Posted on 08/12/2008 8:59:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“”According to GGG’s research, homosexual sex IS NOT the cause of AIDS, as HIV is not sexually transmitted and HIV does not cause AIDS (according to the material he links to).””
You are talking to a scientist here and to suggest homosexual activity (I don’t call it sex any more than I call child molestors and beastphilic behavior sex) is not directly responsible for 90% of AIDS cases in US flies in the face of a thousand refereed scientific papers. I am fully aware that fluid exchange carries the virus and so IV drug use and blood sucking insects can play a role in transmission. Homosexual behavior brought and spread the epidemic to the US.
Amyl nitrate is an inhalant and does not spread the virus unless that ampule is perhaps shoved into the rectum of a homosexual prior to inhaling. Malnutrition always has an adverse impact in immune function and likely enhances full blown AIDS.
For some reason this guy's title and name conjures up an image of gay porn .....
Perhaps it was his last name that helped him edge out the competition for his job.
Given you science background, you may want to read the following science paper, as it summarizes the scientific arguments of AIDS Rethinker scientists:
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
My post to you was to point out that you and GGG are not in agreement as to the nature of the disease. According to stuff on GGG’s page, HIV is harmless (I definitely overstated GGG’s position when I stated that HIV is not sexually transmitted, sorry GGG), and does not lead to AIDS. Post 19 of this thread from GGG confirms that.
My brother died of AIDS in 1991. A child of the ‘60s with its attendant drug use and ample sexual activity, who also had a blood transfusion in the early ‘80s prior to testing blood for the disease.
I think you would be very interested to read the stuff on GGG’s page linked from his FR homepage. GGG and I had some less than pleasant exchanges in the old crevo wars, but for the last week or so have been having exceedingly civil conversations on a topic on which we probably don’t agree at all.
I am very sorry for your loss. I’d be very curious to learn the specifics of your bother’s case, but if it’s too personal, I’ll understand.
Okay. Then I take it you would have no problems with your son or daughter having sex with an AIDS-infected person?
Sorry CB,
I'm going to have to decline to answer that question, as these kinds of deliberately provocative questions lead to flame wars that inevitably get my threads pulled. Let's just stick to the science.
But that is the most important public policy point- If AIDS is not caused by HIV, then we've been wrong to focus on trying to end promiscuous gay sex, since, in of itself, it is harmless.
Put another way, if the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, then the promiscuous lifestyle of many homosexuals isn't something we should care about, from the viewpoint of preventing AIDS.
Is that a conclusion you are comfortable with? I'm certainly not.
Not so, there are plenty of serious diseases you can get from their disgusting sexual practices (not to mention the serious Biblical warnings against engaging in sodomy).
Perhaps. But if we're just discussing AIDS here, then based on your view of what causes AIDS, homosexuality is completely irrelevant. Whatever religious or moral aspects there may be regarding homosexuality, the only issue is drug use, so we shouldn't care about homosexuality for purposes of this discussion.
We can have a discussion regarding the health problems associated with anal sex (both straight and gay), but it should be completely separate from the AIDS discussion, if we accept your argument regarding the cause of AIDS.
Actually, homosexuality is not completely irrelevent. It was the perverted sexual lifestyle of fast-track homosexuals that led to the need for the very drugs that were killing them like flies. They couldn’t sustain the number of sexual partners their perversion required without taking massive amounts of chemicals, which in turn, over a long period of time, destroyed their immune systems. Then, on top of that, the public health authorities told them to wear condoms instead of telling them to stop the drugs that were destroying the immune systems. And if that wasn’t bad enough, then the AIDS establishment sealed their fate by putting them on cytotoxic chemotherapies, like AZT. In short, I would say your side has one hell of a lot to answer for.
All that money headed directly into the coffers of the druggie death squad!
Do you really still believe that they are not in full control of Congress?
That's certainly an...interesting... take on the situation. But the more rational view is that drugs lower inhibitions, which makes people more likely to engage in the high-risk activities (sex with multiple partners, sharing needles) that are actually the transmission vectors for HIV. But, if we follow your logic, homsoexuals can have as may orgies as they want, so long as they do so while sober, and they are at no greater risk for AIDS than a monogamous straight person.
Then, on top of that, the public health authorities told them to wear condoms instead of telling them to stop the drugs that were destroying the immune systems.
I'm not aware of any public health authorities that take a pro-drug position. But, again, following your logic, the issue of condoms isn't relevant to this discussion, since AIDS doesn't occur due to sexual contact.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, then the AIDS establishment sealed their fate by putting them on cytotoxic chemotherapies, like AZT. In short, I would say your side has one hell of a lot to answer for.
So, if AIDS drugs are so toxic, why do people who do not use them drop dead within months or a few years, while people who stay on the regimen (such as Magic Johnson) continue to live for years and years?
==But, if we follow your logic, homsoexuals can have as may orgies as they want, so long as they do so while sober, and they are at no greater risk for AIDS than a monogamous straight person.
Actually, no sexual stimulants = no massive fast-track orgies. That level of sexual activity is impossible without immunosuppressive chemicals.
==But, again, following your logic, the issue of condoms isn’t relevant to this discussion, since AIDS doesn’t occur due to sexual contact.
Yes, it is. Without condoms, they leave themselves open to God-knows how many other opportunistic infections.
==So, if AIDS drugs are so toxic, why do people who do not use them drop dead within months or a few years, while people who stay on the regimen (such as Magic Johnson) continue to live for years and years?
Again, not true. And btw, Magic’s wife let it slip he terminated taking his AIDS chemotherapy drugs long ago. It caused quite a stir at the time.
==Do you really still believe that they are not in full control of Congress?
Congress listens to the AIDS establishment because almost none of them have been exposed to our side. If congress ever decided to stop listening to them, this whole thing would be over faster than you can say AIDS SCANDAL.
Thought you might be interested in #32 and #33, etc.
Totally irrelevant, if we follow your logic. You are still basically arguing that unprotected sex with multiple male partners is harmless vis a vis AIDS. Whether or not the promiscuous behavior is caused by the drug use, it's omly the drugs that are the problem, not the orgies.
Yes, it is. Without condoms, they leave themselves open to God-knows how many other opportunistic infections.
That's a different discussion, since your view is that AIDS is not caused by sexual behavior.
Again, not true. It caused quite a stir at the time.
It's not true that AIDS-infected people are living longer lives now than in the 80's and 90's? That's a laughable claim, I have to tell you.
And btw, Magic’s wife let it slip he terminated taking his AIDS chemotherapy drugs long ago.
Source, please.
Not necessarily. AIDS is still, by and large, a gay disease, just not for the reason usually put forward.
==Source, please (re: Magic Johnson/AIDS Chemotherapy)
Didn’t you ever wonder why Magic never came to look like a chemotherapy patient? At any rate, I can’t find the article where his wife first let the cat out of the bag. She told everyone he was having adverse reactions and decided not to take his chemo anymore. And for a while after, Magic tried to dodge follow up questions about his wife’s statement. But after being peppered with never ending questions, Magic finally broke down and started admitting he was off his AIDS chemo drugs. Here is just one example:
“Citing doctor-patient confidentiality, Mellman will not discuss Johnson’s treatment or current condition. But in an interview with TIME last week, Johnson acknowledged that he has in the past taken AZT, the antiviral drug typically administered when a person’s helper T-cell count drops to 500. (See following story.) Johnson said that he is no longer taking AZT and that his T-cell count is above 500, “but I don’t tell exactly what it is because then I’ll have everybody talking about it.” His health, he says, “has been wonderful. My doctor told me to watch out for things like deteriorating skills. Nothing so far.” Johnson’s added weight is due not to drug treatments, as some have speculated, but to a healthier diet and to muscle mass from his regular exercise sessions.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101960212-135465,00.html
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.