[PLUG-TALK] HIV/AIDS

Sun Jan 4 03:42:33 UTC 2009

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

> The following is a good read and the conscientious person should
> delve into it deeper to see if in fact homosexual sex is as dangerous
> or more dangerous than smoking.  As far as the yeast infections
> comment, yeast infections unlike anal cancer are not life threatening.
>
> Now, I take Jason's it takes an average of 10 times contacting
> HIV to be infected with it to be true.  Well, that is 1 in 10
> times.  It may be the first time, the last time, the fifth time,
> etcetera.

No, it's an average of 10 times before they get it.  Saying it is a 1 in 10
chance is quite different.  I mean, take 100 people who got HIV and then
take the average of the number of exposures each had prior to getting
infected.  This number is estimated to be 10.  I'm also talking about the
number of exposures to HIV not the number of times they had protected sex
with an HIV positive person.  This makes HIV harder to catch than lots of
other STDs, thankfully.

>  The more blood to blood contact there is, the higher
> the likelihood that HIV will be transmitted, or is someone going
> to tell me that I'm wrong?  How do two men have sex?  Anal sex
> probably.  Well, anal sex breaks tiny blood vessels in the anus.

I would bet that unprotected anal sex is the #1 best way to spread HIV.
When I was in college I took a class from a sex researcher and she claimed
that anal sex is not the most common or popular way for gay men to have
sex.  While she's probably right, I'm sure there are still lots of men
having anal sex.  That includes heterosexual men.

So for homosexual men engaging in homosexual sex, it is logical
> to hypothesize that they don't need to be in contact with HIV
> ten times to contract it.

No it's not logical.  The reason being is that we'd have to know what
factors were under consideration in the estimate I gave you originally.  I
got that estimate from an expert and I don't know where to find the source
at the moment.

Instead of quibbling over that number, let's check a CDC fact sheet on
HIV/AIDS:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

Recent research shows that in 2006, 95% of people with HIV didn't transmit
their infection that year.  That's the good news, the bad news from that
site is that they estimate that of the people who are infected in the US
only 80% of them know it.  Which means more sexually active people should
make the effort to get tested more often.  With numbers like these it's
important to look at recent research.

As far as the maybe I should listen to former Catholics instead
> comment that Jason made, they aren't necessarily gay nor do they
> necessarily understand the downsides of living a homosexual
> lifestyle.  He can talk to anyone he wants to talk to of course.

My point is that I don't understand what I'm going to gain by talking to
these people.  Someone that is a former Foo is likely to think that the Foo
lifestyle is flawed.

>
>
> As far as bashing my homosexuality is unnatural argument.  I never
> argued that air travel because it is unnatural should be abandoned
> nor did I argue that we shouldn't use cars because that is unnatural.
> I would say that traveling is perfectly natural and part of human
> nature.

You argue that unnatural things are bad.  I've seen you use the word
abomination in this context.  How do you draw the line?  Amish people would
consider air travel unnatural.  You have also argued that human nature is
not sufficient to make something acceptable, and backed this up by quoting
scripture.  There are natural poisons, should we consume them?  I don't
think it's wise to argue points based on their naturalness.  Partially,
because natural doesn't have a good solid definition, at least not in my
opinion.  But also because nature isn't intrinsically right or wrong.  If it
were, then maybe God could have summarized much of the bible by telling man
to simply do what is natural?

>
>
> In the following that I suggested reading even though I might not
> 100% agree with it, all of the claims come from somewhere and the
> scientific method can be applied to evaluate them.  Burying your
> head in the sand because you are politically correct is a mistake
> in the face of a public health epidemic.
>
>
> What you should read follows:
> -----------------------------
>
> http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp
>
> Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior
>
> by Gary Glenn
> State Director, AFA of Michigan
> March 19, 2001
>
> Society imposes significant social and legal restrictions on -- and
> spends millions of dollars urging Americans, particularly children, to
> avoid -- life-threatening behavioral choices such as smoking, drug
> abuse, and drunk driving.
>
> This rational, logical, common sense commitment to protecting our
> children from life-threatening activity is irrationally discarded,
> however, concerning the deadly practice of homosexual behavior. With the
> ready compliance of negligently pandering, enabling politicians and
> bureaucrats -- particularly in public schools -- homosexual activists
> are dead set on teaching our children "it's O.K. to be gay."
>
> The N.E. Journal of Medicine reports that men who smoke risk cutting 7.3
> years off their lives.
>
> Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life
> expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years
> less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we
> estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will
> not reach their 65th birthday."

It has also been said that being left handed cuts years off your life
compared to right handers.  Should I then dispense with the folly of my left
hand dominance?  I found what I think is the journal article cited above:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

They looked at men during the years 1987 to 1992 and they looked
specifically at how HIV/AIDS affects the mortality of homosexual and
bisexual men compared to other men.  Now when you look at the chart in the
CDC article I linked above, I have to wonder how well this research, which
is almost 2 decades old now, would apply.  The reason I have to wonder is
because the spread of HIV is greatly reduced since the men in the study
would have caught HIV and died from AIDS (remember that it has a rather long
incubation period).  I'm questioning the relevance of the cited work.

> Society irrationally nonetheless condemns and restricts the lesser
> threat, while contemplating laws to protect and force acceptance of the
> greater. The Boy Scouts are viciously attacked for daring to stand firm
> to protect youngsters from exposure to such deadly behavior. Paid
> homosexual activists are invited into our classrooms -- as young as
> first grade, one Detroit activist boasts - to offer our kids an early
> death by teaching them "How to be Gay."

I thought you said this article had citations to back up facts.  I don't see
the citation for this bit about Detroit.

>
>
> Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the
> risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with
> men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between
> the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this
> "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."

I wonder when that was reported, I wonder if it's still accurate.  Certainly
anal sex is safest when done with an anal sex condom (they are thicker so
they break/tear less frequently).

>
>
> The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [Executive Summary,
> "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]:
>
> - "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS,
> hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a
> result of their sexual practices."
> - "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of
> bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are
> heterosexual women."
> - "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than
> among heterosexuals."
> - "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse
> drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

So here we go, a citation from 1999, not too bad.   I went to the Medical
Institute for Sexual Health to look at the the source and I can't find it:
http://www.medinstitute.org/

In fact, I couldn't find the article at all.  I stopped looking at this
point.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20090103/a3749b0f/attachment.html>