfect to say homosexual behavior is responsible for the millions of HIV infections in Asia, Africa and South America, but the honest truth is it is not. In the west yes, and the patterns (and people infected) show it. But elsewhere it is simply not the case.
But hey, at least the article did not say it was due to ‘malaria’ or ‘nutritional deficiencies.’ That’s an improvement. And this time the article included real scientists (the other Freeper had included some dude from the Brahma Kumaris 'World spiritual University' cult as his source, and an article from a magazine that ALSO had pieces on UFO proofs and water dousing). Thus this is a significant improvement.
"Did not the CDC say that just about all sexually transmitted aids cases can be tracked back to a homosexual act? IOW the woman has sex with a man who at some point had sexual contact with another man."
That is true, but it doesn't mean it is a gay disease now. It is our problem now because of bisexuals and iv drug users. Therefore it is irresponsible to tell heterosexuals is safe to have unprotected sex.
To be more specific, it's a butt sex disease. The differences in the disease demographic between Africa and here are due to differences in the sex practices between the two regions.
My feeling is that the article is kind of bogus also. I don't think they've made their case RE Africa.
I wish that so many worthwhile and necessary causes, AIDS being one of the most prominent, would not be so heavily embroiled in and distorted by politics.
Ah, so you can refute the article on a factual basis then? By all means, do so! I mean, since you've termed their proof "bogus," that should be much of a challenge, should it?
I'd strongly recommend you forward your proof to Mr. Glazov at FrontPageMag.com directly!
[1] needle hygiene in Africa was not a major problem,
and
[2] there was almost no anal intercourse in sub-Saharan Africa.
Careful review of the scientific evidence (in papers I and my colleagues have published) shows that unsafe punctures (such as injections for medication) are the major risk, and that there is no lack of anal intercourse (both heterosexual and homosexual) in Africa.
Thank you for your post.
Who did that? Can you show me where anyone said that?
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.