The Origin of HIV in the USA

[WillNever]

Are they? Who says? This is a place of science. So, if you don’t back up that statement with an academic scientific reference within the next 24 hours then this is getting locked and Cesspooled.

Done and done. Have you anything contributive..?

Bad response. What you could have done is to acknowledge your errors and move on. Instead, you choose not to face or take responsibility for your mistakes. You'll never progress that way.

I don't agree. It were an excellent response. Trying to draw false parallels between my meaning of the word and the religious connotations of the word has no place in this scientific forum. Neither does projecting your own value-laden interpretation onto what was a question for others, not a statement: "to me, this reads like you think gay people deserve criticism for their lascivious lifestyles."

Then you need help reading. If I "thought" that, I would have said so -- not ask if others thought so, and since you're well on your way to popping a blood vessel over this, I'll just let you know that the word has already been re-qualified in the original post, edited purely for your sake. For that reason, henceforth any further misinterpetive complaints about that statement are invalid. Enjoy.

 

[Syzygys]

incorrect, its about more than just compensation or laying blame.

Of course I never used the words compensation or blame.

But sure, for educational and preventional purposes it is nice to know where it started and how....

 

[sandy]

College classes taught that it was from Haiti. I don't care where it's from. It is a hideous plague that needs to be eradicated. We know how to get rid of it. The problem is most people won't take the personal responsibility to do it.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I don't think finding patient zero at this time is important for the study of AIDS, it is likely that by now we won't be able to accurately determine who patient zero was: the critical clues have literally died with history and even if we knew its not going to help cure aids, not unless someones got a time machine and wants to pull a Twelve Monkeys.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

WillNever's assertion:

Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays. That's also a truth.

My challenge:

....back up that statement with an academic scientific reference....

The response:

Done and done.

Analysis:

Reference #1: This is a study of urban heterosexuals aged 18-25. It says nothing about sexual behaviour of homosexuals, let alone homosexuals in comparison to heterosexuals, and does not support your contention.

Reference #2: This is a study of HIV and HepB and risk behaviour in homosexual and bisexual men in the Boston area. It says nothing about sexual behaviour of homosexuals in comparison to heterosexuals and does not support your contention.

Reference #3: This is a study of risk behaviours in homosexual men in 6 US cities. It says nothing about sexual behaviour of homosexuals in comparison to heterosexuals and does not support your contention.

In general, your references indicate that both hetero- and homosexual individuals in society display risky sexual behaviours that endanger themselves with respect to contracting HIV. They do not say that homosexuals are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays.

So much for your “truth”.


Conclusion: You failed to substantiate your assertion with scientific references. However, I’m going to delay locking and Cesspooling your thread for the moment in the hope that some useful discussion develops despite your distortion and misapplication of science in an effort to legitimise and disguise your value-laden judgements (bordering on bigotry).

 

[WillNever]

I don't agree with any of that. The preponderance of statements from those articles leads to that conclusion, along with the admission of "high rates among young gay men of episodic and ongoing unsafe sexual practices." For more conclusive information, check out this study about sexual desires. According to his survey, 25.4% of heterosexual men while 29.1% of homosexual men desired multiple partners. More lesbians desired multiple sexual partners than did heterosexual women as well.

So... yeah. Unless you have an adequate reason for believing that their desire for more sexual partners is not manifesting in their behavior... then that seals it.

The above data does not surprise. Gays cannot marry. That fact disincentivizes them from long term, fidelitous relationships. Secondly, it's just common sense that gays are less likely to be monogamous due to the fact that they produce no children together, another disincentive to solidify any long term and committed relationships. If you feel like disputing those statements, then you can go ahead and try. Until you do so successfully, then see ya on the flipside.

College classes taught that it was from Haiti. I don't care where it's from. It is a hideous plague that needs to be eradicated. We know how to get rid of it. The problem is most people won't take the personal responsibility to do it.

How would we get rid of it..?

 

[Asguard]

I don't agree with any of that. The preponderance of statements from those articles leads to that conclusion, along with the admission of "high rates among young gay men of episodic and ongoing unsafe sexual practices." For more conclusive information, check out this study about sexual desires. According to his survey, 25.4% of heterosexual men while 29.1% of homosexual men desired multiple partners. More lesbians desired multiple sexual partners than did heterosexual women as well.

So... yeah. Unless you have an adequate reason for believing that their desire for more sexual partners is not manifesting in their behavior... then that seals it.

The above data does not surprise. Gays cannot marry. That fact disincentivizes them from long term, fidelitous relationships. Secondly, it's just common sense that gays are less likely to be monogamous due to the fact that they produce no children together, another disincentive to solidify any long term relationships. If you feel like disputing those statements, you can go ahead and try. Until you do so successfully, see ya on the flipside.

How would we get rid of it..?

will, since you seem hell bent on side tracking your own topic: i would love to see you back up that children do or dont have anything to do about it. How about a study of couples who are infertile vs the rest of the population

 

[WillNever]

Alternative idea: how about a study of married couples who have children together, versus unmarried couples who have no children at all. Hm... I wonder which group of people is less monogamous. I think we both know the answer but you are definitely right about one thing: it's time to get back on topic.

 

[James R]

...I'll just let you know that the word has already been re-qualified in the original post, edited purely for your sake.

Ok. At least you've acknowledged your error. Enjoy.

Let's move on:

According to his survey, 25.4% of heterosexual men while 29.1% of homosexual men desired multiple partners.

In other words, 70.9% of homosexual men did not desire multiple partners. And there's a 3.7% difference between homosexual and heterosexual men on this survey.

Now, recall your original claim:

Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays.

Let's assume that desiring sexual partners equates to having more partners. Your "significantly more" amounts to 3.7% more. Correct?

 

[WillNever]

I'm confused James R. On page 1, you and I said:

Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays. That's also a truth. For better or worse, the truth is the truth.

Yes, that is true. But you are (a) making moral judgments about it and (b) stereotyping.

I take it that your newly made decision to question my assertion means that you no longer believe "yes, that is true" about gays having significantly more sexual partners..? Cute.

 

[James R]

I take it that your newly made decision to question my assertion means that you no longer believe "yes, that is true" about gays having significantly more sexual partners..? Cute.

No. I believe it. I just don't believe your survey proves it.

Also, be careful: you specified "sexually active gays" and I agreed with that. I do not agree that the statement can be extended to "all gay people".

 

[WillNever]

I don't believe it extends to all gays either, and I didn't include them in this discussion because people who haven't been sexually active usually don't have AIDS. I believe this applies only to the sexually active. However, data on homosexual behavior is sparse and that was all I came up with in the short period of time that I looked. I'm not about to dismiss the obvious just for that reason.

 

[James R]

No problem, WillNever. Perhaps now would be a good time to let this thread return to the original topic.

 

[Asguard]

so will, you ever intend to address my first post? ie that far from being the sole fault of 1 man, it could have been the fault of poor infection control in a trial Hep vacination program?

Once the initial outbreak happens spread will be enevitable as long as there is contact between more than 2 people (ie if every infected person has sex with just 1 more infected person or gives a contaminated needle to 1 uninfected person ect). Oviously this assumes that infection is apsolute which its not and it assumes only 2 sexual partners which is unlikly.

Further more your theory doesnt explaine the origion of the disease, only its spread. Diseases dont magically apear, they either adapt from other pathogens or they adapt to cross the species barrier (there is 1 theory which suggests some viruses floated down from space but put that asside). The reuse of chimp blood theory does go some way towards explaining where it came from and why the US strain would strike first and in the US if the orgional pathogen came from chimps

 

[WillNever]

I have not heard of those two theories. And yes, I was not trying to explain how the disease was first transmitted to humans. The theories I've heard from that involve things ranging from some hunters eating some diseased meat to Africans running wild into the forests and having sex with monkeys.

I had not heard that there was a case in the USA before anywhere else. Are you sure about that..? Or do you mean that the HIV strain that now predominates in the USA (as opposed to the one in Africa) arose in humans before the others..?

 

[Asguard]

I have not heard of those two theories. And yes, I was not trying to explain how the disease was first transmitted to humans. The theories I've heard from that involve things ranging from some hunters eating some diseased meat to Africans running wild into the forests and having sex with monkeys.

I had not heard that there was a case in the USA before anywhere else. Are you sure about that..? Or do you mean that the HIV strain that now predominates in the USA (as opposed to the one in Africa) arose before the others..?

From what i rember (and i do have to admit this was one lecture 2 years ago so i will TRY to double check after i go out for lunch) the US strain (which i THINK is HIV A) arose BEFORE the African strain AND first apeared in the US not Africa (hense the name US strain or out of africa strain). The problem with conferming this (apart from my not having access to that lecture material anymore to double check) is that the African strain and the US strain transmit differently. The African one is much less virilant and transmits mainly from male to female and back again, the US strain has a much greater chance of being transmited in a single contract and tends to transmit Male to Male and then Male to female and through IV drug use.

The theory is that far from being a conspiracy it was a major fuck up, ie chimp blood was mixed when a major health resurch program was shut down and then insted of being correctly disposed of it was reused. what i cant rember is what they surposedly DID with the blood which would have lead to infection

The second theory was a transmission rather than a creation theory, ie that during a trial for a Hep vacine which was trialed mainly on homosexuals because that was the greatest population with Hep what we would concider to be piss poor infection controls were used leading to the spread of this new disease labled "gay lukemia" or "gay cancer"

 

[jmpet]

Some questions for the discussion: do you believe that it matters who introduced or spread HIV in the USA? If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their alleged lascivious lifestyle..? Which theory do you believe..? And do you believe the prevailing theory will change any time soon..? Use this thread to comment and question on the origin of HIV in the USA.

It does not matter who or how AIDS arrived here- AIDS is up to a century old according to Wikipedia. It was going to arrive here one way or another.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying or referring to re: Hatians.

HIV in the USA sucks. It's an incurable disease that you're gonna die from. Luckily we know about AIDS and how it's transmitted and for the most part it's under control- being the incurable, out of control disease it is.

We have the Tylenol Killer to thanks for the safety-sealed world we live in today; we have AIDS to thank for doctors and nurses taking proactive steps to stop infection- gloves, masks etc...

I sincerely hope we find a cure for AIDS and stop the death. I am glad we have the money-driven US pharmaceutical conglomerates competing to come up with "the Trillion dollar cure".

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's an incurable disease that you're gonna die from.

No, not necessarily. It appears that modern anti-retroviral medications can prevent the development of AIDS in many HIV-positive people indefinitely.

 

[Giambattista]

Whatever happened to the silly monkey-to-human transmission?

 

[iceaura]

Whatever happened to the silly monkey-to-human transmission?

Ape.

It's been refined - it happened more than once, they think, accounting for some of the variety in the strains.