I don't understand how it could affect so many people if it was spread by er, merely fucking, given that it originated in Africa recently.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 15:38
Sex seems to be really popular for some reason.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 16:08
The gov't introduced the virus to kill off all the black people.
It's true. Just ask Obama's pastor...
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 16:28
>>2
So when the fuck did it have time? It can't have spread from nigras to say, Eastern Europe (until recently, communist states had very reduced immigration and emigration, and virtually no Africans) and Japan like it did? I don't understand the peculiar migration pattern. >>3
Ok. So how did it spread?
The rate of HIV infections [in Eastern Europe] began to grow rapidly from the mid-1990s, due to social and economic collapse, increased levels of intravenous drug use and increased numbers of prostitutes.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 18:58
So should we quarantine people with AIDS in the West?
The first case in the US was a homosexual negro "Robert R", do they have this on black history month?
Also, if you run a business are you a "bigot" if you don't want to employ a guy who has AIDS? There is always a risk of it being passed on through saliva, urine, blood etc. Should people with AIDS be allowed to be free and spread their disease?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 19:19
Why don't we just kill them all (unless they are Black, that would be racist and wrong)?
>>7
Yes, you are because, no, there's no risk of passing it through urine or saliva. As for blood, you are supposed to use Universal Precautions when cleaning up blood anyway, so there's no additional risk with AIDS blood.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-06 2:12
>>12
What if the aids-faggot has small wounds on his hands? You can get aids by just shaking his hands.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-06 2:25
>>13
Didn't they make you watch The Ryan White Story in school?
I had a friend who got HIV from working with a woman who was in the early stages of AIDS. They barely even knew each other. Doctor said it was probably because of a tiny bit of blood that no one noticed, possibly even transmitted on a piece of paper. Fuck that. I refuse to work or even be near anyone with HIV. Period. Luckily my friend moved upstate so I didn't have to deal with shutting her out, but I've already quit a job because I found out there was someone there with HIV.
>>1
The American government is systematically seeding it in countries it doesn't like, mostly non-Christian.
It's no secret either, they'll openly talk on the radio about the US "foreign AIDS" program.
HIV does not cause AIDS, no scientific data has proven this hypothesis. 95% of people with HIV don't develop AIDS. HIV has existed for hundreds of years and is harmless. AIDS almost only affects drug users, and drug use has exploded in recent decades causing the "pandemic" in America. Many homosexuals have AIDS because they happen to use high amounts of drugs. There is no AIDS "virus". It is not spread by sex. The powerful drugs used to treat HIV are not needed and only increase the risk of AIDS and death.
AIDS in Africa is a myth. African "AIDS" has totally different characteristics than in the US and the rest of the world. The viruses and pandemics in Africa are caused by the same things that caused them a hundred years ago (no new killer virus).
AIDS research is a billion dollar industry and many careers are at stake. Scientists who dissent find themselves without a job. Gay and political groups prefer the idea of a killer virus striking innocent people, rather than the truth that people get AIDS because of their lifestyle choices.
>>31
I looked him up. He is a cracked pot. He believes in astrology. Add him to the list of smart morons.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-12 0:18
Do some fucking research, retards. 9 out of 10, NINE IN TEN, 90 FUCKING PERCENT of HIV cases lead to fullblown AIDS within 10-15 years.
I know Wikipedia isn't a GREAT source, but it's better than the 100% bullshit you AIDS deniers are spouting. It's almost as bad as the Holocaust deniers or the ultracon Christians pushing their anti-Evolution bullshit.
>>34
lol faggot do you know how they define AIDS? If someone gets say pneumonia and they have HIV then it's called AIDS. If they don't have HIV it's just called pneumonia. Same for just about every other "AIDS" disease. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
PS - you're either ignorant, trolling, or completely full of shit.
PPS - get AIDS and die plz.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-12 15:54
>>34
That number means jack without knowing how many people in the HIV negative population would develop one of the "AIDS indicator" diseases under the same circumstances.
There's diagnostic circularism to HIV/AIDS. You got a HIV load and URI? Congratulations, you've got AIDS! You've got a HIV load and no symptoms? Congrats, you're stage I AIDS! You've got a URI and no HIV load, well then you've just got a URI. Your CD4 count is too low and you've got HIV? AIDS again! Winnar! Your CD4 count is too low and no HIV? It's just Neutropenia.
Seriously, the fact that they almost never look for HIV infection until something like PML pops up means that the statistics on HIV and the infections associated with AIDS are crap, as are most of the survival analysis been done- they're doing it on people who are already infected with debilitating diseases... no wonder they don't live long.
Besides, even if HIV does cause AIDS, do you have any idea how much more good we could do if we took the money from all the druggies and faggots and spent it on treating, say, cholera? Why the fuck do we throw so much money at something that EVEN IF YOU BUY WHAT THEY SAY is brought on by their own irresponsible behavior?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-12 16:55
>>40 >>42
*facepalm.torrent*
Good job proving you retards don't know what you're talking about. PROTIP: HIV + any disease that takes advantage of a suppressed immune system = AIDS. That's what AIDS fucking IS.
Also, same person.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-12 17:13
>>43
Just because you write 'facepalm' doesn't mean you've proved anything.
The point is that the way they've framed the research the HIV-AIDS link is not falsifiable, and hance NOT SCIENCE. If you have the HIV virus you have, BY DEFINITION, "asymptomatic AIDS". If you dont have the virus but you show sarcoma or WTF ever, then you just have sarcoma. If you DO have the virus AND Caposi sarcoma, then BY DEFINITION you have AIDS. There's no combination of disease+HIV status that can falsify the HIV hypothesis as a cause of AIDS.
lrn2popper
Name:
CSharp!FFI4Mmahuk2008-04-13 0:06
>>43
You're a fucktard. You have HIV when you have the HIV virus. You have AIDS when you have the HIV virus and when your T-cell count drops below a certain level. If you get pneumonia, guess what you have—AIDS and an opportunistic infection.
If you're going to be a pedantic asshole, at least get your facts straight.
Am I the only one who fails to see what the fuck you retards are BAAAAWWWing about? If AIDS is *defined* as having HIV and a low T-cell count, how can you say that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Logically, it's fucking OBVIOUS that if a result requires a condition, and the result is proven to exist, then that condition (at least in as many cases as there are results) leads to the result. WTF is the issue, exactly? There's not going to be a seperate cause for AIDS if HIV is required *by definition*. If you've got identical symptoms to AIDS without HIV, you don't have AIDS, you have the symptoms with another cause. WTF is the big deal?
HIV is irrelevant.
AIDS is caused by drug use.
End of thread.
Name:
CSharp!FFI4Mmahuk2008-04-13 3:56
>>47
Please note: I'm not saying that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS, because I'm not a goddamn imbecile.
HIV is the name of a virus.
AIDS is a syndrome caused by that particular virus.
∴HIV leads to AIDS over time. Q.E.D.