HIV Supervirus Discovered

Desslock you make a very good point.

It would be refreshing to see scientific information, and debate, about this new strain, but oddly enough, all the press seems to be that drug using homosexuals are getting an aggressive strain of HIV.

Pretty soon drug using homosexuals will be blamed for this new aggressive strain, just like homosexuals in general are blamed for AIDS.

As far as global warming theory.. I thought they sampled permafrost many kilometers down in Antarctica and found that through ice timeline, millions of years back, that this warming is happening thousands of times faster then ever before? :high:

Denial.

well i don't know about global warming but i call tell you my hometown used to get a high of 34C in the summer when I was young and we thought that was horrible, now the temps in the summer are ~42C and 34C is considered mild. Same in the winter


back to HIV and bareback movies - not sure how I feel about those. Straight movies are shot mostly without condoms, but there's mandatory testing. Gay ones the way I understand it are, for the most part, free for all - show up get fucked bareback and if you have HIV or not so what.

And I dont think they can be compared to movies with violance. Two people having sex are something everyone does, two people stabing each other isn't something everyone does or wants done to them.

Obviously they have a following and target audience, and I somehow doubt it's commited gay couples. At least that's how I see it just by going to sites likebareback.com manhunt.com

I actually did a little experiment on manhunt with a friend, but that's for another time

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jIgG
back to HIV and bareback movies - not sure how I feel about those.

---

I like watching them, if they're done right, few of them are. As a producer I wont film that. I couldn't live with the guilt of being part of someone possibly getting HIV, not to mention the legal liability.

Yeah the reason I mention that is because yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a long article about that. A UN group designated to study global warming published what is called the "Hockey Stick" graph. And this paper was a strong justification for the Kyoto Treaty events several years ago, so science has clear ramifications.

A powerful visual, the Hockey Stick Graph shows that world temperatures were stable for centuries until the 20th century, when average temperatures spike up, creating this "hockey stick" line on a graph.

The scientists used as data carbon dating from tree rings of old trees, a lot of which were California redwoods. Unfortunately, one blogger in Canada is criticizing his methodolgy. The story was about how he went from being a pest, to actually getting some serious attention; the Mouse That Roared.

Amongst other things, he demonstrates that his using just any random data graphs out into a hockey stick. Basically it comes down to a complicated debate over the math.

I do wish that some credible people would similarly examine the methodology of HIV. I not so cavalier to just state HIV does not exist. But I think the drugs are toxic, and might be overprescribed. I also think many other prescription drugs are overprescribed - but necessarily because it is a drug company conspiracy, but because people demand their doctors give them pills.

I have a friend in Dallas who in his mid 20s was diagnosed as HIV positive, so the city aids clinic (the experts) quickly put him on a protease cocktail. {this was 1998 I think} He wasn't really sick of anything, it was a prophylactic measure.

Well so after 2 years of uncomfortable living, he exhausted his health insurance policy. And he was at the same point as when he started... oh and he shows the body effects of the drugs. So how useful was this medical prescription?

Did people who tested this way in 1985 or 1987 immediately get shoved onto AZT?
Was that healthy?

Wouldn't you want to question what the medical establishment is doing? I guess I could just throw my hands up and blame the evil drug companies for being greedy, or perhaps how evil the United States is because we don't have social medicine to pay for all this.

I'd reexamine it. Oh well, I do think time will eventually show the way, and these theories will be corroborated, modified or disproven.

Steve

Well you make a lot of great points there Desslock. Some say HIV was created by the U.S. government to kill out Africans.

I was watching a special last night that explained how the U.S. is using uranium in their bombs and shells in Iraq now, and back in Desert storm. They showed the Iraqi babies being born now with massive deformities ( here’s a site dedicated to is *graphic* http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html )

Now they have found high levels of uranium in Gulf War vets. Uranium destroys DNA.. our troops, and those attacked, get leukemia and cancer in 5 times the normal levels.

The first troop in Britain was awarded monetary damages because he has uranium poisoning from the Gulf War and has two children born with deformities. Gulf war syndrome is now linked to uranium poisoning from troops loading depleted uranium laced munitions. ( http://www.google.com/search?num=100...ndrome+uranium ) Amazing how the press in the U.S. has said NOTHING about this.

Can I get your opinion on why our government would a) put our own troops in such danger, then deny it and b) why we would poison the earth so maliciously?

Quick side note: Why lace munitions with depleted uranium? Because our nuclear power plants spend billions storing the stuff and it's a cheap "legal" way to get rid of it. so sad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by desslock
What would be better - for you to go to the doctor and get a $90 prescription for Nexium, or to just elimiate all the fast food and sodas and breakfast tacos from your diet, and exercize twice a week?

---

OH MY GOD! I'm scared! It's like you have been spying on me for the last 2 years! I think you are psychic... except I'm taking Prylosec, not Nexium ;)

Dess,I think that almost everything is open for discussion....educated debate by informed people. That's how civilized folk resolve issues and set standards.....no?

Hugs,
Neil

I have a lot of bareback galleries on my site. I have wrestled with the notion of having them or not, but ultimately I decided that I don't believe someone sees one of my galleries and decides, "I'm going to go get fucked up the ass without a condom."

I do, however, believe that if people see enough of this stuff and ultimately it's showing up everywhere, maybe people get a subliminal message that everything's okay, we're done with AIDS.

What I did on my site was I placed a link on my navigation bar to page about bareback sex. It's a discussion encouraging people to talk to their partners and it provides some links to some major AIDS groups around the world. I figured at least I'm doing my part to keep people educated and talking about it.

Just recently, I started doing a reno on my site and one of the things I'm doing is including a fairly large WARNING button that essentially says, "Guys, this gallery is a fantasy, AIDS is a reality. Don't bareback without talking to your partner first. If you want more information, click here." And the link takes them to my bareback information page, which I am in the process of revising further.

What more can I do? Ultimately, barebacking is a personal decision.

And I think the larger question, which has been raised already, is: Why are we (a gay webmaster board) having this discussion? Why aren't straight webmasters having this discussion? Barebacking is way more prevalent in their side of the industry and yet no one seems to care. In fact, no one even uses the word barebacking to describe straight sex.

Dzinerbear

All very good points. I looked at this through a psychologist's mind.

Over the years in medicine and in pathology, people's ideas about medicine and illness has changed dramatically. Only 100 years ago many people were still dying of fairly small diseases like the Flu, polio, and TB. However, science has exploded with all sorts of drugs or immunizations that you get as a child so you never have to go through the fear of getting certain diseases. I think the only childhood disease that we still mostly get is Chicken Pox. I know I had it.

Older generations, mostly 50-60+ grew up with the reminders of what their parents and grandparents had to go through when someone was sick and there were no immunizations or pills to cure the disease. The generation of people who grew up with mass immunizations, I think, have no idea about real prevention. We've never had to be on the look out for people with certain symptoms and we've never had to listen for outbreaks of disease unless you count the Flu season. Our minds are so use to thinking, "Well I was immunized as a kid and if I go to the doctor, he'll give me medicine that will fix it."

From childhood, most of us in the ages 18-30 have not had a disease that didn't take a single trip to the doctor's to fix up in about a week. Our minds are now programed to think this way. "if I'm sick, the doctor has medicine." I've read about people who are suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease or their children are and they just can't believe that there is no pill, treatment, or shot that will have the cure. It blows their mind.

I think this mindset has helped relax people's fear and make them take more risks when it comes to sex. Even most non-fatal STDS have some sort of pill to reduce their symptoms and make them easier to deal with. It just amazes me when I even think about it. I'm still in the age range were I think "I'm invincible" and nothing can happen to me because I'm still young. I do my best not to think that way in situations but invariably it happens.

Maybe one day in the future people will change this mind set and remember that there are still nasty deadly diseases out there that can get them if they are not careful.

Nicely said, Ms. Chan!

Right now I'm watching Glen Close cry her heart out while naked in the misting shower, in the Big Chill - on Encore Love Stories.

I watch the same damn old movies over and over.

Steve

February 16, 2005 01:26 PM US Eastern Timezone

Physicians and General Public Favor Mandatory HIV Testing; Views Support Findings of Recent Medical Report

FLEMINGTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 16, 2005--Results of a new national survey of 864 physicians and 1,339 members of the general public revealed that a significant majority of both groups believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population.


The national e-survey was conducted by HCD Research during February 12 -14, as part of its continuing investigation of the social, political and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 3% at a 95% confidence level.

The survey revealed that among the general public:

-- 63% of Americans believe that mandatory, federally funded HIV testing would improve the overall health of the U.S. population

-- 60% indicated that the associated health care benefits of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the social implications

-- 40% indicated that the social implications of mandatory, federally funded HIV testing outweigh the associated health care benefits

The most frequently cited social concerns of those representing the general public who were not in favor of mandatory testing were:

Difficulty obtaining life insurance 76%

Job/employment issues 71%

FULL STORY

Anyone find this quite strange? We go, in ONE WEEK from.. a new aggressive HIV strain found, to drug using homosexuals are spreading the new strain to, physicians and general public favor mandatory testing.

The current top 15 leading causes of death in America ( U.S. CDC ) :

1) Heart disease
2) Cancer
3) Stroke
4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5) Accidents
6) Diabetes
7) Influenza and pneumonia
8) Alzheimer's disease
9) Kidney disease
10) Septicemia (blood poisoning)
11) Suicide
12) Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13) Hypertension (high blood pressure)
14) Homicide
15) Pneumonia resulting from breathing particles or fluid into the lungs

Why are they not calling for mandatory testing for any of the medical conditions above? New cases of HIV went down last year by 1.9% while cases of Influenza and pneumonia rose by 3.9%.

Something here doesn't make any sense.. anyone here have any input?