[Monique]

Do you believe it is over, because you have not heard much about it?

Are you still scared?

What do you think about the role of Dr. Gallo into it?

[Stradlater]

...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Monique

Do you believe it is over, because you have not heard much about it?

NO

Are you still scared?

NEVER WAS SCARED OF AIDS

What do you think about the role of Dr. Gallo into it?

I didn't know he was a Doctor.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

Do you believe it is over, because you have not heard much about it?

Certainly not; that would be absurd.

Are you still scared?

No, but then, I've never been scared of it. The means by which HIV is and is not transmitted have been very well documented. I don't engage in any of the known high-risk behaviors. I don't worry about violent means of introduction, as I have adequate means of protecting myself. As for accidental means of introduction, the risk of these are so low that worrying about them would be pointless.

What do you think about the role of Dr. Gallo into it?

Actually, I don't know much about Dr. Gallo's role. I've heard that there was some kind of patent dispute, but that's all I know. Could you enlighten us?

[Monique]

Well I was watching that movie And the Band Played On and Gallo found for the first time a retrovirus and he tried to associate his discovery with the AIDS virus, in the meantime the French found the retrovirus associated with AIDS and there was a huge dispute the ego of Gallo vs the French; the French won this one but still Gallo does not see today that he could have cost us years of prevention which probably saved countless lives. All he saw was profit and fame.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Millennium

... I've never been scared of it. The means by which HIV is and is not transmitted have been very well documented. I don't engage in any of the known high-risk behaviors. I don't worry about violent means of introduction, as I have adequate means of protecting myself. As for accidental means of introduction, the risk of these are so low that worrying about them would be pointless.

AIDS is still very much around us, and i think after several years of FUD, people can appreciate it for what it is. as millenium stated, avoiding certain behaviours will cut down on your chances of ever contracting it, behaviours which are not that extreme to sensible, educated people. education is the key.

i heard a report the other day that 1 in 20 people has AIDS in the US capitol. it's still very much around us.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Well I was watching that movie...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

i heard a report the other day that 1 in 20 people has AIDS in the US capitol. it's still very much around us.

(emphasis added)

1 in 20 congressmen has AIDS? Well, I guess it makes sense.

[greenamp]

http://wowaids.ytmnd.com/

[Athens]

For most ppl 25 and over its not forgotten, but I am finding lots of people 20 and younger are very stupid about Aids. My BF is a perfect example.

[PacHead]

Aids doesn't concern me in the least.

[ghporter]

AIDS is not over, and won't be until everyone in the world can be either cured or rendered permanently and totally immune. While this won't happen soon, I believe it can and will eventually happen.

I have never been "scared" of AIDS, though I have been concerned. For example, there are plenty of opportunities for people to be accidentally exposed; until relatively recently, some diabetics used fairly typical disposable syringes to inject insulin and tossed them in normal trash-usually without capping the needle. This puts the people who collect the trash at risk for being stuck with these used needles. An awareness program and the development of new, safer syringes fixed that problem fairly well, but there are still many places where a bystander can be exposed to someone else's blood.

And even though AIDS is not the most serious threat to people who are sexually active, it is the most life-threatening. But there are a LOT of people who just do not even think about protecting themselves and their partners. This is still a BAD mistake.

[NYCFarmboy]

A sad part of gay life especially amongst younger gay men is the increase and acceptance of unsafe high risk sex.

This epidemic was starting to run its course and the rates of new infections were going down, but I believe the rates of new infections are starting to go back up again.

I think the younger folk believe it is a treatable chronic disease now...but I don't think it has quite reached that point yet.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I think the younger folk believe it is a treatable chronic disease now...but I don't think it has quite reached that point yet.

It is controllable to a limited degree, but as you point out yet, it's still a lot more serious than most treatable chronic diseases. Hell; it's more serious than even many untreatable chronic diseases.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Millennium

It is controllable to a limited degree, but as you point out yet, it's still a lot more serious than most treatable chronic diseases. Hell; it's more serious than even many untreatable chronic diseases.

Its hardly treatable, a best case you can live 15 years with it, mostly with out problems, the sad fact is more people get infected by people already drug risistant HIV and when they get treatment its not doing much and they get maybe 5 some lucky 10 years with lots of sickness in between.

Am I scared of getting it? No because I don't take any risks. Am I scared some of my friends and people I care about getting it? You bet I am!

[James L]

Not decreasing at all really:

Despite decreases in the rate of infection in certain countries, the overall number of people living with HIV has continued to increase in all regions of the world except the Caribbean.
There were an additional five million new infections in 2005. The number of people living
with HIV globally has reached its highest level with an estimated 40.3 million people, up from
an estimated 37.5 million in 2003. More than three million people died of AIDS-related
illnesses in 2005; of these, more than 500000 were children.

This is from this:

http://www.unaids.org/epi/2005/doc/d...e_Nov05_en.pdf

Now, I know these stats are HIV and not AIDS, but a little digging reveals that AIDS is also on the rise.

In the US, for example, there are well over a million people with HIV. A comment in the 2003 stats from the CDC state that as many as 27% unaware of their condition:

t the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection.1

[James L]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

A sad part of life especially amongst younger men and women is the increase and acceptance of unsafe high risk sex.

This epidemic was starting to run its course and the rates of new infections were going down, but I believe the rates of new infections are starting to go back up again.

I think the younger folk believe it is a treatable chronic disease now...but I don't think it has quite reached that point yet.

Fixinated!

[medicineman]

HIV and AIDS describe the same condition. HIV stands for Human Immuodeficiency Virus which causes AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Symdrome). The syndrome are those symptoms which are presented at the time of diagnosis. Since it is an acquired disease, you cannot 'get' it as you would 'get' a cold. It is transferred by exchange of body fluids from the infected person to the new host. This would include IV drug use with an infected needle, or more prevalant, sexual intercourse with an infected person. There are documented cases arising from a cornea transplant from an infected source, and the transmission between siblings using the same toothbrush. As for treatment, it is treatable. Magic Johnson admitted HIC positive status in 1991. The drugs are very expensive, and the regimen can be confusing. Anecdotal eveidence is that some discontinue the course of treatment when they feel better, when their T4 counts are good, or just tire of the regimen. Since this is a viral infection, the possibility of a vaccine is remote as the virus continues to mutate. New retroviral agents are introduced about every 6 months to one year. So far, they have been successful in keeping the virus in check by various means. At the present time, there is no cure for AIDS.

[James L]

Originally Posted by medicineman

HIV and AIDS describe the same condition. HIV stands for Human Immuodeficiency Virus which causes AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Symdrome). The syndrome are those symptoms which are presented at the time of diagnosis. Since it is an acquired disease, you cannot 'get' it as you would 'get' a cold. It is transferred by exchange of body fluids from the infected person to the new host. This would include IV drug use with an infected needle, or more prevalant, sexual intercourse with an infected person. There are documented cases arising from a cornea transplant from an infected source, and the transmission between siblings using the same toothbrush. As for treatment, it is treatable. Magic Johnson admitted HIC positive status in 1991. The drugs are very expensive, and the regimen can be confusing. Anecdotal eveidence is that some discontinue the course of treatment when they feel better, when their T4 counts are good, or just tire of the regimen. Since this is a viral infection, the possibility of a vaccine is remote as the virus continues to mutate. New retroviral agents are introduced about every 6 months to one year. So far, they have been successful in keeping the virus in check by various means. At the present time, there is no cure for AIDS.

I agree with this whole post, except the first sentence. I would not call them the same condition (though it is hair splitting).

HIV and AIDS, while very closely related, are not the same condition. Not everyone who has HIV has reached the stage of AIDS. One may lead to the other (and usually does), but the two conditions are often statistically tracked separately.

It is my understanding that many organizations believe that HIV develops into AIDS when the CD4+ T cell count has been reduced to less than 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood (if memory serves me correctly). This has the body weakened to the degree where viruses or opportunistic infections are able to invade and infect the body.... in other words, AIDS.

The reason I made the comment that the stats I quoted referred to HIV and not AIDS is that the occurrence rate of the two is statistically different, and Monique initially asked about AIDS in her first post, not HIV.

Cheers,

James

[RAILhead]

People wouldn't be scared of AIDS if they'd quit farking everything that moves and shoving needles in their arms, right? Outside of the oddball transfusion.

So no, since I don't fark everything that moves or shove needles in their arms, I'm no scared of "it."

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by James L

I agree with this whole post, except the first sentence. I would not call them the same condition (though it is hair splitting).

HIV and AIDS, while very closely related, are not the same condition. Not everyone who has HIV has reached the stage of AIDS. One may lead to the other (and usually does), but the two conditions are often statistically tracked separately.

It is my understanding that many organizations believe that HIV develops into AIDS when the CD4+ T cell count has been reduced to less than 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood (if memory serves me correctly). This has the body weakened to the degree where viruses or opportunistic infections are able to invade and infect the body.... in other words, AIDS.

The reason I made the comment that the stats I quoted referred to HIV and not AIDS is that the occurrence rate of the two is statistically different, and Monique initially asked about AIDS in her first post, not HIV.

Cheers,

James

It is a technicality. Being HIV postitive means that a test for the virus has returned positive results. The virus is present in the body. The AIDS stage of the disease is when the patient becomes symptomatic. The time between positive testing and symptons is variable.

[James L]

Originally Posted by medicineman

It is a technicality. Being HIV postitive means that a test for the virus has returned positive results. The virus is present in the body. The AIDS stage of the disease is when the patient becomes symptomatic. The time between positive testing and symptons is variable.

Agreed.

I do think it is worth separating the two in the early stages, however.

Take, for example, a person who has just been found to be HIV positive (antibodies present). They still have a healthy t cell count, and they are asymptomatic.

If they were to ask their doctor at this point: "Do I have AIDS?"

What would their MD's answer be?

Cheers,

James

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by James L

Agreed.

I do think it is worth separating the two in the early stages, however.

Take, for example, a person who has just been found to be HIV positive (antibodies present). They still have a healthy t cell count, and they are asymptomatic.

If they were to ask their doctor at this point: "Do I have AIDS?"

What would their MD's answer be?

Cheers,

James

I would answer, 'Yes'. The anitbodies are only present because the virus has presented itself.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

A sad part of gay life especially amongst younger gay men is the increase and acceptance of unsafe high risk sex.

This epidemic was starting to run its course and the rates of new infections were going down, but I believe the rates of new infections are starting to go back up again.

I think the younger folk believe it is a treatable chronic disease now...but I don't think it has quite reached that point yet.

It is nowhere near that point.

And HIV infection rates are rising fastest among heterosexual teens and twens.

[thesunisgone]

I have the cure for AIDS right now:

Make it a crime punishable by death to spread AIDS and quarantine those who do have the disease. You will wipe out AIDS in one generation.

Makes alot more sense than spending trillions of dollars and seeing millions more die because some people mistakenly believe AIDS victims have special rights to spread the disease without any responsiblity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

It is nowhere near that point.

And HIV infection rates are rising fastest among heterosexual teens and twens.

Do you have a link to affirm this? I don't believe it.

*disclaimer, if it's a study underwritten by Trojan, I may indicate this in my refutation of the link I suspect is not going to be made available to me.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Monique

Do you believe it is over, because you have not heard much about it?

Actually quite the opposite, especially when you take Africa into consideration.

Originally Posted by Monique

Are you still scared?

Never was. I'm going to die one day anyway. In addition, I don't engage in any high-risk behaviour either.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

I have the cure for AIDS right now:

Make it a crime punishable by death to spread AIDS and quarantine those who do have the disease. You will wipe out AIDS in one generation.

Makes alot more sense than spending trillions of dollars and seeing millions more die because some people mistakenly believe AIDS victims have special rights to spread the disease without any responsiblity.

Add bird flu, whooping cough, homer-sexuality, Catholicism, and Scientology to that list, and let's talk.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Do you have a link to affirm this? I don't believe it.

It varies by global region, but I read about a study on Europe a little while ago.


Google finds, among many other things, this:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pub...sglobalHIV.htm

In developed nations, nearly a quarter of a million youth are HIV-infected.3 Higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) signal a rise in unsafe sex and highlight the need for renewed prevention efforts, especially among youth.2 Leading factors behind the epidemic vary—from injection drug use in Spain, France, and Portugal, to heterosexual transmission in the United Kingdom, heterosexual transmission among disadvantaged women in the United States, and sex between males in Japan, Canada, Australia, and the United States.1,

[thesunisgone]

Originally Posted by analogika

Add bird flu, whooping cough, homer-sexuality, Catholicism, and Scientology to that list, and let's talk.

Boring political incorrectness. We have to do something now about AIDS which requires tough decisions, but the right decisions. Punishing irresponsible people and quarantining them is the only answer that we should be pursuing. This isn't a game, as millions of people in the future can be saved if we act today.

[Millennium]

As concerns making the spreading of AIDS a capital crime: last I checked, deliberately spreading the AIDS virus to others is already considered a form of first-degree murder in most jurisdictions. Thus, in places with the death penalty, knowingly spreading AIDS is already a crime punishable by death. Even in places without the death penalty, knowingly spreading AIDS is still the gravest category of crime described by law. As far as that goes, there is no need to define knowingly spreading AIDS as a separate crime.

Are you suggesting that people who unknowingly spread the virus also be considered murderers?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

Boring political incorrectness. We have to do something now about AIDS which requires tough decisions, but the right decisions. Punishing irresponsible people and quarantining them is the only answer that we should be pursuing. This isn't a game, as millions of people in the future can be saved if we act today.

Global action?

I hope you have a plan.

[thesunisgone]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As concerns making the spreading of AIDS a capital crime: last I checked, deliberately spreading the AIDS virus to others is already considered a form of first-degree murder in most jurisdictions. Thus, in places with the death penalty, knowingly spreading AIDS is already a crime punishable by death. Even in places without the death penalty, knowingly spreading AIDS is still the gravest category of crime described by law. As far as that goes, there is no need to define knowingly spreading AIDS as a separate crime.

Are you suggesting that people who unknowingly spread the virus also be considered murderers?

ANYONE who spreads the disease intentionally or not is guilty of a crime. There has to be responsibility to the utmost degree.

We do not need to solve AIDS by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and hoping to create vaccine when all we need to do is quarantine people and punish anyone who spreads the disease. Believing that people with AIDS have some special "civil rights" that are more important than getting rid of a disease that is quickly reaching world epidemic proportions is lunacy. I'm sorry you have AIDS, but we must protect civilization first and foremost. Society must come first. We must act now or billions of people could die unnecessarily.

[James L]

Originally Posted by medicineman

I would answer, 'Yes'. The anitbodies are only present because the virus has presented itself.

The antibodies for HIV virus are present....yes.

Does this mean the disease process has progressed to AIDS?

Not according to the US CDC. According to them, the disease has progressed to AIDS when the CD4 cell count is < 200, or the CD4 percentage is < 14%.

I guess we shall agree to disagree.

[James L]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

ANYONE who spreads the disease intentionally or not is guilty of a crime. There has to be responsibility to the utmost degree.

We do not need to solve AIDS by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and hoping to create vaccine when all we need to do is quarantine people and punish anyone who spreads the disease. Believing that people with AIDS have some special "civil rights" that are more important than getting rid of a disease that is quickly reaching world epidemic proportions is lunacy. I'm sorry you have AIDS, but we must protect civilization first and foremost. Society must come first. We must act now or billions of people could die unnecessarily.

Actually, it is not a case of special "civil rights" at all. It is simply giving these ill people the same rights that you or I are entitled too.

Weird, huh?

[Binarymix]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

ANYONE who spreads the disease intentionally or not is guilty of a crime. There has to be responsibility to the utmost degree.

We do not need to solve AIDS by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and hoping to create vaccine when all we need to do is quarantine people and punish anyone who spreads the disease. Believing that people with AIDS have some special "civil rights" that are more important than getting rid of a disease that is quickly reaching world epidemic proportions is lunacy. I'm sorry you have AIDS, but we must protect civilization first and foremost. Society must come first. We must act now or billions of people could die unnecessarily.

Ummm....

The spread of HIV is progressing mostly because people who are infected don't even know they are.

Also, how exactly do you plan on quarantining most of rural africa? Or even the infected people in most large cities? Concentration camps perhaps? Gimme a break.

[Binarymix]

Interesting News:

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3482712

There may be a way to cure HIV afterall.

[Y3a]

Then ANOTHER virus will rise to test our medical skills. how about Eboa?? Do they know where the virus 'hides' yet?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

It varies by global region, but I read about a study on Europe a little while ago. Google finds, among many other things, this:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pub...sglobalHIV.htm

I appreciate the info. Initially, I was skeptical about the blanket statement that HIV/AIDS is rising mostly among heterosexual teens and to be clear the link above does not affirm this fact. Included with the statement I did read was the following; In southern and southeastern Asia, over one million youth are HIV-infected.3 Initially fueled in Thailand and Cambodia by the sex trade and injection drug use, the epidemic has been successfully slowed in both countries.

One of the dominant factors mentioned for the alarming rise in infection in sub-Saharan Africa for example is also a sex trade and the mistaken notion that a man with AIDS can be cured by sleeping with a virgin. Another statement I found interesting is In Latin America and the Caribbean, about 560,000 young people are HIV-infected.3 In Latin America (especially in Mexico, Brazil, and Peru), marginalized populations—such as young men who have sex with men—are most affected.

The painful fact of the matter is that we're being told AIDS does not discriminate, but it does. It discriminates against the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abuse.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The painful fact of the matter is that we're being told AIDS does not discriminate, but it does. It discriminates against the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abuse.

Well being in Africa, I can tell you that AIDS does not discriminate... in atleast how you think it does. The fact is here, it doesn't matter what social strata one is from here, anyone can and does get it. Ofcourse for most people, its a death sentence, even if the drugs are $100 per month, or free sometimes, people still have little hope as it stands.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

ANYONE who spreads the disease intentionally or not is guilty of a crime.

What is the crime that someone who unintentionally spreads the virus is guilty of? I suppose you might be able to make a case for involuntary manslaughter, but it's doubtful you'd ever be able to get any convictions out of that.

We do not need to solve AIDS by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and hoping to create vaccine when all we need to do is quarantine people and punish anyone who spreads the disease.

Quarantines won't work for two reasons.

Believing that people with AIDS have some special "civil rights" that are more important than getting rid of a disease that is quickly reaching world epidemic proportions is lunacy. I'm sorry you have AIDS, but we must protect civilization first and foremost. Society must come first. We must act now or billions of people could die unnecessarily.

One: I'm not sure what you mean by special "civil rights"; what right go you think people say they have which everyone else doesn't have already?

Two: Read this. It's a novel by a man named Tracy Hickman -who is a devout Mormon, by the way- in which a quarantine like the one you describe is implemented. Read it, then come back and tell me with a straight face you still believe as you do today. This is an honest challenge.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The painful fact of the matter is that we're being told AIDS does not discriminate, but it does. It discriminates against the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abuse.

No, Sorry. AIDS doesn't CARE who you are as long as you can be a host for it's reproduction and modification.

You already stated that the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abusers were the ones getting AIDS but the lack of education isn't even a byproduct of AIDS, but of the cultures. This is natural selection.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

No, Sorry. AIDS doesn't CARE who you are as long as you can be a host for it's reproduction and modification.

This is of course to deny that there are profound risk-factors. It does discriminate against the uneducated, the homosexual, and the drug abuser. The funny thing about AIDS is that it doesn't have a heart or mind with which to CARE about anything to be sure. If you place yourself in one of the above categories, your chances of getting AIDS increases period. Either you are educated on how to not contract the disease and take actions that place you outside the known risk-factors, or you want to commit slow suicide and homicide until you're gone.

You already stated that the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abusers were the ones getting AIDS but the lack of education isn't even a byproduct of AIDS, but of the cultures.

There is already evidence in my first reply to suggest that education is an effective means to decrease the spread of AIDS. WIll you eliminate the disease? No. Irresponsible sex and drug abuse has proven to transcend the cultural divides you tout in this statement. The only counter to a culture of destructive behavior is education. While we disagree on whether or not education or lack thereof is the cause, it certainly can have an effect. No matter how barbaric you may feel a culture is, its people still have minds that can be shaped and developed. To say that ignorance is not a byproduct of AIDS is to deny decades of research on the matter.

This is natural selection.

I'm not sure why the evo-proselytizing was necessary here other than to illustrate the inherent racism of the supposition.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Y3a

No, Sorry. AIDS doesn't CARE who you are as long as you can be a host for it's reproduction and modification.

Certainly the virus itself does not care, but the idea of the virus being discriminatory can be useful as a metaphor. Among certain groups, high-risk behaviors are more accepted (or even outright condoned) as compared to other groups, and the rate of infection is naturally higher there. It's not true discrimination, of course; that would require the virus to be sentient. It's just an application of cause and effect: when high-risk behavior increases, then people get smacked by the risk more often.

But as a metaphor, the concept isn't completely worthless. There are groups where the rate of infection is quite low, and there are groups where it's horrifyingly high. This can give some indication of where efforts need to be focused.

[Y3a]

Humans lack of intelligence, moral choices and culture are to blame.

Natural Selection, where certain folks become prey for a virus and die, so they won't reproduce.

Your assumption that I made the suggestion based on race is wrong of course, but shows your bias in discussing AIDS.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by James L

I agree with this whole post, except the first sentence. I would not call them the same condition (though it is hair splitting).

HIV and AIDS, while very closely related, are not the same condition. Not everyone who has HIV has reached the stage of AIDS. One may lead to the other (and usually does), but the two conditions are often statistically tracked separately.

It is my understanding that many organizations believe that HIV develops into AIDS when the CD4+ T cell count has been reduced to less than 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood (if memory serves me correctly). This has the body weakened to the degree where viruses or opportunistic infections are able to invade and infect the body.... in other words, AIDS.

The reason I made the comment that the stats I quoted referred to HIV and not AIDS is that the occurrence rate of the two is statistically different, and Monique initially asked about AIDS in her first post, not HIV.

Cheers,

James

James HIV and Aids is the same thing. You are classifid with AIDS when your CD4 count is below 200, above 200 its HIV.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

I have the cure for AIDS right now:

Make it a crime punishable by death to spread AIDS and quarantine those who do have the disease. You will wipe out AIDS in one generation.

Makes alot more sense than spending trillions of dollars and seeing millions more die because some people mistakenly believe AIDS victims have special rights to spread the disease without any responsiblity.

It is illegal here to do that. A guy is facing 20 years for infecting 3 woman.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by thesunisgone

ANYONE who spreads the disease intentionally or not is guilty of a crime. There has to be responsibility to the utmost degree.

We do not need to solve AIDS by wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars and hoping to create vaccine when all we need to do is quarantine people and punish anyone who spreads the disease. Believing that people with AIDS have some special "civil rights" that are more important than getting rid of a disease that is quickly reaching world epidemic proportions is lunacy. I'm sorry you have AIDS, but we must protect civilization first and foremost. Society must come first. We must act now or billions of people could die unnecessarily.

most infections are by people that dont even know they have it. You would have to force testing on every single person and prob once a month for a few years to do as you sugest.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I appreciate the info. Initially, I was skeptical about the blanket statement that HIV/AIDS is rising mostly among heterosexual teens and to be clear the link above does not affirm this fact. Included with the statement I did read was the following; In southern and southeastern Asia, over one million youth are HIV-infected.3 Initially fueled in Thailand and Cambodia by the sex trade and injection drug use, the epidemic has been successfully slowed in both countries.

One of the dominant factors mentioned for the alarming rise in infection in sub-Saharan Africa for example is also a sex trade and the mistaken notion that a man with AIDS can be cured by sleeping with a virgin. Another statement I found interesting is In Latin America and the Caribbean, about 560,000 young people are HIV-infected.3 In Latin America (especially in Mexico, Brazil, and Peru), marginalized populations—such as young men who have sex with men—are most affected.

The painful fact of the matter is that we're being told AIDS does not discriminate, but it does. It discriminates against the uneducated first and foremost, followed closely by homosexuality and drug abuse.

homosexuality and drug abouse both fit into the uneducated. You can be a educated homo and not get infected by doing things right, you can be a educated drug addict and not get infected by doing things right, or you can be uneducated for both of those and do things risky and wrong to get infected

[Monique]

The world health organization predicted that at the end of the last century 40 million people would be infected.

When North America patient zero was at last caught (so to speak) by the CDC people; his reasoning was someone else gave it to me so it is ok to give it to others. I am sorry this guy starter one of the largest epidemic in the United States which does not seemed to have an end.

I do not know if I would put these people in prison. All it means really is that we should use condoms at the beginning of a relationship and if the guys would care a little for their partners they would use them without being asked.

Thousands of teenagers and children are the fastest growing segments of the population that are getting AIDS what do you suggest about them. Maybe with teenagers instead of telling them not to do it; we should give them condoms. This is not a sickness that strikes only gays people but all segments of the population.

Do not forget that before 1985 the Red Cross did not test the blood and that many people were probably carrier without realizing it and passed it on.