Condoms and AIDS deaths

[AlanFromWichita]

Trelow:

It’s a scam headed up by the U.N. (sterilization of undesiribles) and pharmaceutical companies (money).

Imagine that. The age-old advice still reigns: follow the money.

 

[Strider]

Trelow:

Heh, psst let me tell you a secret.
Most of that in Africa isn’t AIDS. Nope, not at all.
It’s from drinking tainted water, yup.
Here is how they define AIDS there: “prolonged fevers for a month or more, weight loss of over 10% and prolonged diarrhoea.”
Yea, not testing. It’s not AIDS, most likely TB or various waterborne parasites.
It’s a scam headed up by the U.N. (sterilization of undesiribles) and pharmaceutical companies (money).

Boy, if you have a source for that, I’d sure like to get hold of it! It would be worth its weight in gold.

 

[Trelow]

Strider:

Boy, if you have a source for that, I’d sure like to get hold of it! It would be worth its weight in gold.

The horse’s mouth
afro.who.int/aids/
who.int/3by5/en/

Modified 1985 WHO case definition for AIDS surveillance (the “Bangui definition�)
a
An adult or adolescent (> 12 years of age) is considered to have AIDS if at least
two of the following major signs are present in combination with at least one of the
minor signs listed below, and if these signs are not known to be due to a condition
unrelated to HIV infection.
Major signs
• Weight loss >10% of body weight
• Chronic diarrhoea for >1 month
• Prolonged fever for >1 month (intermittent or constant)
Minor signs
• Persistent cough for >1 month
b
• Generalized pruritic dermatitis
• History of herpes zoster
• Oropharyngeal candidiasis
• Chronic progressive or disseminated herpes simplex infection
• Generalized lymphadenopathy
The presence of either generalized Kaposi sarcoma or cryptococcal meningitis is
sufficient for the diagnosis of AIDS for surveillance purpos
64.233.167.104/u/who?q=cache:xkBzj53ohzsJ:www.who.int/infectious-disease-news/IDdocs/whocds200527/whocds200527chapters/5_Disease_prev%26conrol.pdf+diagnose+AIDS+Bangui&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Here are a few articles, and some medical reports, dome are more reliable than others.

www.msi.com.pl/pub/hiv/vol_3/no_2/5394.pdf
i-sis.org.uk/AfricanAids.php
mercola.com/2000/may/7/aids_africa.htm
gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1035
rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_003.html
rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_235.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7803336&dopt=Abstract
hackcanada.com/ice3/aids/aidsafrk.txt
sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Articles_Gen/aids_afr.html
heal_portland.tripod.com/kim1.htm
aegis.com/news/ads/1990/AD900838.html
heal_portland.tripod.com/africadrugs.htm
afrol.com/printable_feature/11116
members.aol.com/mpwright9/aids12.html
sumeria.net/aids/aidsafrica.html
virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbafrica.htm

 

[surfinpure]

Kyenta:

It is a myth that the spread of AIDS is due to those following the Church and not using condoms. We all know that obviously, these people are not following the churches rules on abstinance before marriage.

In Zimbawee, condoms are sold in the stores, freely accessible to everyone. Still, AIDS is rampant. Condoms are not reliable.

I am proud of the Catholic Churchs stance on no contracetives.

“Trying to stop AIDS with condoms is like trying to end murder with a bullet proof vest”.

This is an important point. I read a few years ago that using condoms to stop AIDS is virtually pointless. The AIDS virus is microscopic and can easily travel straight through the holes in latex. People aren’t afflicted with this disease because they listened to the Church and didn’t use a condom, but because they didn’t listen to the Church and used drugs or engaged in sex outside of marriage or as homosexuals.

Has anyone else read Bernard Goldberg’s bestseller Bias? He confronts the “It could happen to you” lie head-on. Here’s an excerpt from his chapter “Epidemic of Fear”:

It didn’t take long before the scientists discovered that HIV, the AIDS virus, was carried in blood and semen. That explained why its victims were mainly gay men who engaged in high-risk anal sex and junkies who shot drugs into their veins and shared “dirty” needles. In the early days, some got the disease from blood transfusions. Hemophiliacs were especially at risk.

By any imaginable standard, this should have been bad enough. These were human beings dying terrible deaths. What could be worse?

How about the possibility that this virus that was picking off junkies and gay men might start to spread to housewives in Des Moines and businessmen in Seattle?

How about the possibility that before long it wouldn’t just be homosexual men at gay bars whowould have to wonder if their next partner would be the one with the deadly virus? What if everyone who was having sex was playing Russian roulette?

He goes on to explain in detail how the media distorted percentages and misrepresented the epidemic in order to get all of us worked up about AIDS.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

This is an important point. I read a few years ago that using condoms to stop AIDS is virtually pointless. The AIDS virus is microscopic and can easily travel straight through the holes in latex.

I’ve heard this before too, but I have to think this is a red herring. The issue is not one of the size of a virus versus the size of the pores in latex. The bigger problems are improper use, mechanical failure, and manufacturing defects (e.g. pinholes, tears), which happen all the time.

To elaborate just a little - air molecules and water molecules are both much smaller than a virus, and of course much smaller than the pores in latex. But we know from everyday experience that you can hold air in a latex balloon for a few days, and you could hold water almost indefinitely (provided you resist the temptation to throw it at your brother). But gasoline (which has molecules larger than air but much smaller than a virus) will pass right through latex. It’s essentially the same question as why water beads up and rolls off a duck’s back, but not your cotton shirt, even though they may both have pores of similar size. Interesting stuff…

 

[LSK]

that is interesting, Bobby!

I am very grateful that when I was living a sinful life I did not contract aids. Now that I am fully reconciled to the Church I do not have to be concerned that I would contract aids from sexual conduct. If I marry, and I contract aids from the man I marry, it would break my heart - however, I would have to believe that there was a reason for my contracting the virus when living a virtuous life when my Lord spared me from the virus when I was living a sinful life. I guess what I am trying to say is, I cannot blame the Church if I chose to live a sinful life and I must trust Jesus if, when living within the parameters of my faith, bad things happen to me.

Does any of what I am saying make any sense to anyone but me?

:whacky:

 

[surfinpure]

LSK:

that is interesting, Bobby!

I am very grateful that when I was living a sinful life I did not contract aids. Now that I am fully reconciled to the Church I do not have to be concerned that I would contract aids from sexual conduct. If I marry, and I contract aids from the man I marry, it would break my heart - however, I would have to believe that there was a reason for my contracting the virus when living a virtuous life when my Lord spared me from the virus when I was living a sinful life. I guess what I am trying to say is, I cannot blame the Church if I chose to live a sinful life and I must trust Jesus if, when living within the parameters of my faith, bad things happen to me.

Does any of what I am saying make any sense to anyone but me?

:whacky:

I believe that is exactly the right attitude to take.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Nan S:

They’re not even that good.

I remember from my public school sex-ed classes that condoms have a real-world failure rate against pregnancy that is as high as 17%. We all hear about the optimal failure rate as being 1 or 2%, but we don’t live in an optimal world. We live in the real world.

Now, if a woman is only fertile about 5 days out of the month, and the condom failure rate based on those five days alone is upwards of 17%, what does that imply about the failure rate against a disease that can be contracted every day of the month?

You do the math.

So does that mean that condoms actually fail more than 17% because
a. A woman is only fertile 5 days a month (so it would have to fail during that time for her to become pregnant)
b. A woman may not get pregnant every time she is fertile

???

 

[Nan_S]

ElizabethAnne:

So does that mean that condoms actually fail more than 17% because
a. A woman is only fertile 5 days a month (so it would have to fail during that time for her to become pregnant)
b. A woman may not get pregnant every time she is fertile
???

Both are true. Condoms fail a LOT more than 17%. We just notice those particular failures.

When interpolating the condom failure rate against for pregnancy to project the probable condom failure rate against disease:

a. A diseased (hu)man is infectious every day of the month. Any condom failure, on any day of the month, results in the transmission of disease-bearing organisms. It only takes one failure to catch AIDS.
b. You may not catch a disease EVERY time a condom fails. But trying to guess when that failure will transmit disease-bearing organisms that your body can fight off, and guess when the disease will win instead, is like playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic 9mm handgun.