How did AIDS spread, exactly?

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.

>>40
Nice job quoting Kary Mullis verbatim.

PS - you're either ignorant, trolling, or completely full of shit.

PPS - get AIDS and die plz.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>40
no it isn't

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.

>>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.